ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2019
Caught in the act: priapulid burrowers in early Cambrian substrates.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cambrian carbonaceous protoconodonts and the early fossil record of the Chaetognatha.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Molting in early Cambrian armored lobopodians.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Two Notorious Nodes: A Critical Examination of Relaxed Molecular Clock Age Estimates of the Bilaterian Animals and Placental Mammals.Systematic biology · 2024Article
- Musculature of an Early Cambrian cycloneuralian animal.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Article
- How to build single-celled cnidarians with worm-like motility: Lessons from Myxozoa.Journal of anatomy · 2022Article
- Muscle systems and motility of early animals highlighted by cnidarians from the basal Cambrian.eLife · 2022Article
- Ancestral morphology of Ecdysozoa constrained by an early Cambrian stem group ecdysozoan.BMC evolutionary biology · 2020Article
- The rise and early evolution of animals: where do we stand from a trace-fossil perspective?Interface focus · 2020Review
- Survival and selection biases in early animal evolution and a source of systematic overestimation in molecular clocks.Interface focus · 2020Article
- Cuticular reticulation replicates the pattern of epidermal cells in lowermost Cambrian scalidophoran worms.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2020Article
- Origin of ecdysis: fossil evidence from 535-million-year-old scalidophoran worms.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The fossilized traces of burrowing worms have taken on a considerable importance in studies of the Cambrian explosion, partly because of their use in defining the base of the Cambrian. Foremost among these are the treptichnids, a group of relatively large open probing burrows that have sometimes been assigned to the activities of priapulid scalidophoran worms. Nevertheless, most Cambrian burrows have an uncertain progenitor. Here we report a suite of exceptionally preserved trace and body fossils from sandstones of the lower Cambrian (Stage 4) File Haidar Formation of southern Sweden that can unequivocally be assigned to a scalidophoran producer. We further present the first burrow casts produced via actualistic experiments on living priapulids, and demonstrate the remarkable morphological parallels between these modern and Cambrian fossil equivalents. In addition, co-occurrence of scalidophoran-derived cuticular remains permits a unique synthesis of evidence from trace fossil, body and organic remains. Comparative analysis of these exceptionally preserved fossils supports a scalidophoran producer for treptichnids and by extension suggests a latest Ediacaran origin of the ecdysozoan clade.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.