Cited by 13Paleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyEvolution and Paleontology Studies

Early Cambrian protoconodonts and conodont-like fossils from China: Taxonomic revisions and stratigraphic implications*

Qian, Yi, Li, Guoxiang, Zhu, Maoyan, Steiner, Michael, Erdtmann, Bernd-D.·2004·Progress in Natural Science

Abstract

Protoconodonts and conodont-like microfossils are characteristic components in the early Cambrian skeletal faunas. Sincethe 1970s, these tooth-like phosphatic sclerite fossils have been widely recovered from the Lower Cambrian of China, and altogether 25 genera and 52 species of protoconodonts and conodont-like fossils have been described, although some taxa represent synonyms or invalid taxonomic names, and some assignments are apparently inappropriate. Through a brief review and discussion, the distinction between protoconodonts and conodont-like fossils is denoted here. Thereare 13 genera previously assigned to protoconodonts in the literature, but present taxonomic revisions show that 5 of them are junior synonyms of other taxa, and 2 represent unknown arthropods. The other 12 genera, of which 5 also are junior synonyms, only reveal a conodont-like morphology with various zoological affinities: most of them are enigmatic, and only Beshtashella and Parafomitchella (=Beshtashella) can be assigned to mollusks. The spatial and temporal distribution of the most genera is briefly discussed. Three intervals of stratigraphic distribution for the protoconodonts not only have significant implications for stratigraphic correlations but also may reflect their evolutionary trend.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10020070412331343321

Cites

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?

  • An array of problematic sclerites from Cambrian Series 1-2 is known from Siberia and elsewhere, and some of the sclerites can be assigned to larger groups discussed herein, such as protoconodonts, chancelloriids, halwaxiids, tommotiids and cambroclavids or to ecdysozoan cuticular sclerites and fragments of carapaces, but the others are more problematic.

    “An array of problematic sclerites from Cambrian Series 1-2 is known from Siberia and elsewhere, and some of the sclerites can be assigned to larger groups discussed herein, such as protoconodonts, chancelloriids, halwaxiids, tommotiids and cambroclavids or to ecdysozoan cuticular sclerites and fragments of carapaces, but the others are more problematic”

    From Chronology of early Cambrian biomineralization (2012) · cites this paper as Qian et al . 2004

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Qian, Y., Li, G., Zhu, M., Steiner, M., & Erdtmann, B.-D.
Affiliations
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
  • Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
Corresponding author
Qian, Yi
Venue
Progress in Natural Science
Published
2004-02-01
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
173-180
ISSN
  • 1002-0071 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-5391
OpenAlex
W2135725139
Cited by
13
References
0
Citations by year
2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Progress in Natural Science Materials International (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, taxonomic revision, junior synonym, stratigraphic correlation, 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