Not too long ago, I uploaded my latest paleontology-related page called
Cambrian And Ordovician Fossils At Extinction Canyon, Nevada, to
https://inyo8.coffeecup.com/extinctioncanyon/extinctioncanyon.html.
Includes a text introduction, accompanied by on-site images and
photographs of representative fossil material--all fully captioned with
explanatory information, of course.

The place lots of paleontology aficionados call Extinction Canyon,
situated within Nevada's Great Basin Desert, is especially noted for
producing locally common whole and mostly complete early Cambrian
trilobites.

Other extinct organisms often found in an excellent state of
preservation in the general vicinity of the canyon's corridor include:
graptolites (usually considered an early hemichordate); hyolithids (a
lophophorate tangentially related to Brachiopoda, Bryozoa, and possibly
phoronid annelids); Caryocaris crustaceans; a tabulate coral;
archaeocyathids (early calcareous sponge;salterella (small ice cream
cone-shaped fossil assigned to its own unique phylum called Agmata--it
never survived the early Cambrian); Lidaconus (a diminutive tusk-shaped
shell of unestablished zoological affinity that went belly-up near the
conclusion of the early Cambrian); and Girvanella algal nodules
precipitated by a species of photosynthesizing cyanobacteria.

Needless to report, Extinction Canyon is a genuine ne plus ultra
paleontological district, indeed.

On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 8:51:14 AM UTC-7, Inyo wrote:
> Not too long ago, I uploaded my latest paleontology-related page called
> Cambrian And Ordovician Fossils At Extinction Canyon, Nevada, to
> https://inyo8.coffeecup.com/extinctioncanyon/extinctioncanyon.html.
> Includes a text introduction, accompanied by on-site images and
> photographs of representative fossil material--all fully captioned with
> explanatory information, of course.
>
> The place lots of paleontology aficionados call Extinction Canyon,
> situated within Nevada's Great Basin Desert, is especially noted for
> producing locally common whole and mostly complete early Cambrian
> trilobites.
>
> Other extinct organisms often found in an excellent state of
> preservation in the general vicinity of the canyon's corridor include:
> graptolites (usually considered an early hemichordate); hyolithids (a
> lophophorate tangentially related to Brachiopoda, Bryozoa, and possibly
> phoronid annelids); Caryocaris crustaceans; a tabulate coral;
> archaeocyathids (early calcareous sponge;salterella (small ice cream
> cone-shaped fossil assigned to its own unique phylum called Agmata--it
> never survived the early Cambrian); Lidaconus (a diminutive tusk-shaped
> shell of unestablished zoological affinity that went belly-up near the
> conclusion of the early Cambrian); and Girvanella algal nodules
> precipitated by a species of photosynthesizing cyanobacteria.
>
> Needless to report, Extinction Canyon is a genuine ne plus ultra
> paleontological district, indeed.
Remarkably wide temporal range from lowest to highest of the lower Cambrian.. A similar
deposit of Ptychoparid and Corynexochidan trilobites are found in Horsethief Canyon on the
northeast side of Eureka Valley in the Pioche formation. The Pioche is also on fine display
west of the town of Pioche near Chief Mountain. This site also documents the last of the
Olenellid trilobites.

On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:51:14 AM UTC-4, Inyo wrote:

> Not too long ago, I uploaded my latest paleontology-related page called
> Cambrian And Ordovician Fossils At Extinction Canyon, Nevada, to
> https://inyo8.coffeecup.com/extinctioncanyon/extinctioncanyon.html.
> Includes a text introduction, accompanied by on-site images and
> photographs of representative fossil material--all fully captioned with
> explanatory information, of course.

A real feast for the eyes and the mind! I will spend many happy hours
-- widely dispersed, because I want to savor it a bit at a time --
contemplating it.

> The place lots of paleontology aficionados call Extinction Canyon,
> situated within Nevada's Great Basin Desert, is especially noted for
> producing locally common whole and mostly complete early Cambrian
> trilobites.
>
> Other extinct organisms often found in an excellent state of
> preservation in the general vicinity of the canyon's corridor include:
> graptolites (usually considered an early hemichordate); hyolithids (a
> lophophorate tangentially related to Brachiopoda, Bryozoa, and possibly
> phoronid annelids); Caryocaris crustaceans; a tabulate coral;

Two items caught my attention in my first reading.
(1)
> archaeocyathids (early calcareous sponge;

Also known as pleosponges. The big and modestly thick book
_Prehistoric Australia_, by Brian Mackness, had a "STOP PRESS"
pair of sensational items, of which the following came second,
on the last page of text.

"Previously scientists believed that the archaeocyathids died out during the early Palaeozoic era but a long study by Dr John Pickett at the Geological and Mining Museum, New South Wales is set to ignite discussion around the world. Dr Pickett has long believed that archaeocyathids were indeed sponges and that there has been a gross misinterpretation of their biology. The archaeocyathid descendants recognised grow in the Pacific..."

The last bit has turned out to be a dud, but it's nice to know that the archaeocyathids
are now considered by most paleontologists to have indeed been sponges.

(2)
> salterella (small ice cream
> cone-shaped fossil assigned to its own unique phylum called Agmata--it
> never survived the early Cambrian);

This reminded me of conulariids, enigmatic creatures that are found already
in the Ediacaran. Their cones were the shape of tall thin pyramids, and it's easy to imagine
ice cream cones molded to the same shape.

*Vendoconularia* is believed to have been an Ediacaran relative,
albeit with hexagonal bases to their cones. This is explained thus:

"It is now also thought that the conulate trilobozoans derived their fourfold symmetry from a sixfold symmetry, as seen in Vendoconularia. This in turn, is thought to be originally derived from an ancestral disk-like trilobozoan three-fold symmetry.
"Conulariids have generally been thought to be of Cnidarian affinity, occupying a position near the base of the Cnidarian family tree. However, since the 2010s, authors consider conulariids to be members of the subclade Medusozoa, though their exact placement within the clade is uncertain.[3]
--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conulariida

How reliable all this is, I do not know. The only book I have on invertebrate
paleontology is the 1952 book _Invertebrate Fossils_, and it casts
doubt on the following claim in that Wiki reference:

"The conulariids were originally thought to be anthozoan cnidarians."

