Cited by 110Paleontology and Evolutionary BiologyPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsEvolution and Paleontology Studies

Reconstructing early sponge relationships by using the Burgess Shale fossil Eiffelia globosa , Walcott

Open access
Botting, Joseph P., Butterfield, Nicholas J.·2005·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

The relationships of the sponge classes are controversial, particularly between the calcareous and siliceous sponges. Specimens of the putative calcarean Eiffelia globosa Walcott from the Burgess Shale show the presence of diagnostic hexactinellid spicules integrated into the skeletal mesh. The arrangement of these spicules in Eiffelia is shown to be precisely equivalent to that of early protospongioid hexactinellids, and sponge growth occurred through an identical pattern to produce identical skeletal body morphology. The difference in spicule composition of the classes is interpreted through the observation of taphonomic features of Eiffelia that suggest the presence of at least two mineralogically distinct layers within the spicules. These results support molecular analyses that identify the calcarean-silicisponge transition as the earliest major sponge branch and suggest that the heteractinids were paraphyletic with respect to the Hexactinellida.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0405867102

Cites

8 of 8 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?

  • Stem-group sponges that may combine mineralogy and morphology of calcarean and hexactinellid spicules are reported from the Cambrian Series 2.

    “Stemgroup sponges, which may combine mineralogy and morphology of calcarean and hexactinellid spicules, are also reported from the Cambrian Series 2”

    From Chronology of early Cambrian biomineralization (2012) · cites this paper as Botting & Butterfield, 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Botting, J. P., & Butterfield, N. J.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2005-01-21
Volume
102
Issue
5
Pages
1554-1559
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W1656357824
Cited by
110
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Department of Earth Sciences EPrints Repository (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Christ's College, University of Cambridge
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
Keywords
sponge phylogeny, calcareous sponges, siliceous sponges, Hexactinellida, taphonomy, Burgess Shale, Cambrian fossils, paraphyly
MeSH terms
Animals, Biological Evolution, Fossils, United Kingdom, Phylogeny, Porifera

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