Loading…

TRILOBITE SYSTEMATICS: THE LAST 75 YEARS

The progress achieved in trilobite systematics over the last 75 years is briefly reviewed. Different approaches to phylogenetics have influenced the way trilobites have been classified. Classical evolutionary taxonomy, the stratigraphical approach, and cladistics have all contributed in different wa...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of paleontology 2001-11, Vol.75 (6), p.1141-1151
Main Author: FORTEY, RICHARD A
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a316t-e6d94b461e201076d047d1ac13ce31b3bbed6dfc04173638f8e1c7c23d57e0533
container_end_page 1151
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1141
container_title Journal of paleontology
container_volume 75
creator FORTEY, RICHARD A
description The progress achieved in trilobite systematics over the last 75 years is briefly reviewed. Different approaches to phylogenetics have influenced the way trilobites have been classified. Classical evolutionary taxonomy, the stratigraphical approach, and cladistics have all contributed in different ways to the current classification, which has evolved piecemeal, and is still unsatisfactory is some ways. Nonetheless, progress towards a phylogenetic classification has been made, especially as the result of information from ontogenies provided by well-preserved silificified material. Trilobites are a well-defined clade within a larger arachnomorph group. Agnostida have been excluded from Trilobita, but are perhaps best considered as specialised trilobites, at least until limbs of eodiscids are described. The outstanding problems in classification of each trilobite order are reviewed. Most are concerned with the recognition of the appropriate Cambrian sister taxa, and the discovery of the relevant ontogenies. It is very likely that post-Cambrian clades "root" deeply into the Cambrian. The coherence, or otherwise, of Proetida, Asaphida, Corynexochida and the lichid/odontopleurid groups will be resolved by such studies. The problems of paraphyly in Ptychopariida and Redlichiina may prove more obdurate. The temporal brevity of certain Cambrian family ranges may be partly a taxonomic artefact. The possibility of a late Cambrian gap in the record on some clades should be considered.
doi_str_mv 10.1666/0022-3360(2001)075<1141:TSTLY>2.0.CO;2
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_231164304</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>1307082</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>1307082</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a316t-e6d94b461e201076d047d1ac13ce31b3bbed6dfc04173638f8e1c7c23d57e0533</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqdkE9Lw0AQxRdRsFa_gYfgqSKpMzvJbltFqDG1gUigWQ89LfmzlZba1KRF_PYmRtSzpznMm_fm_RjrI_RRCHENwLlNJKDHAfASpHuL6OBIxSqc3_E-9L3ohh-wDg5J2pxIHrLOz9ExO6mqVX3IBWKH9dQsCKP7QPlWPI-V_zRWgRePLDX1rXAcK0u61twfz-JTdrRI1pU5-55d9jzxlTe1w-gx8MahnRCKnW1EPnRSR6DhgCBFDo7MMcmQMkOYUpqaXOSLDByUJGiwGBjMZMYpd6UBl6jLLlrfbVm87U2106tiX27qSM0JUTgETi2atKKsLKqqNAu9LZevSfmhEXQDSTd9ddNXN5B0DUk3kPQXJM01aC-qDbvsvDVaVbui_HUhkDBo1lft-sUUVbY0m8y8F-U6__NTHaQB5VBArX5o1emyKDbmvz99AuPRg7M</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>231164304</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>TRILOBITE SYSTEMATICS: THE LAST 75 YEARS</title><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><creator>FORTEY, RICHARD A</creator><creatorcontrib>FORTEY, RICHARD A</creatorcontrib><description>The progress achieved in trilobite systematics over the last 75 years is briefly reviewed. Different approaches to phylogenetics have influenced the way trilobites have been classified. Classical evolutionary taxonomy, the stratigraphical approach, and cladistics have all contributed in different ways to the current classification, which has evolved piecemeal, and is still unsatisfactory is some ways. Nonetheless, progress towards a phylogenetic classification has been made, especially as the result of information from ontogenies provided by well-preserved silificified material. Trilobites are a well-defined clade within a larger arachnomorph group. Agnostida have been excluded from Trilobita, but are perhaps best considered as specialised trilobites, at least until limbs of eodiscids are described. The outstanding problems in classification of each trilobite order are reviewed. Most are concerned with the recognition of the appropriate Cambrian sister taxa, and the discovery of the relevant ontogenies. It is very likely that post-Cambrian clades "root" deeply into the Cambrian. The coherence, or otherwise, of Proetida, Asaphida, Corynexochida and the lichid/odontopleurid groups will be resolved by such studies. The problems of paraphyly in Ptychopariida and Redlichiina may prove more obdurate. The temporal brevity of certain Cambrian family ranges may be partly a taxonomic artefact. The possibility of a late Cambrian gap in the record on some clades should be considered.