That 1952 book has this on pp. 459-461:

"By different authors and at different times, the conulariids have been classified as types of coelenterates, worms, gastropods, cephalopods, and hemichordates; they have been judged to be closely related to brachiopods, bryozoans, and graptolites. This is a wide range, but at least we may be certain that conulariids are not sponges or echinoderms!"

The author doesn't leave it at that, but goes on to give reasons why
they have been thought to be cnidarians, and his reasons for believing
that they are "very weak supports" in the light of the fact that
"no known coelenterate has hard parts composed of calcium phosphate".

Do you have any thoughts on this, Inyo, or on the possibility
of close relationship of conulariids to salterella?

Or to Lidaconus, for that matter:

>Lidaconus (a diminutive tusk-shaped
> shell of unestablished zoological affinity that went belly-up near the
> conclusion of the early Cambrian); and Girvanella algal nodules
> precipitated by a species of photosynthesizing cyanobacteria.
>
> Needless to report, Extinction Canyon is a genuine ne plus ultra
> paleontological district, indeed.

Now if only you could find a Cambrian chordate there,
it would be much more widely known! It deserves that status, regardless.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 7:12:47 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:51:14 AM UTC-4, Inyo wrote:
>
> > Not too long ago, I uploaded my latest paleontology-related page called
> > Cambrian And Ordovician Fossils At Extinction Canyon, Nevada, to
> > https://inyo8.coffeecup.com/extinctioncanyon/extinctioncanyon.html.
> > Includes a text introduction, accompanied by on-site images and
> > photographs of representative fossil material--all fully captioned with
> > explanatory information, of course.
> A real feast for the eyes and the mind! I will spend many happy hours
> -- widely dispersed, because I want to savor it a bit at a time --
> contemplating it.
> > The place lots of paleontology aficionados call Extinction Canyon,
> > situated within Nevada's Great Basin Desert, is especially noted for
> > producing locally common whole and mostly complete early Cambrian
> > trilobites.
> >
> > Other extinct organisms often found in an excellent state of
> > preservation in the general vicinity of the canyon's corridor include:
> > graptolites (usually considered an early hemichordate); hyolithids (a
> > lophophorate tangentially related to Brachiopoda, Bryozoa, and possibly
> > phoronid annelids); Caryocaris crustaceans; a tabulate coral;
> Two items caught my attention in my first reading.
> (1)
> > archaeocyathids (early calcareous sponge;
>
> Also known as pleosponges. The big and modestly thick book
> _Prehistoric Australia_, by Brian Mackness, had a "STOP PRESS"
> pair of sensational items, of which the following came second,
> on the last page of text.
>
> "Previously scientists believed that the archaeocyathids died out during the early Palaeozoic era but a long study by Dr John Pickett at the Geological and Mining Museum, New South Wales is set to ignite discussion around the world. Dr Pickett has long believed that archaeocyathids were indeed sponges and that there has been a gross misinterpretation of their biology. The archaeocyathid descendants recognised grow in the Pacific..."
>
> The last bit has turned out to be a dud, but it's nice to know that the archaeocyathids
> are now considered by most paleontologists to have indeed been sponges.
>
> (2)
> > salterella (small ice cream
> > cone-shaped fossil assigned to its own unique phylum called Agmata--it
> > never survived the early Cambrian);
> This reminded me of conulariids, enigmatic creatures that are found already
> in the Ediacaran. Their cones were the shape of tall thin pyramids, and it's easy to imagine
> ice cream cones molded to the same shape.
>
> *Vendoconularia* is believed to have been an Ediacaran relative,
> albeit with hexagonal bases to their cones. This is explained thus:
>
> "It is now also thought that the conulate trilobozoans derived their fourfold symmetry from a sixfold symmetry, as seen in Vendoconularia. This in turn, is thought to be originally derived from an ancestral disk-like trilobozoan three-fold symmetry.
> "Conulariids have generally been thought to be of Cnidarian affinity, occupying a position near the base of the Cnidarian family tree. However, since the 2010s, authors consider conulariids to be members of the subclade Medusozoa, though their exact placement within the clade is uncertain.[3]
> --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conulariida
>
> How reliable all this is, I do not know. The only book I have on invertebrate
> paleontology is the 1952 book _Invertebrate Fossils_, and it casts
> doubt on the following claim in that Wiki reference:
>
> "The conulariids were originally thought to be anthozoan cnidarians."
>
> That 1952 book has this on pp. 459-461:
>
> "By different authors and at different times, the conulariids have been classified as types of coelenterates, worms, gastropods, cephalopods, and hemichordates; they have been judged to be closely related to brachiopods, bryozoans, and graptolites. This is a wide range, but at least we may be certain that conulariids are not sponges or echinoderms!"
>
> The author doesn't leave it at that, but goes on to give reasons why
> they have been thought to be cnidarians, and his reasons for believing
> that they are "very weak supports" in the light of the fact that
> "no known coelenterate has hard parts composed of calcium phosphate".
>
> Do you have any thoughts on this, Inyo, or on the possibility
> of close relationship of conulariids to salterella?
>
> Or to Lidaconus, for that matter:
> >Lidaconus (a diminutive tusk-shaped
> > shell of unestablished zoological affinity that went belly-up near the
> > conclusion of the early Cambrian); and Girvanella algal nodules
> > precipitated by a species of photosynthesizing cyanobacteria.
> >
> > Needless to report, Extinction Canyon is a genuine ne plus ultra
> > paleontological district, indeed.
> Now if only you could find a Cambrian chordate there,
> it would be much more widely known! It deserves that status, regardless.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Is that the McGraw-Hill Invertebrate Fossils (no author, only illustrator)? At any rate,
any 71 year old taxonomy is vert outdated.

On 10/19/23 11:51, Inyo wrote:
> Not too long ago, I uploaded my latest paleontology-related page called
> Cambrian And Ordovician Fossils At Extinction Canyon, Nevada, to
> https://inyo8.coffeecup.com/extinctioncanyon/extinctioncanyon.html.
> Includes a text introduction, accompanied by on-site images and
> photographs of representative fossil material--all fully captioned with
> explanatory information, of course.
>

Lovely - I hope iot remains up for a long time.

