, Volume 298, Issue 1–3, pp 1–13 | Cite as

The Upper CambrianRehbachiella, its larval development, morphology and significance for the phylogeny of Branchiopoda and Crustacea

  • Dieter Waloßek
1. Phylogeny and Evolution


The monograph on the 500 million-year-oldRehbachiella from the Upper Cambrian ‘Orsten’ of Sweden, published inFossils & Strata 32 by Walossek (1993) comprises a detailed description of its larval sequence and a discussion of functional and comparative aspects of its morphology and ontogeny. A particular attempt was made to clarify the status of Branchiopoda and the phylogenetic position ofRehbachiella as an early branchiopod with particular respect to structural and functional identity of the postmandibular locomotory and feeding apparatus apomorphic to the Branchiopoda. The data provided byRehbachiella and other ‘Orsten’ fossils also aided examination of the ontogenetic patterns of Crustacea and discussion of the morphology and evolution of Crus- tacea.

Key words

Ontogeny morphology morphogenesis SEM phylogeny Branchiopoda Crustacea 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Calman, W. T. 1909. Part 7, Appendiculata, 3, Crustacea. In R. Lankester (ed.), A Treatise on Zoology. Adam & Charles Black, London: 1–346.Google Scholar
  2. Chen Jun-Yuan, J. Bergström, M. Lindström & Xianguang Hou, 1991. Fossilized Soft-bodied Fauna. The Chengjiang Fauna — Oldest Soft-bodied Fauna on Earth. National Geographic Research & Exploration 7: 8–19.Google Scholar
  3. Fryer, G., 1983. Functional ontogenetic changes inBranchinecta ferox (Milne-Edwards) (Crustacea, Anostraca). Phil. Trans. r. Soc., Lond. 303: 229–343.Google Scholar
  4. Fryer, G., 1985. Structure and habits of living branchiopod crustaceans and their bearing on the interpretation of fossil forms. Trans. r. Soc., Edinburgh: Earth Sci. 76: 103–113.Google Scholar
  5. Fryer, G., 1987a. Morphology and the classification of the so-called Cladocera. Hydrobiologia 145: 19–28.Google Scholar
  6. Fryer, G., 1987b. A new classification of the branchiopod Crustacea. Zool. J. Linn. Soc.91: 357–383.Google Scholar
  7. Gauld, D. T., 1959. Swimming and Feeding in crustacean larvae: the nauplius larva. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 132: 31–50.Google Scholar
  8. Laverack, M. S. & A. Sinclair, 1994. Innervation of the dorsal organ of the shrimpMacrobrachium intermedium (Decapoda: Natantia). J. Crust. Biol. 14: 1–5.Google Scholar
  9. McKenzie, K. G., Chen, Pei-Ji & S. Majoran, 1991.Almatium gusevi (Chernyshev 1940): reproduction, shield-shapes; and speculations on the reproductive mode (Branchiopoda, Kazacharthra). Paläont.Z. 65: 305–317.Google Scholar
  10. Müller, K. J. & D. Walossek, 1985. Skaracarida, a new order of Crustacea from the Upper Cambrian of Västergötland, Sweden. Fossils & Strata 17: 1–65, pls. 1–17.Google Scholar
  11. Müller, K. J. & D. Walossek, 1986a.Martinssonia elongata gen. et sp.n., a crustacean-like euarthropod from the Upper Cambrian of Sweden. Zool. Scripta 15: 73–92.Google Scholar
  12. Müller, K. J/ & D. Walossek, 1986b. Arthropod larvae from the Upper Cambrian of Sweden. Trans. r. Soc., Edinburgh, Earth Sci. 77: 157–179.Google Scholar
  13. Müller, K. J. & D. Walossek, 1987. Morphology, ontogeny, and life-habit ofAgnostus pisiformis (Linnaeus, 1757) from the Upper Cambrian of Sweden. Fossils and Strata 19: 1–124, pls. 1–33.Google Scholar
  14. Müller, K. J. & D. Walossek, 1988. External morphology and larval development of the Upper Cambrian maxillopodBredocaris admirabilis. Fossils and Strata 23: 1–70, pls. 1–16.Google Scholar
  15. Müller, K. J. & D. Walossek, 1991. Ein Blick durch das <Orsten>-Fenster in die Arthropodenwelt vor 500 Millionen Jahren. Verh. Dt. Zool. Ges. 84: 281–294.Google Scholar
  16. Newman, W. A., 1983. Origin of the Maxillopoda; unmalacostracan ontogeny and progenesis. In F. R. Schram (ed.), Crustacean Issues 1, Crustacean Phylogeny. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam: 105–120.Google Scholar
  17. Nilsson-Cantell, C. A., 1921. Cirripedien-Studien. Zur Kenntnis der Biologie, Anatomie und Systematik dieser Gruppe. Zool. Bidrag, Uppsala 7: 6–395.Google Scholar
  18. Sanders, H. L., 1963. The Cephalocarida. Functional Morphology, Larval Development, Comparative External Anatomy. Mem. Connecticut Acad. Arts & Sci. 15: 1–80.Google Scholar
  19. Schrehardt, A., 1987. A scanning electron-microscope study of the post- embryonic development ofArtemia. In P. Sorgeloos, D. A. Bengston, W. Declair & E. Jaspers (eds.),Artemia Research and its applications. I. Morphology, Genetics, Strain Characterization, Toxicology. Universa Press, Wetteren, Belgium. 5–32.Google Scholar
  20. Walossek, D., 1993. The Upper CambrianRehbachiella and the phylogeny of Branchiopoda and Crustacea. Fossils and Strata 32: 1–202, 54 figs., 34 pls.Google Scholar
  21. Walossek, D. & K. J. Müller, 1990. Stem-lineage crustaceans from the Upper Cambrian of Sweden and their bearing upon the position ofAgnostus. Lethaia 23: 409–427.Google Scholar
  22. Walossek, D. & K. J. Müller, 1992. The ‘alum shale window’-contribution of ‘Orsten’ arthropods to phylogeny of Crustacea. Acta Zool. 73: 305–312.Google Scholar
  23. Walossek, D. & K. J. Müller, 1994. Pentastomida from the Lower Palaeozoic of Sweden. Trans. r. Soc., Edinburgh, Earth Sci. 85: 1–37.Google Scholar
  24. Weisz, P. B., 1946. The space-time pattern of segment formation inArtemia salina. Biol. Bull. 91: 119–140.Google Scholar
  25. Weisz, P. B., 1947. The histological pattern of metameric development inArtemia salina. J. Morphol. 81: 45–95.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dieter Waloßek
    • 1
  1. 1.Zoologisches Institut der UniversitätKielGermany

Personalised recommendations