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3360</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1937-2337</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1666/0022-3360(2001)075&lt;1141:TSTLY&gt;2.0.CO;2</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JPALAZ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Boulder: Paleontological Society</publisher><subject>Arthropoda ; biologic evolution ; Cambrian ; Cladistics ; Classification ; Evolution ; Fossils ; Genera ; Geology ; history ; Invertebrata ; invertebrate ; Invertebrates ; Larvae ; morphology ; Ontogeny ; Paleontology ; Paleozoic ; Phylogenetics ; phylogeny ; SPECIAL 75TH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE ; Systematics ; Taxa ; taxonomy ; Trilobita ; Trilobitomorpha</subject><ispartof>Journal of paleontology, 2001-11, Vol.75 (6), p.1141-1151</ispartof><rights>The Paleontological Society</rights><rights>GeoRef, Copyright 2020, American Geosciences Institute.</rights><rights>Copyright 2001 The Paleontological Society</rights><rights>Copyright Paleontological Society Nov 2001</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a316t-e6d94b461e201076d047d1ac13ce31b3bbed6dfc04173638f8e1c7c23d57e0533</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1307082$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/1307082$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,58238,58471</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>FORTEY, RICHARD A</creatorcontrib><title>TRILOBITE SYSTEMATICS: THE LAST 75 YEARS</title><title>Journal of paleontology</title><description>The progress achieved in trilobite systematics over the last 75 years is briefly reviewed. Different approaches to phylogenetics have influenced the way trilobites have been classified. Classical evolutionary taxonomy, the stratigraphical approach, and cladistics have all contributed in different ways to the current classification, which has evolved piecemeal, and is still unsatisfactory is some ways. Nonetheless, progress towards a phylogenetic classification has been made, especially as the result of information from ontogenies provided by well-preserved silificified material. Trilobites are a well-defined clade within a larger arachnomorph group. Agnostida have been excluded from Trilobita, but are perhaps best considered as specialised trilobites, at least until limbs of eodiscids are described. The outstanding problems in classification of each trilobite order are reviewed. Most are concerned with the recognition of the appropriate Cambrian sister taxa, and the discovery of the relevant ontogenies. It is very likely that post-Cambrian clades "root" deeply into the Cambrian. The coherence, or otherwise, of Proetida, Asaphida, Corynexochida and the lichid/odontopleurid groups will be resolved by such studies. The problems of paraphyly in Ptychopariida and Redlichiina may prove more obdurate. The temporal brevity of certain Cambrian family ranges may be partly a taxonomic artefact. The possibility of a late Cambrian gap in the record on some clades should be considered.</description><subject>Arthropoda</subject><subject>biologic evolution</subject><subject>Cambrian</subject><subject>Cladistics</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Evolution</subject><subject>Fossils</subject><subject>Genera</subject><subject>Geology</subject><subject>history</subject><subject>Invertebrata</subject><subject>invertebrate</subject><subject>Invertebrates</subject><subject>Larvae</subject><subject>morphology</subject><subject>Ontogeny</subject><subject>Paleontology</subject><subject>Paleozoic</subject><subject>Phylogenetics</subject><subject>phylogeny</subject><subject>SPECIAL 75TH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE</subject><subject>Systematics</subject><subject>Taxa</subject><subject>taxonomy</subject><subject>Trilobita</subject><subject>Trilobitomorpha</subject><issn>0022-3360</issn><issn>1937-2337</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqdkE9Lw0AQxRdRsFa_gYfgqSKpMzvJbltFqDG1gUigWQ89LfmzlZba1KRF_PYmRtSzpznMm_fm_RjrI_RRCHENwLlNJKDHAfASpHuL6OBIxSqc3_E-9L3ohh-wDg5J2pxIHrLOz9ExO6mqVX3IBWKH9dQsCKP7QPlWPI-V_zRWgRePLDX1rXAcK0u61twfz-JTdrRI1pU5-55d9jzxlTe1w-gx8MahnRCKnW1EPnRSR6DhgCBFDo7MMcmQMkOYUpqaXOSLDByUJGiwGBjMZMYpd6UBl6jLLlrfbVm87U2106tiX27qSM0JUTgETi2atKKsLKqqNAu9LZevSfmhEXQDSTd9ddNXN5B0DUk3kPQXJM01aC-qDbvsvDVaVbui_HUhkDBo1lft-sUUVbY0m8y8F-U6__NTHaQB5VBArX5o1emyKDbmvz99AuPRg7M</recordid><startdate>200111</startdate><enddate>200111</enddate><creator>FORTEY, RICHARD A</creator><general>Paleontological Society</general><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>R05</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200111</creationdate><title>TRILOBITE