> The place lots of paleontology aficionados call Extinction Canyon,
> situated within Nevada's Great Basin Desert, is especially noted for
> producing locally common whole and mostly complete early Cambrian
> trilobites.
>
> Other extinct organisms often found in an excellent state of
> preservation in the general vicinity of the canyon's corridor include:
> graptolites (usually considered an early hemichordate); hyolithids (a
> lophophorate tangentially related to Brachiopoda, Bryozoa, and possibly
> phoronid annelids); Caryocaris crustaceans; a tabulate coral;
> archaeocyathids (early calcareous sponge;salterella (small ice cream
> cone-shaped fossil assigned to its own unique phylum called Agmata--it
> never survived the early Cambrian); Lidaconus (a diminutive tusk-shaped
> shell of unestablished zoological affinity that went belly-up near the
> conclusion of the early Cambrian); and Girvanella algal nodules
> precipitated by a species of photosynthesizing cyanobacteria.
>
> Needless to report, Extinction Canyon is a genuine ne plus ultra
> paleontological district, indeed.

On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 4:49:28 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 7:12:47 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:51:14 AM UTC-4, Inyo wrote:
> >
> > > Not too long ago, I uploaded my latest paleontology-related page called
> > > Cambrian And Ordovician Fossils At Extinction Canyon, Nevada, to
> > > https://inyo8.coffeecup.com/extinctioncanyon/extinctioncanyon.html.
> > > Includes a text introduction, accompanied by on-site images and
> > > photographs of representative fossil material--all fully captioned with
> > > explanatory information, of course.

> > A real feast for the eyes and the mind! I will spend many happy hours
> > -- widely dispersed, because I want to savor it a bit at a time --
> > contemplating it.

> > > The place lots of paleontology aficionados call Extinction Canyon,
> > > situated within Nevada's Great Basin Desert, is especially noted for
> > > producing locally common whole and mostly complete early Cambrian
> > > trilobites.
> > >
> > > Other extinct organisms often found in an excellent state of
> > > preservation in the general vicinity of the canyon's corridor include:
> > > graptolites (usually considered an early hemichordate); hyolithids (a
> > > lophophorate tangentially related to Brachiopoda, Bryozoa, and possibly
> > > phoronid annelids); Caryocaris crustaceans; a tabulate coral;
> > Two items caught my attention in my first reading.
> > (1)
> > > archaeocyathids (early calcareous sponge;
> >
> > Also known as pleosponges. The big and modestly thick book
> > _Prehistoric Australia_, by Brian Mackness, had a "STOP PRESS"
> > pair of sensational items, of which the following came second,
> > on the last page of text.
> >
> > "Previously scientists believed that the archaeocyathids died out during the early Palaeozoic era but a long study by Dr John Pickett at the Geological and Mining Museum, New South Wales is set to ignite discussion around the world. Dr Pickett has long believed that archaeocyathids were indeed sponges and that there has been a gross misinterpretation of their biology. The archaeocyathid descendants recognised grow in the Pacific..."
> >
> > The last bit has turned out to be a dud, but it's nice to know that the archaeocyathids
> > are now considered by most paleontologists to have indeed been sponges.
> >
> > (2)
> > > salterella (small ice cream
> > > cone-shaped fossil assigned to its own unique phylum called Agmata--it
> > > never survived the early Cambrian);

> > This reminded me of conulariids, enigmatic creatures that are found already
> > in the Ediacaran. Their cones were the shape of tall thin pyramids, and it's easy to imagine
> > ice cream cones molded to the same shape.
> >
> > *Vendoconularia* is believed to have been an Ediacaran relative,
> > albeit with hexagonal bases to their cones. This is explained thus:
> >
> > "It is now also thought that the conulate trilobozoans derived their fourfold symmetry from a sixfold symmetry, as seen in Vendoconularia. This in turn, is thought to be originally derived from an ancestral disk-like trilobozoan three-fold symmetry.

> > "Conulariids have generally been thought to be of Cnidarian affinity, occupying a position near the base of the Cnidarian family tree. However, since the 2010s, authors consider conulariids to be members of the subclade Medusozoa, though their exact placement within the clade is uncertain.[3]
> > --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conulariida
> >
> > How reliable all this is, I do not know. The only book I have on invertebrate
> > paleontology is the 1952 book _Invertebrate Fossils_, and it casts
> > doubt on the following claim in that Wiki reference:
> >
> > "The conulariids were originally thought to be anthozoan cnidarians."
> >
> > That 1952 book has this on pp. 459-461:
> >
> > "By different authors and at different times, the conulariids have been classified as types of coelenterates, worms, gastropods, cephalopods, and hemichordates; they have been judged to be closely related to brachiopods, bryozoans, and graptolites. This is a wide range, but at least we may be certain that conulariids are not sponges or echinoderms!"
> >
> > The author doesn't leave it at that, but goes on to give reasons why
> > they have been thought to be cnidarians, and his reasons for believing
> > that they are "very weak supports" in the light of the fact that
> > "no known coelenterate has hard parts composed of calcium phosphate".
> >
> > Do you have any thoughts on this, Inyo, or on the possibility
> > of close relationship of conulariids to salterella?
> >
> > Or to Lidaconus, for that matter:
> > >Lidaconus (a diminutive tusk-shaped
> > > shell of unestablished zoological affinity that went belly-up near the
> > > conclusion of the early Cambrian); and Girvanella algal nodules
> > > precipitated by a species of photosynthesizing cyanobacteria.
> > >
> > > Needless to report, Extinction Canyon is a genuine ne plus ultra
> > > paleontological district, indeed.
> > Now if only you could find a Cambrian chordate there,
> > it would be much more widely known! It deserves that status, regardless..

> Is that the McGraw-Hill Invertebrate Fossils (no author, only illustrator)?

There are three authors listed, no mention of who the illustrator is. It's a very well written book.
The illustrations are adequate, but not finely detailed.

> At any rate,
> any 71 year old taxonomy is vert outdated.

Unfortunately, the only book I could find on Amazon that looks promising for an update
has a 1991 publication date.

