[Taxacom] Homalozoan classification (still stem-group echinoderms?)
Ken Kinman
kinman at hotmail.com
Wed May 2 22:33:33 CDT 2007
Dear All,
Today I have done some additional reading on recent research in
echinoderm paleontology, and there seems to be a possibility that Class
Edrioasteroidea split off before (not after) Class Crinoidea. In other
words, edrioasteroids would not be eleutherozoans or even within crown group
echinoderms.
If I find this idea to be probable after delving into it further, I
might well expand Class Homalozoea to include edrioasteroids as well. This
would almost certainly also bring Order Arkaruida (of the Upper PreCambrian)
into this stem-group taxon, and this would make more sense
chronologically----Homalozoea beginning in the Upper PreCambrian, and crown
group echinoderms arising from them around the time of the
PreCambrian-Cambrian boundary. Very interesting that both stylophorans and
edrioasteroids lasted until the Carboniferous, and I can't help but wonder
if one or both of these groups may have made it into the Permian. Anyway,
stay tuned for a possible further expansion of Class Homalozoea.
------Cheers,
Ken Kinman
**********************************
>From: "Ken Kinman" <kinman at hotmail.com>
>To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>Subject: [Taxacom] Homalozoan classification (still stem-group
>echinoderms?)
>Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 02:23:56 +0000
>
>Dear All,
> Due to the continued bitter controversy over homalozoans (early
>echinoderms or early "carpoid" chordates?), I haven't really been inclined
>to attempt an updated classification since my 1994 book. However, I have
>seen nothing since that changes my mind about them being stem-group
>echinoderms.
>
> Among those who do regard them as stem-echinoderms, there is a
>growing
>consensus that homalozoans are a paraphyletic taxon. In 1994 I classified
>Class Homalozoea (sensu stricto) as separate from Class Helicoplacoidea,
>but
>it is now pretty clear that even Class Homalozoea (sensu stricto) is still
>paraphyletic, so I am going to now formally recognize (and code) them as
>such (including helicoplacoids as derived members that are sister group to
>crown group echinoderms).
>
> I am also adding the more recently discovered Order Vetulocystida at
>the base of Class Homalozoea. I am still including Cambroclavida (incertae
>sedis) even though some workers now place them near acanthocephalans (not
>echinoderms). I don't think anyone really knows where cambroclaves will
>end
>up. However, I am going to now omit the problematic Order Cymbionitida
>(haplozoans), because they probably fit better in with my broad Class
>Crinoidea (including blastozoans). Whether a broad Class Crinoidea is
>holophyletic is something I will have to tackle next. Anyway, here is my
>updated and recoded classification of Class Homalozoea (including
>helicoplacoids, but excluding haplozoans):
>
> PHYLUM ECHINODERMATA
>
>1 Homalozoea% (Cambrian-Carboniferous)
> 1 Vetulocystida
> ? Cambroclavida (affinities very uncertain)
> 2 Stylophorida
> 3 Solutida
> 4 Cinctida
> 5 Ctenocystida
> 6 Helicoplacida
> B Polyplacida
> 7 {{crown group echinoderms}}
>
>_1_ Crinoidea
>2 Edrioasteroidea
>3 Asteroidea, etc.
>-----------------------------------
>NOTES: Cinctida and Solutida are here no longer considered sister taxa,
>although they are closely related and still form an informal paraphyletic
>grouping. Also note that "Heterostelea" might belong in Homalozoea, but I
>am still betting that they will end up in one of the crown group classes.
>As always, I am open to suggestions, especially relating to such
>controversial fossil problematica.
> ----Ken Kinman
>
>_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Need a break? Find your escape route with Live Search Maps.
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?ss=Restaurants~Hotels~Amusement%20Park&cp=33.832922~-117.915659&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=1118863&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list