Cited by 65Paleontology and Evolutionary BiologyPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFossil Insects in Amber

Preservational pathways of corresponding brains of a Cambrian euarthropod

Open access
Ma, Xiaoya, Edgecombe, Gregory D., Hou, Xianguang, Goral, Tomasz, Strausfeld, Nicholas J.·2015·Current Biology

Abstract

The record of arthropod body fossils is traceable back to the "Cambrian explosion," marked by the appearance of most major animal phyla. Exceptional preservation provides crucial evidence for panarthropod early radiation. However, due to limited representation in the fossil record of internal anatomy, particularly the CNS, studies usually rely on exoskeletal and appendicular morphology. Recent studiesshow that despite extreme morphological disparities, euarthropod CNS evolution appears to have been remarkably conservative. This conclusion is supported by descriptions from Cambrian panarthropods of neural structures that contribute to understanding early evolution of nervous systems and resolving controversies about segmental homologies. However, the rarity of fossilized CNSs, even when exoskeletons and appendages show high levels of integrity, brought into question data reproducibility because all but one of the aforementioned studies were based on single specimens. Foremost among objections is the lack of taphonomic explanation for exceptional preservation of a tissue that some see as too prone to decay to be fossilized. Here we describe newly discovered specimens of the Chengjiang euarthropod Fuxianhuia protensa with fossilized brains revealing matching profiles, allowing rigorous testing of the reproducibility of cerebral structures. Their geochemical analyses provide crucial insights of taphonomic pathways for brain preservation, ranging from uniform carbon compressions to complete pyritization, revealing that neural tissue was initially preserved as carbonaceous film and subsequently pyritized. This mode of preservation is consistent with the taphonomic pathways of gross anatomy, indicating that no special mode is required for fossilization of labile neural tissue.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.063

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ma, X., Edgecombe, G. D., Hou, X., Goral, T., & Strausfeld, N. J.
Affiliations
  • Natural History Museum (GB)
  • Yunnan University (CN)
  • University of Arizona (US)
Corresponding author
Ma, Xiaoya
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-11
Volume
25
Issue
22
Pages
2969-2975
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1918406235
Cited by
65
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 3
FWCI
6.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Natural Environment Research Council (NE/L011751/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Fossil Insects in Amber
Keywords
taphonomy, pyritization, nervous system evolution, segmental homology, Chengjiang biota
MeSH terms
Animals, Arthropods, Brain, Biological Evolution, Fossils, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review