Invertebrate Palaeontology & Evolution 4th Edition
by Euan Clarkson (Author), N.K. Clarkson, Euan (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/Invertebrate-Palaeontology-Evolution-Euan-Clarkson/dp/0632052384/ref=sr_1_5

The reviews are overwhelmingly laudatory, but the following comment, made back in 2002, sounds
a cautionary note:

"The next edition of this book needs to stop calling the Ediacarans a "fauna" (the term "biota" is preferable, as we are not sure that Ediacarans were indeed animals). I also have quibbles with the higher taxonomy presented in this book for other groups." -- Mark McMenamin
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R37ACIW4FHAL9/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl

With 32 years since the book was published, I'm not optimistic about there being a next edition.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 4:49:28 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 7:12:47 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:51:14 AM UTC-4, Inyo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Not too long ago, I uploaded my latest paleontology-related page called
> > > > Cambrian And Ordovician Fossils At Extinction Canyon, Nevada, to
> > > > https://inyo8.coffeecup.com/extinctioncanyon/extinctioncanyon.html.
> > > > Includes a text introduction, accompanied by on-site images and
> > > > photographs of representative fossil material--all fully captioned with
> > > > explanatory information, of course.
>
> > > A real feast for the eyes and the mind! I will spend many happy hours
> > > -- widely dispersed, because I want to savor it a bit at a time --
> > > contemplating it.
>
> > > > The place lots of paleontology aficionados call Extinction Canyon,
> > > > situated within Nevada's Great Basin Desert, is especially noted for
> > > > producing locally common whole and mostly complete early Cambrian
> > > > trilobites.
> > > >
> > > > Other extinct organisms often found in an excellent state of
> > > > preservation in the general vicinity of the canyon's corridor include:
> > > > graptolites (usually considered an early hemichordate); hyolithids (a
> > > > lophophorate tangentially related to Brachiopoda, Bryozoa, and possibly
> > > > phoronid annelids); Caryocaris crustaceans; a tabulate coral;
> > > Two items caught my attention in my first reading.
> > > (1)
> > > > archaeocyathids (early calcareous sponge;
> > >
> > > Also known as pleosponges. The big and modestly thick book
> > > _Prehistoric Australia_, by Brian Mackness, had a "STOP PRESS"
> > > pair of sensational items, of which the following came second,
> > > on the last page of text.
> > >
> > > "Previously scientists believed that the archaeocyathids died out during the early Palaeozoic era but a long study by Dr John Pickett at the Geological and Mining Museum, New South Wales is set to ignite discussion around the world. Dr Pickett has long believed that archaeocyathids were indeed sponges and that there has been a gross misinterpretation of their biology.. The archaeocyathid descendants recognised grow in the Pacific..."
> > >
> > > The last bit has turned out to be a dud, but it's nice to know that the archaeocyathids
> > > are now considered by most paleontologists to have indeed been sponges.
> > >
> > > (2)
> > > > salterella (small ice cream
> > > > cone-shaped fossil assigned to its own unique phylum called Agmata--it
> > > > never survived the early Cambrian);
>
> > > This reminded me of conulariids, enigmatic creatures that are found already
> > > in the Ediacaran. Their cones were the shape of tall thin pyramids, and it's easy to imagine
> > > ice cream cones molded to the same shape.
> > >
> > > *Vendoconularia* is believed to have been an Ediacaran relative,
> > > albeit with hexagonal bases to their cones. This is explained thus:
> > >
> > > "It is now also thought that the conulate trilobozoans derived their fourfold symmetry from a sixfold symmetry, as seen in Vendoconularia. This in turn, is thought to be originally derived from an ancestral disk-like trilobozoan three-fold symmetry.
>
> > > "Conulariids have generally been thought to be of Cnidarian affinity, occupying a position near the base of the Cnidarian family tree. However, since the 2010s, authors consider conulariids to be members of the subclade Medusozoa, though their exact placement within the clade is uncertain.[3]
> > > --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conulariida
> > >
> > > How reliable all this is, I do not know. The only book I have on invertebrate
> > > paleontology is the 1952 book _Invertebrate Fossils_, and it casts
> > > doubt on the following claim in that Wiki reference:
> > >
> > > "The conulariids were originally thought to be anthozoan cnidarians."
> > >
> > > That 1952 book has this on pp. 459-461:
> > >
> > > "By different authors and at different times, the conulariids have been classified as types of coelenterates, worms, gastropods, cephalopods, and hemichordates; they have been judged to be closely related to brachiopods, bryozoans, and graptolites. This is a wide range, but at least we may be certain that conulariids are not sponges or echinoderms!"
> > >
> > > The author doesn't leave it at that, but goes on to give reasons why
> > > they have been thought to be cnidarians, and his reasons for believing
> > > that they are "very weak supports" in the light of the fact that
> > > "no known coelenterate has hard parts composed of calcium phosphate".
> > >
> > > Do you have any thoughts on this, Inyo, or on the possibility
> > > of close relationship of conulariids to salterella?
> > >
> > > Or to Lidaconus, for that matter:
> > > >Lidaconus (a diminutive tusk-shaped
> > > > shell of unestablished zoological affinity that went belly-up near the
> > > > conclusion of the early Cambrian); and Girvanella algal nodules
> > > > precipitated by a species of photosynthesizing cyanobacteria.
> > > >
> > > > Needless to report, Extinction Canyon is a genuine ne plus ultra
> > > > paleontological district, indeed.
> > > Now if only you could find a Cambrian chordate there,
> > > it would be much more widely known! It deserves that status, regardless.
> > Is that the McGraw-Hill Invertebrate Fossils (no author, only illustrator)?
> There are three authors listed, no mention of who the illustrator is. It's a very well written book.
> The illustrations are adequate, but not finely detailed.
> > At any rate,
> > any 71 year old taxonomy is vert outdated.
> Unfortunately, the only book I could find on Amazon that looks promising for an update
> has a 1991 publication date.
>
> Invertebrate Palaeontology & Evolution 4th Edition
> by Euan Clarkson (Author), N.K. Clarkson, Euan (Author)
> https://www.amazon.com/Invertebrate-Palaeontology-Evolution-Euan-Clarkson/dp/0632052384/ref=sr_1_5
>
>
> The reviews are overwhelmingly laudatory, but the following comment, made back in 2002, sounds
> a cautionary note:
>
> "The next edition of this book needs to stop calling the Ediacarans a "fauna" (the term "biota" is preferable, as we are not sure that Ediacarans were indeed animals). I also have quibbles with the higher taxonomy presented in this book for other groups." -- Mark McMenamin
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R37ACIW4FHAL9/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl
>
> With 32 years since the book was published, I'm not optimistic about there being a next edition.
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
I have the Clarkson book (3rd edition), and it is indeed badly out of date. Knowledge of the Ediacaran biota has increased
enormously since the 1990s, and there is no doubt that many Ediacarans were definitely animals.

