The Early Radiation and Relationships of the Major Arthropod Groups
Abstract
Cambrian arthropods are now well known, but there has been little agreement on how they contribute to an understanding of arthropod phylogeny. Fossils have either been lumped together as "trilobitomorphs" or, more recently, have been the subject of speculation invoking a multiple polyphyletic origin of arthropods. Cladistic analysis of characters of Cambrian and living representatives (excluding Uniramia) shows that trilobites and chelicerates are relatively advanced compared with "crustaceans," and there are doubts whether the latter constitute a national group. An undue emphasis on singular autapomorphies of problematic fossils has obscured these relationships in the past. "Trilobitomorphs" were simply an artificial taxon based on shared primitive characters. The arthropods that evolved during the Cambrian radiation show no more apparent morphological diversity than do the living groups. The evidence of wellpreserved problematica is critical to understanding the nature of this radiation and the affinities of the groups that remain today.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Disparity among Cambrian arthropods is close to that of the Recent, and the morphospace occupied by Recent Arthropoda was already filled by Cambrian time.
“Disparity among Cambrian arthropods is close to that of the Recent (taking a representative selection of morphologies from the Recent fauna for comparison), ot mpds mpnt t , t t t at occupied by Recent Arthropoda was already filled by Cambrian time.”
From The Cambrian evolutionary ‘explosion’: decoupling cladogenesis from morphological disparity (1996) · cites this paper as Briggs & Fortey, 1989
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 23 · Cited by 168
- Authors
- Briggs, D. E. G., & Fortey, R. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Bristol (GB)
- British Museum (GB)
- ORCID
- Fortey, Richard A.
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 1989-10-13
- Volume
- 246
- Issue
- 4927
- Pages
- 241-243
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W2092216315
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 18.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
- Keywords
- Cambrian arthropods, arthropod phylogeny, Cambrian explosion, trilobites, chelicerates, Crustacea, polyphyly, autapomorphies, fossil morphology, cladistic analysis
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