Cited by 74Paleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyEvolution and Paleontology Studies

Carinachitiids, hexangulaconulariids, and Punctatus: problematic metazoans from the Early Cambrian of South China

Morris, Simon Conway, Menge, Chen·1992·Journal of Paleontology

Abstract

Carinachitiids, hexangulaconulariids, andPunctatusare distinctive and abundant components of early skeletal faunas from the Lower Cambrian of South China. Carinachitiids are redescribed on the basis ofCarinachites spinatusfromKuanchuanpu, Shaanxi, andC. tetrasulcatusandC. curvatornatusfrom Emei, Sichuan. Tubes of all species are characterized by pronounced quadriradial symmetry, but whereasC. spinatusandC. curvatornatusgenerally have prominent ornamentation consisting of transverse ribbing, that ofC. tetrasulcatusis much more subdued. Neither apex nor well-defined aperture is evident in any of the carinachitiids. Hexangulaconulariids are redescribed on the basis ofArthrochites emeishanensisfrom Emei andHexaconularia sichuanensisfrom Kuanchuanpu. In common with the carinachitiids, the former species shows wide morphological variability. The tubes expand rapidly from a blunt apex, bear prominent ribbing, and possess variably developed lateral grooves that impose a quasi-hexaradial symmetry.Hexaconularia sichuanensisis described from fragmentary material with prominent ribbing and well-defined lateral grooves.Punctatus emeiensishas a tapering ribbed cone, with a stellate ornamentation adapically that is replaced by longitudinal ribbing towards the aperture. Carinachitiids and hexangulaconulariids are widely regarded as related to conularids, and this proposal receives additional support here. An external abortive ?borehole in a specimen ofCarinachitesalso supports the tubicolous interpretation of these fossils. An alternative suggestion that carinachitiids and hexangulaconulariids represent the internal rachis of a sea-pen is also considered. The affinities ofPunctatusare more speculative, but the genus may be related to the other two groups. The ecology ofPunctatus, however, remains problematic.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0022336000033953

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morris, S. C., & Menge, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Academia Sinica (TW)
Venue
Journal of Paleontology
Published
1992-05
Volume
66
Issue
3
Pages
384-406
ISSN
  • 0022-3360 (ISSN-L)
  • 1937-2337
OpenAlex
W2486140132
Cited by
74
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Paleontology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
Keywords
Lower Cambrian, conical tubes, ribbing, fossil taxonomy, South China

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