McMenamin is a borderline (some would say more than that) crackpot, and his opinions are often fringe views.

Invertebrate paleontology is such a broad field that a comprehensive text would be too much for
any author. I couldn't find anything like it online, with the exception of Clarkson and a more recent text (2021)
by "Anonymous". Not promising, I don't intend to buy it.

On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 3:44:31 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 4:49:28 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 7:12:47 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:51:14 AM UTC-4, Inyo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Not too long ago, I uploaded my latest paleontology-related page called
> > > > > Cambrian And Ordovician Fossils At Extinction Canyon, Nevada, to
> > > > > https://inyo8.coffeecup.com/extinctioncanyon/extinctioncanyon.html.
> > > > > Includes a text introduction, accompanied by on-site images and
> > > > > photographs of representative fossil material--all fully captioned with
> > > > > explanatory information, of course.
> >
> > > > A real feast for the eyes and the mind! I will spend many happy hours
> > > > -- widely dispersed, because I want to savor it a bit at a time --
> > > > contemplating it.
> >
> > > > > The place lots of paleontology aficionados call Extinction Canyon,
> > > > > situated within Nevada's Great Basin Desert, is especially noted for
> > > > > producing locally common whole and mostly complete early Cambrian
> > > > > trilobites.
> > > > >
> > > > > Other extinct organisms often found in an excellent state of
> > > > > preservation in the general vicinity of the canyon's corridor include:
> > > > > graptolites (usually considered an early hemichordate); hyolithids (a
> > > > > lophophorate tangentially related to Brachiopoda, Bryozoa, and possibly
> > > > > phoronid annelids); Caryocaris crustaceans; a tabulate coral;
> > > > Two items caught my attention in my first reading.
> > > > (1)
> > > > > archaeocyathids (early calcareous sponge;
> > > >
> > > > Also known as pleosponges. The big and modestly thick book
> > > > _Prehistoric Australia_, by Brian Mackness, had a "STOP PRESS"
> > > > pair of sensational items, of which the following came second,
> > > > on the last page of text.
> > > >
> > > > "Previously scientists believed that the archaeocyathids died out during the early Palaeozoic era but a long study by Dr John Pickett at the Geological and Mining Museum, New South Wales is set to ignite discussion around the world. Dr Pickett has long believed that archaeocyathids were indeed sponges and that there has been a gross misinterpretation of their biology. The archaeocyathid descendants recognised grow in the Pacific..."
> > > >
> > > > The last bit has turned out to be a dud, but it's nice to know that the archaeocyathids
> > > > are now considered by most paleontologists to have indeed been sponges.
> > > >
> > > > (2)
> > > > > salterella (small ice cream
> > > > > cone-shaped fossil assigned to its own unique phylum called Agmata--it
> > > > > never survived the early Cambrian);
> >
> > > > This reminded me of conulariids, enigmatic creatures that are found already
> > > > in the Ediacaran. Their cones were the shape of tall thin pyramids, and it's easy to imagine
> > > > ice cream cones molded to the same shape.
> > > >
> > > > *Vendoconularia* is believed to have been an Ediacaran relative,
> > > > albeit with hexagonal bases to their cones. This is explained thus:
> > > >
> > > > "It is now also thought that the conulate trilobozoans derived their fourfold symmetry from a sixfold symmetry, as seen in Vendoconularia. This in turn, is thought to be originally derived from an ancestral disk-like trilobozoan three-fold symmetry.
> >
> > > > "Conulariids have generally been thought to be of Cnidarian affinity, occupying a position near the base of the Cnidarian family tree. However, since the 2010s, authors consider conulariids to be members of the subclade Medusozoa, though their exact placement within the clade is uncertain.[3]
> > > > --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conulariida
> > > >
> > > > How reliable all this is, I do not know. The only book I have on invertebrate
> > > > paleontology is the 1952 book _Invertebrate Fossils_, and it casts
> > > > doubt on the following claim in that Wiki reference:
> > > >
> > > > "The conulariids were originally thought to be anthozoan cnidarians.."
> > > >
> > > > That 1952 book has this on pp. 459-461:
> > > >
> > > > "By different authors and at different times, the conulariids have been classified as types of coelenterates, worms, gastropods, cephalopods, and hemichordates; they have been judged to be closely related to brachiopods, bryozoans, and graptolites. This is a wide range, but at least we may be certain that conulariids are not sponges or echinoderms!"
> > > >
> > > > The author doesn't leave it at that, but goes on to give reasons why
> > > > they have been thought to be cnidarians, and his reasons for believing
> > > > that they are "very weak supports" in the light of the fact that
> > > > "no known coelenterate has hard parts composed of calcium phosphate".
> > > >
> > > > Do you have any thoughts on this, Inyo, or on the possibility
> > > > of close relationship of conulariids to salterella?
> > > >
> > > > Or to Lidaconus, for that matter:

