Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

Journal of Paleontology

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by STRENG, M. Articles by HOLLINGSWORTH, J. S. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

AGGLUTINATED PROTISTS FROM THE LOWER CAMBRIAN OF NEVADA

¹ Institutionen för geovetenskaper, Paleobiologi, Uppsala Universitet, Norbyvägen 22, 75236 Uppsala, Sweden, <michael.streng@geo.uu.se>
² Department of Geological Sciences, 125 South Oval Mall, The Ohio State University, Columbus 43210, <babcock.5@osu.edu>
³ 729 25 Road, Grand Junction, Colorado 81505, <stewholl@aol.com>

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

	INTRODUCTION

 
SKELETONIZED PROTISTS (or protoctists) appear as body fossils in the late Neoproterozoic and the lower Cambrian (e.g., Allison and Hilgert, 1986; Lipps, 1992; Culver, 1994; Porter et al., 2003) and are well known from the post-Cambrian fossil record. However, molecular data and biomarkers of groups such as ciliates and foraminiferans indicate a long Precambrian history unrecorded by fossils, and also suggest that foraminiferans were important components of Neoproterozoic protistan communities (e.g., Summons et al., 1988; Wright and Lynn, 1997; Lipps, 2003; Pawlowski et al., 2003). The recent discovery of agglutinated microfossils interpreted as foraminiferans from the Neoproterozoic of Uruguay (Gaucher and Sprechmann, 1999) supports the inferences made from molecular data. Although foraminiferans are known for certain since the earliest Cambrian (e.g., McIlroy et al., 2001), their diversity and variability during the Cambrian is limited to a few agglutinated unilocular genera (e.g., Lipps, 1985; Culver, 1991, 1994; Cope and McIlroy, 1998; Zhigulina, 1999; McIlroy et al., 2001). Among these, Platysolenites Pander, 1851 is one of the best known genera because it has a wide distribution and high abundance in lower Cambrian sediments, especially those of Baltica and Avalonia (e.g., Rozanov, 1983; Lipps and Rozanov, 1996; McIlroy et al., 2001). Whether Platysolenites has an affinity with the foraminifera has been questioned by some authors (e.g., Eichwald, 1860; Rozanov, 1983; Brasier, 1989b), but the similarity of its morphology and wall structure to the foraminiferan genus Bathysiphon Sars, 1872 (e.g., Glaessner, 1978), and the presence of proloculi in Platysolenites (e.g., McIlroy et al., 2001) is strong evidence in favor of an affinity with the foraminifera. It should be emphasized that the preservation of proloculi in Platysolenites is rare, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. DONG, S. XIAO, B. SHEN, and C. ZHOU Silicified Horodyskia and Palaeopascichnus from upper Ediacaran cherts in South China: tentative phylogenetic interpretation and implications for evolutionary stasis Journal of the Geological Society, January 1, 2008; 165(1): 367 - 378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]