2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2022.104107
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Animal origins: The record from organic microfossils

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 204 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In contrast, research on the biological affinity of acritarchs has rarely been a primary objective, and taxa that were not directly useful for biostratigraphy were often not studied in detail. Consequently, 'problematic' forms that are now receiving attention as SCFs have tended to be overlooked where they occur in standard palynological preparations (see also Slater and Bohlin 2022), with Goniomorpha being one of the few exceptions. With increasing interest in acritarchs and other organic-walled microfossils as repositories of palaeobiological information, in particular for understanding ancient biotas and the development of early ecosystems, acritarch research has now two additional tasks.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In contrast, research on the biological affinity of acritarchs has rarely been a primary objective, and taxa that were not directly useful for biostratigraphy were often not studied in detail. Consequently, 'problematic' forms that are now receiving attention as SCFs have tended to be overlooked where they occur in standard palynological preparations (see also Slater and Bohlin 2022), with Goniomorpha being one of the few exceptions. With increasing interest in acritarchs and other organic-walled microfossils as repositories of palaeobiological information, in particular for understanding ancient biotas and the development of early ecosystems, acritarch research has now two additional tasks.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…SCFs can be derived from a wide range of organisms, but many in the Cambrian assemblages represent sclerites and cuticular fragments of animals. There will inevitably be some overlap between SCFs and the smaller, more robust microfossils that dominate palynological preparations (discussed in Slater and Bohlin 2022). For example, certain spiny, conical microfossils observed in palynological preparations from the middle to upper Cambrian of Tennessee have been identified as the teeth of crustacean mandibles, via comparison with more extensive, articulated specimens recovered as SCFs from coeval rocks in western Canada (Harvey and Pedder 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Butterfield et al 1994;Sergeev et al 2011;Tang et al 2017) and SCFs in the Cambrian (e.g. Harvey et al 2011;Butterfield and Harvey 2012;Slater et al 2017;Slater and Bohlin 2022). Many acritarchs are too small to be handpicked using a stereomicroscope, and a larger mesh size is used to sieve preparations for hand picking.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite their microscopic size and fragmentary nature, SCFs can preserve delicate non-biomineralized animal structures outside rare Lagerstätten sites [27][28][29][30][31]. Such SCFs offer a relatively under-exploited source of fossil mouthparts from early in animal evolution.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such SCFs offer a relatively under-exploited source of fossil mouthparts from early in animal evolution. The emerging Cambrian SCF record has already yielded novel data on mouthparts and feeding apparatus that are otherwise invisible to the conventional fossil record [31]. For instance, exquisitely preserved mandibles captured among Cambrian SCF assemblages have extended the fossil record of particle-feeding crustaceans by approximately 100 Myr [30,[32][33][34][35].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%