> > > > >Lidaconus (a diminutive tusk-shaped
> > > > > shell of unestablished zoological affinity that went belly-up near the
> > > > > conclusion of the early Cambrian); and Girvanella algal nodules
> > > > > precipitated by a species of photosynthesizing cyanobacteria.
> > > > >
> > > > > Needless to report, Extinction Canyon is a genuine ne plus ultra
> > > > > paleontological district, indeed.
> > > > Now if only you could find a Cambrian chordate there,
> > > > it would be much more widely known! It deserves that status, regardless.
> > > Is that the McGraw-Hill Invertebrate Fossils (no author, only illustrator)?
> > There are three authors listed, no mention of who the illustrator is. It's a very well written book.
> > The illustrations are adequate, but not finely detailed.
> > > At any rate,
> > > any 71 year old taxonomy is vert outdated.
> > Unfortunately, the only book I could find on Amazon that looks promising for an update
> > has a 1991 publication date.
> >
> > Invertebrate Palaeontology & Evolution 4th Edition
> > by Euan Clarkson (Author), N.K. Clarkson, Euan (Author)
> > https://www.amazon.com/Invertebrate-Palaeontology-Evolution-Euan-Clarkson/dp/0632052384/ref=sr_1_5
> >
> >
> > The reviews are overwhelmingly laudatory, but the following comment, made back in 2002, sounds
> > a cautionary note:
> >
> > "The next edition of this book needs to stop calling the Ediacarans a "fauna" (the term "biota" is preferable, as we are not sure that Ediacarans were indeed animals). I also have quibbles with the higher taxonomy presented in this book for other groups." -- Mark McMenamin
> > https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R37ACIW4FHAL9/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl
> >
> > With 32 years since the book was published, I'm not optimistic about there being a next edition.

> > Peter Nyikos
> > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia

> > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> I have the Clarkson book (3rd edition),

Didn't you mean the 4th edition? or did Amazon get the numbering of the 1991 edition wrong?

What does it say about conulariids [see my earlier comments above]?

>and it is indeed badly out of date. Knowledge of the Ediacaran biota has increased
> enormously since the 1990s, and there is no doubt that many Ediacarans were definitely animal

On the other hand, there are other Ediacarans, still the majority, that resist being classified
as animals. These include the rangeomorphs, once thought to be related to sea pens, but no longer.

> McMenamin is a borderline (some would say more than that) crackpot, and his opinions are often fringe views.

I hadn't heard of him before. At the opposite extreme was Adolf Seilacher, still highly respected, although his "Vendobionta" was probably too expansive. But his idea that some of them
were giant protistsvis still holding up, what with there being giant protists today
called Xenophyophorea that are still little understood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophyophorea

On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 3:39:18 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 3:44:31 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 4:49:28 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 7:12:47 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:51:14 AM UTC-4, Inyo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Not too long ago, I uploaded my latest paleontology-related page called
> > > > > > Cambrian And Ordovician Fossils At Extinction Canyon, Nevada, to
> > > > > > https://inyo8.coffeecup.com/extinctioncanyon/extinctioncanyon.html.
> > > > > > Includes a text introduction, accompanied by on-site images and
> > > > > > photographs of representative fossil material--all fully captioned with
> > > > > > explanatory information, of course.
> > >
> > > > > A real feast for the eyes and the mind! I will spend many happy hours
> > > > > -- widely dispersed, because I want to savor it a bit at a time --
> > > > > contemplating it.
> > >
> > > > > > The place lots of paleontology aficionados call Extinction Canyon,
> > > > > > situated within Nevada's Great Basin Desert, is especially noted for
> > > > > > producing locally common whole and mostly complete early Cambrian
> > > > > > trilobites.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Other extinct organisms often found in an excellent state of
> > > > > > preservation in the general vicinity of the canyon's corridor include:
> > > > > > graptolites (usually considered an early hemichordate); hyolithids (a
> > > > > > lophophorate tangentially related to Brachiopoda, Bryozoa, and possibly
> > > > > > phoronid annelids); Caryocaris crustaceans; a tabulate coral;
> > > > > Two items caught my attention in my first reading.
> > > > > (1)
> > > > > > archaeocyathids (early calcareous sponge;
> > > > >
> > > > > Also known as pleosponges. The big and modestly thick book
> > > > > _Prehistoric Australia_, by Brian Mackness, had a "STOP PRESS"
> > > > > pair of sensational items, of which the following came second,
> > > > > on the last page of text.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Previously scientists believed that the archaeocyathids died out during the early Palaeozoic era but a long study by Dr John Pickett at the Geological and Mining Museum, New South Wales is set to ignite discussion around the world. Dr Pickett has long believed that archaeocyathids were indeed sponges and that there has been a gross misinterpretation of their biology. The archaeocyathid descendants recognised grow in the Pacific..."
> > > > >
> > > > > The last bit has turned out to be a dud, but it's nice to know that the archaeocyathids
> > > > > are now considered by most paleontologists to have indeed been sponges.
> > > > >
> > > > > (2)
> > > > > > salterella (small ice cream
> > > > > > cone-shaped fossil assigned to its own unique phylum called Agmata--it
> > > > > > never survived the early Cambrian);
> > >
> > > > > This reminded me of conulariids, enigmatic creatures that are found already
> > > > > in the Ediacaran. Their cones were the shape of tall thin pyramids, and it's easy to imagine
