Cited by 91Paleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyEvolution and Paleontology Studies

Shell Structure And Inferred Growth, Functions And Affinities Of The Sclerites Of The Problematic Micrina

Williams, Alwyn, Holmer, Lars E.·2002·Palaeontology

Abstract

The stratiform laminae of Micrina sclerites originally consisted of rheomorphic successions of monolayers of micrometric–sized, apatitic tablets, presumably interleaved with chitin and glycosaminoglycans (GAGs). Paired laminae enclose slot–like chambers swelling into lobes distally that originally contained GAGs and deposits of spherulitic and prismatic apatite. The laminae are pervaded by apatitic tubes, apparently secreted by microvillous setoblasts and containing, at the surface, chitinous setae. Internal markings suggest that the triangular (sellate) sclerite supported a pair of muscles and the planospiral (mitral) sclerite, a medial muscle and gonadal sacs flanked by a pair of crescentic muscle bases. Both sclerites were secreted by a mantle with a circumferential fold. The sellate and mitral sclerites are homologized with the anterior and posterior shells of Halkieria and could have become the dorsal and ventral valves of the ancestral brachiopod by a sequence of transformations. These include: the folding of the halkieriid body axis; accelerated mixoperipheral growth of the anterior (dorsal) shell to enclose, with the posterior (ventral) shell, a mantle cavity lined with modified ciliated epithelium of the foot; reduction of sclerite–secreting epithelium to the locus of the brachiopod pedicle epithelium; and the anterior (dorsal) spread of gonadal lamellae.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1475-4983.00264

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?

  • Based on the organophosphatic shell composition and morphological similarities, tommotiids have been regarded as closely related to brachiopods.

    “Based on the organophosphatic shell composition and morphological similarities, tommotiids have been regarded as closely related to brachiopods”

    From Chronology of early Cambrian biomineralization (2012) · cites this paper as Williams & Holmer, 2002

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Williams, A., & Holmer, L. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • Uppsala University (SE)
Venue
Palaeontology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-09
Volume
45
Issue
5
Pages
845-873
ISSN
  • 0031-0239 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-4983
OpenAlex
W2028013606
Cited by
91
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Palaeontology (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
sclerites, brachiopod evolution, shell structures, glycosaminoglycans, muscle attachment, homology, Cambrian

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