Simple 3D images from fossil and Recent micromaterial using light microscopy

Maas

et al. 2010

BMC Evol Biol

BackgroundWe describe new specimens of Mesozoic mantis shrimps (Stomatopoda, Malacostraca) that exhibit morphological and developmental information previously unknown.ResultsSpecimens assigned to the taxon Sculda exhibit preserved pleopods, thoracopods including all four raptorial limbs as well as details of antennae and antennulae. The pleopods and the antennulae resemble those of the modern mantis shrimps, but the raptorial limbs are not as differentiated as in the modern species. In some specimens, the first raptorial limb (second thoracopod) is not significantly larger than the similar-sized posterior three pairs (as in extant species), but instead these appendages become progressively smaller along the series. In this respect they resemble certain Palaeozoic stomatopods. Another specimen, most likely belonging to another species, has one pair of large anterior raptorial thoracopods, a median-sized pair and two more pairs of small-sized raptorial appendages and, thus, shows a new, previously unknown type of morphology. A single specimen of Pseudosculda laevis also exhibits the size of the raptorial limbs; they are differentiated as in modern species, one large pair and three small pairs. Furthermore, we report additional larval specimens and show also post-larval changes, e.g., of the tail fan.ConclusionsThese new data are used to reconsider the phylogeny of Stomatopoda. We still need a strict taxonomical revision of the Mesozoic mantis shrimps, but this first examination already demonstrates the importance of these fossils for understanding mantis shrimp evolution and the interpretation of evolutionary pathways of particular features.

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of mantis shrimps (Stomatopoda, Malacostraca) in the light of new Mesozoic fossils

Maas

et al. 2010

BMC Evol Biol

“…The first assumption was that this could be a larval stage of an additional branchiopod (Fayers and Trewin 2004;Haug et al 2009c), but our own re-investigations of the complete material (about 80 specimens) render this unlikely and rather point to maxillopodan affinities.…”

Section: The Rhynie Chertmentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance of lithographic limestones for revealing ontogenies in fossil crustaceans

Waloszek

et al. 2010

Swiss J Geosci

“…Other approaches are able to make use of a seeming disadvantage, the limited depth of field, but this can provide even three‐dimensional information based on simple light microscopy (Kamenz et al , 2008; Haug et al , 2009a). Further techniques also make use of the ‘disadvantage’ of autofluorescence on the cLSM.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autofluorescence imaging, an excellent tool for comparative morphology

Kutschera

et al. 2011

Journal of Microscopy

122

Summary Here we present a set of methods for documenting (exo‐)morphology by applying autofluorescence imaging. For arthropods, but also for other taxa, autofluorescence imaging combined with composite imaging is a fast documentation method with high‐resolution capacities. Compared to conventional micro‐ and macrophotography, the illumination is much more homogenous, and structures are often better contrasted. Applying different wavelengths to the same object can additionally be used to enhance distinct structures. Autofluorescence imaging can be applied to dried and embedded specimens, but also directly on specimens within their storage liquid. This has an enormous potential for the documentation of rare specimens and especially type specimens without the need of preparation. Also for various fossils, autofluorescence can be used to enhance the contrast between the fossil and the matrix significantly, making even smallest details visible. ‘Life‐colour’ fluorescence especially is identified as a technique with great potential. It provides additional information for which otherwise more complex methods would have to be applied. The complete range of differences and variations between fluorescence macrophotography and different types of fluorescence microscopy techniques are here explored and evaluated in detail. Also future improvements are suggested. In summary, autofluorescence imaging is a powerful, easy and fast‐to‐apply tool for morphological studies.