SYSTEMATICS: THE LAST 75 YEARS</title><author>FORTEY, RICHARD A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a316t-e6d94b461e201076d047d1ac13ce31b3bbed6dfc04173638f8e1c7c23d57e0533</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Arthropoda</topic><topic>biologic evolution</topic><topic>Cambrian</topic><topic>Cladistics</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Evolution</topic><topic>Fossils</topic><topic>Genera</topic><topic>Geology</topic><topic>history</topic><topic>Invertebrata</topic><topic>invertebrate</topic><topic>Invertebrates</topic><topic>Larvae</topic><topic>morphology</topic><topic>Ontogeny</topic><topic>Paleontology</topic><topic>Paleozoic</topic><topic>Phylogenetics</topic><topic>phylogeny</topic><topic>SPECIAL 75TH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE</topic><topic>Systematics</topic><topic>Taxa</topic><topic>taxonomy</topic><topic>Trilobita</topic><topic>Trilobitomorpha</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>FORTEY, RICHARD A</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>University of Michigan</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Journal of paleontology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>FORTEY, RICHARD A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>TRILOBITE SYSTEMATICS: THE LAST 75 YEARS</atitle><jtitle>Journal of paleontology</jtitle><date>2001-11</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>75</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1141</spage><epage>1151</epage><pages>1141-1151</pages><issn>0022-3360</issn><eissn>1937-2337</eissn><coden>JPALAZ</coden><abstract>The progress achieved in trilobite systematics over the last 75 years is briefly reviewed. Different approaches to phylogenetics have influenced the way trilobites have been classified. Classical evolutionary taxonomy, the stratigraphical approach, and cladistics have all contributed in different ways to the current classification, which has evolved piecemeal, and is still unsatisfactory is some ways. Nonetheless, progress towards a phylogenetic classification has been made, especially as the result of information from ontogenies provided by well-preserved silificified material. Trilobites are a well-defined clade within a larger arachnomorph group. Agnostida have been excluded from Trilobita, but are perhaps best considered as specialised trilobites, at least until limbs of eodiscids are described. The outstanding problems in classification of each trilobite order are reviewed. Most are concerned with the recognition of the appropriate Cambrian sister taxa, and the discovery of the relevant ontogenies. It is very likely that post-Cambrian clades "root" deeply into the Cambrian. The coherence, or otherwise, of Proetida, Asaphida, Corynexochida and the lichid/odontopleurid groups will be resolved by such studies. The problems of paraphyly in Ptychopariida and Redlichiina may prove more obdurate. The temporal brevity of certain Cambrian family ranges may be partly a taxonomic artefact. The possibility of a late Cambrian gap in the record on some clades should be considered.</abstract><cop>Boulder</cop><pub>Paleontological Society</pub><doi>10.1666/0022-3360(2001)075&lt;1141:TSTLY&gt;2.0.CO;2</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-3360
ispartof Journal of paleontology, 2001-11, Vol.75 (6), p.1141-1151
issn 0022-3360
1937-2337
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_231164304
source JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection
subjects Arthropoda
biologic evolution
Cambrian
Cladistics
Classification
Evolution
Fossils
Genera
Geology
history
Invertebrata
invertebrate
Invertebrates
Larvae
morphology
Ontogeny
Paleontology
Paleozoic
Phylogenetics
phylogeny
SPECIAL 75TH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE
Systematics
Taxa
taxonomy
Trilobita
Trilobitomorpha
title TRILOBITE SYSTEMATICS: THE LAST 75 YEARS
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T00%3A53%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=TRILOBITE%20SYSTEMATICS:%20THE%20LAST%2075%20YEARS&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20paleontology&rft.au=FORTEY,%20RICHARD%20A&rft.date=2001-11&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1141&rft.epage=1151&rft.pages=1141-1151&rft.issn=0022-3360&rft.eissn=1937-2337&rft.coden=JPALAZ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1666/0022-3360(2001)075%3C1141:TSTLY%3E2.0.CO;2&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E1307082%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a316t-e6d94b461e201076d047d1ac13ce31b3bbed6dfc04173638f8e1c7c23d57e0533%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=231164304&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=1307082&rfr_iscdi=true