I don't think it is a fossil lamprey
g.read at NIWA.CRI.NZ
Mon Sep 27 12:38:15 CDT 1999
> Whatever it is, I would say that it is far more primitive and
> generalized than either anomalocarids or lampreys.
> > > I immediately thought of Class Anomalocarea
> > > (Phylum Arthropoda).
Ah, thanks. Now I'm clear on your views. :^)
> I doubt that they belong to Class Priapulea, since Simon Conway Morris
> (one of the authors of the article) is the world's authority on fossil
That's true. And the photos of fossil priapulids I've seen are more or less
like the present day ones. So I tend to go along with that. However, I do
wonder how much prominence and attention the more anonymous soft-
bodied 'worm' fossils that are candidates for early echiurans and
sipunculans have received yet. It would be understandable if they are
comparatively neglected. Could it be that Shu et al., in a small unintended
way, have just remedied that? :-)
I again mention that people should not be influenced by the mouth structure
in figs e,f,g in the paper. That is Pipiscius, not the new animal.
Geoff Read <g.read at niwa.cri.nz>
More information about the Taxacom