> > > > > ice cream cones molded to the same shape.
> > > > >
> > > > > *Vendoconularia* is believed to have been an Ediacaran relative,
> > > > > albeit with hexagonal bases to their cones. This is explained thus:
> > > > >
> > > > > "It is now also thought that the conulate trilobozoans derived their fourfold symmetry from a sixfold symmetry, as seen in Vendoconularia. This in turn, is thought to be originally derived from an ancestral disk-like trilobozoan three-fold symmetry.
> > >
> > > > > "Conulariids have generally been thought to be of Cnidarian affinity, occupying a position near the base of the Cnidarian family tree. However, since the 2010s, authors consider conulariids to be members of the subclade Medusozoa, though their exact placement within the clade is uncertain.[3]
> > > > > --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conulariida
> > > > >
> > > > > How reliable all this is, I do not know. The only book I have on invertebrate
> > > > > paleontology is the 1952 book _Invertebrate Fossils_, and it casts
> > > > > doubt on the following claim in that Wiki reference:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The conulariids were originally thought to be anthozoan cnidarians."
> > > > >
> > > > > That 1952 book has this on pp. 459-461:
> > > > >
> > > > > "By different authors and at different times, the conulariids have been classified as types of coelenterates, worms, gastropods, cephalopods, and hemichordates; they have been judged to be closely related to brachiopods, bryozoans, and graptolites. This is a wide range, but at least we may be certain that conulariids are not sponges or echinoderms!"
> > > > >
> > > > > The author doesn't leave it at that, but goes on to give reasons why
> > > > > they have been thought to be cnidarians, and his reasons for believing
> > > > > that they are "very weak supports" in the light of the fact that
> > > > > "no known coelenterate has hard parts composed of calcium phosphate".
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have any thoughts on this, Inyo, or on the possibility
> > > > > of close relationship of conulariids to salterella?
> > > > >
> > > > > Or to Lidaconus, for that matter:
>
> > > > > >Lidaconus (a diminutive tusk-shaped
> > > > > > shell of unestablished zoological affinity that went belly-up near the
> > > > > > conclusion of the early Cambrian); and Girvanella algal nodules
> > > > > > precipitated by a species of photosynthesizing cyanobacteria.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Needless to report, Extinction Canyon is a genuine ne plus ultra
> > > > > > paleontological district, indeed.
> > > > > Now if only you could find a Cambrian chordate there,
> > > > > it would be much more widely known! It deserves that status, regardless.
> > > > Is that the McGraw-Hill Invertebrate Fossils (no author, only illustrator)?
> > > There are three authors listed, no mention of who the illustrator is. It's a very well written book.
> > > The illustrations are adequate, but not finely detailed.
> > > > At any rate,
> > > > any 71 year old taxonomy is vert outdated.
> > > Unfortunately, the only book I could find on Amazon that looks promising for an update
> > > has a 1991 publication date.
> > >
> > > Invertebrate Palaeontology & Evolution 4th Edition
> > > by Euan Clarkson (Author), N.K. Clarkson, Euan (Author)
> > > https://www.amazon.com/Invertebrate-Palaeontology-Evolution-Euan-Clarkson/dp/0632052384/ref=sr_1_5
> > >
> > >
> > > The reviews are overwhelmingly laudatory, but the following comment, made back in 2002, sounds
> > > a cautionary note:
> > >
> > > "The next edition of this book needs to stop calling the Ediacarans a "fauna" (the term "biota" is preferable, as we are not sure that Ediacarans were indeed animals). I also have quibbles with the higher taxonomy presented in this book for other groups." -- Mark McMenamin
> > > https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R37ACIW4FHAL9/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl
> > >
> > > With 32 years since the book was published, I'm not optimistic about there being a next edition.
>
> > > Peter Nyikos
> > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
>
> > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > I have the Clarkson book (3rd edition),
> Didn't you mean the 4th edition? or did Amazon get the numbering of the 1991 edition wrong?
>
> What does it say about conulariids [see my earlier comments above]?
> >and it is indeed badly out of date. Knowledge of the Ediacaran biota has increased
> > enormously since the 1990s, and there is no doubt that many Ediacarans were definitely animal
> On the other hand, there are other Ediacarans, still the majority, that resist being classified
> as animals. These include the rangeomorphs, once thought to be related to sea pens, but no longer.
> > McMenamin is a borderline (some would say more than that) crackpot, and his opinions are often fringe views.
> I hadn't heard of him before. At the opposite extreme was Adolf Seilacher, still highly respected, although his "Vendobionta" was probably too expansive. But his idea that some of them
> were giant protistsvis still holding up, what with there being giant protists today
> called Xenophyophorea that are still little understood.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophyophorea
> >
> > Invertebrate paleontology is such a broad field that a comprehensive text would be too much for
> > any author.
> By now, I think the same could be said for vertebrate paleontology. Carroll's 1988 text
> may be the last of its kind; Benton's books are far less comprehensive.
> > I couldn't find anything like it online, with the exception of Clarkson and a more recent text (2021)
> > by "Anonymous". Not promising, I don't intend to buy it.
> It would be nice to have a book concentrated on taxonomy, with the main characters that set the
> phyla (and classes within the bigger phyla) apart from each other; also the main superphyla:
> deuterostomes, Lophotrochozoa, Ecdysozoa; and the relationship of other bilaterians outside
> these groups. But also including extinct groups like conulariids that do not seem firmly
> established as being within any phylum.

On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 3:39:18 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 3:44:31 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 4:49:28 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > > On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 7:12:47 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:51:14 AM UTC-4, Inyo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Not too long ago, I uploaded my latest paleontology-related page called
> > > > > > Cambrian And Ordovician Fossils At Extinction Canyon, Nevada, to
> > > > > > https://inyo8.coffeecup.com/extinctioncanyon/extinctioncanyon.html.
> > > > > > Includes a text introduction, accompanied by on-site images and
> > > > > > photographs of representative fossil material--all fully captioned with
> > > > > > explanatory information, of course.
> > >
> > > > > A real feast for the eyes and the mind! I will spend many happy hours
> > > > > -- widely dispersed, because I want to savor it a bit at a time --
> > > > > contemplating it.
> > >
> > > > > > The place lots of paleontology aficionados call Extinction Canyon,
> > > > > > situated within Nevada's Great Basin Desert, is especially noted for
> > > > > > producing locally common whole and mostly complete early Cambrian
> > > > > > trilobites.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Other extinct organisms often found in an excellent state of
> > > > > > preservation in the general vicinity of the canyon's corridor include:
> > > > > > graptolites (usually considered an early hemichordate); hyolithids (a
> > > > > > lophophorate tangentially related to Brachiopoda, Bryozoa, and possibly
> > > > > > phoronid annelids); Caryocaris crustaceans; a tabulate coral;
> > > > > Two items caught my attention in my first reading.
> > > > > (1)
> > > > > > archaeocyathids (early calcareous sponge;
> > > > >
> > > > > Also known as pleosponges. The big and modestly thick book
> > > > > _Prehistoric Australia_, by Brian Mackness, had a "STOP PRESS"
> > > > > pair of sensational items, of which the following came second,
> > > > > on the last page of text.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Previously scientists believed that the archaeocyathids died out during the early Palaeozoic era but a long study by Dr John Pickett at the Geological and Mining Museum, New South Wales is set to ignite discussion around the world. Dr Pickett has long believed that archaeocyathids were indeed sponges and that there has been a gross misinterpretation of their biology. The archaeocyathid descendants recognised grow in the Pacific..."
> > > > >
> > > > > The last bit has turned out to be a dud, but it's nice to know that the archaeocyathids
> > > > > are now considered by most paleontologists to have indeed been sponges.
> > > > >
> > > > > (2)
> > > > > > salterella (small ice cream
> > > > > > cone-shaped fossil assigned to its own unique phylum called Agmata--it
> > > > > > never survived the early Cambrian);
> > >
> > > > > This reminded me of conulariids, enigmatic creatures that are found already
> > > > > in the Ediacaran. Their cones were the shape of tall thin pyramids, and it's easy to imagine
> > > > > ice cream cones molded to the same shape.
> > > > >
> > > > > *Vendoconularia* is believed to have been an Ediacaran relative,
> > > > > albeit with hexagonal bases to their cones. This is explained thus:
> > > > >
> > > > > "It is now also thought that the conulate trilobozoans derived their fourfold symmetry from a sixfold symmetry, as seen in Vendoconularia. This in turn, is thought to be originally derived from an ancestral disk-like trilobozoan three-fold symmetry.
> > >
> > > > > "Conulariids have generally been thought to be of Cnidarian affinity, occupying a position near the base of the Cnidarian family tree. However, since the 2010s, authors consider conulariids to be members of the subclade Medusozoa, though their exact placement within the clade is uncertain.[3]
> > > > > --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conulariida
> > > > >
> > > > > How reliable all this is, I do not know. The only book I have on invertebrate
> > > > > paleontology is the 1952 book _Invertebrate Fossils_, and it casts
> > > > > doubt on the following claim in that Wiki reference:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The conulariids were originally thought to be anthozoan cnidarians."
> > > > >
> > > > > That 1952 book has this on pp. 459-461:
> > > > >
> > > > > "By different authors and at different times, the conulariids have been classified as types of coelenterates, worms, gastropods, cephalopods, and hemichordates; they have been judged to be closely related to brachiopods, bryozoans, and graptolites. This is a wide range, but at least we may be certain that conulariids are not sponges or echinoderms!"
> > > > >
> > > > > The author doesn't leave it at that, but goes on to give reasons why
> > > > > they have been thought to be cnidarians, and his reasons for believing
> > > > > that they are "very weak supports" in the light of the fact that
> > > > > "no known coelenterate has hard parts composed of calcium phosphate".
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have any thoughts on this, Inyo, or on the possibility
> > > > > of close relationship of conulariids to salterella?
> > > > >
> > > > > Or to Lidaconus, for that matter:
>
> > > > > >Lidaconus (a diminutive tusk-shaped
> > > > > > shell of unestablished zoological affinity that went belly-up near the
> > > > > > conclusion of the early Cambrian); and Girvanella algal nodules
> > > > > > precipitated by a species of photosynthesizing cyanobacteria.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Needless to report, Extinction Canyon is a genuine ne plus ultra
> > > > > > paleontological district, indeed.
> > > > > Now if only you could find a Cambrian chordate there,
> > > > > it would be much more widely known! It deserves that status, regardless.
> > > > Is that the McGraw-Hill Invertebrate Fossils (no author, only illustrator)?
> > > There are three authors listed, no mention of who the illustrator is. It's a very well written book.
> > > The illustrations are adequate, but not finely detailed.
> > > > At any rate,
> > > > any 71 year old taxonomy is vert outdated.
> > > Unfortunately, the only book I could find on Amazon that looks promising for an update
> > > has a 1991 publication date.
> > >
> > > Invertebrate Palaeontology & Evolution 4th Edition
> > > by Euan Clarkson (Author), N.K. Clarkson, Euan (Author)
> > > https://www.amazon.com/Invertebrate-Palaeontology-Evolution-Euan-Clarkson/dp/0632052384/ref=sr_1_5
> > >
> > >
> > > The reviews are overwhelmingly laudatory, but the following comment, made back in 2002, sounds
> > > a cautionary note:
> > >
> > > "The next edition of this book needs to stop calling the Ediacarans a "fauna" (the term "biota" is preferable, as we are not sure that Ediacarans were indeed animals). I also have quibbles with the higher taxonomy presented in this book for other groups." -- Mark McMenamin
> > > https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R37ACIW4FHAL9/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl
> > >
> > > With 32 years since the book was published, I'm not optimistic about there being a next edition.
>
> > > Peter Nyikos
> > > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > > Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
>
> > > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > I have the Clarkson book (3rd edition),
> Didn't you mean the 4th edition? or did Amazon get the numbering of the 1991 edition wrong?
>
> What does it say about conulariids [see my earlier comments above]?
> >and it is indeed badly out of date. Knowledge of the Ediacaran biota has increased
> > enormously since the 1990s, and there is no doubt that many Ediacarans were definitely animal
> On the other hand, there are other Ediacarans, still the majority, that resist being classified
> as animals. These include the rangeomorphs, once thought to be related to sea pens, but no longer.
> > McMenamin is a borderline (some would say more than that) crackpot, and his opinions are often fringe views.
> I hadn't heard of him before. At the opposite extreme was Adolf Seilacher, still highly respected, although his "Vendobionta" was probably too expansive. But his idea that some of them
> were giant protistsvis still holding up, what with there being giant protists today
> called Xenophyophorea that are still little understood.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophyophorea
> >
> > Invertebrate paleontology is such a broad field that a comprehensive text would be too much for
> > any author.
> By now, I think the same could be said for vertebrate paleontology. Carroll's 1988 text
> may be the last of its kind; Benton's books are far less comprehensive.
> > I couldn't find anything like it online, with the exception of Clarkson and a more recent text (2021)
> > by "Anonymous". Not promising, I don't intend to buy it.
> It would be nice to have a book concentrated on taxonomy, with the main characters that set the
> phyla (and classes within the bigger phyla) apart from each other; also the main superphyla:
> deuterostomes, Lophotrochozoa, Ecdysozoa; and the relationship of other bilaterians outside
> these groups. But also including extinct groups like conulariids that do not seem firmly
> established as being within any phylum.
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
I would add that you're very unlikely to see any book on Linnean taxomony. The principle characters
for all the groups you mention are pretty well established, although there all still many fossils that
are problematic with regard to their placement.