The Appendages, Anatomy, and Relationships of Trilobites Part 23

A further interest attaches to this case, because of the close relationship between _D. eucentrus_ and _D. mucronatus_. The latter species appears first in the _Staurocephalus_ beds which underlie the Brachiopod shales, so that in its first appearance it is somewhat the older. The pygidium of the adult _D. mucronatus_ is larger than that of _D. eucentrus_, having eight pairs of pleural ribs, the same number as in the young of the latter. In short, _D. eucentrus_ is probably descended from _D. mucronatus_, and in its youth pa.s.ses through a stage in which it has a large pygidium like that species. Once more it appears that the small pygidium is more specialized than the large one.

The full ontogeny of _Cyclopyge_ is not known, but young specimens show conclusively that segments are not transferred from the thorax to the pygidium, but that the opposite occurs. As shown by Barrande (1852) and corroborated by specimens in the Museum of Comparative Zoology, the process is as follows: The third segment of the adult of this species, that is, the fourth from the pygidium, bears a pair of conspicuous cavities on the axial portion. In a young specimen, 7 mm.

long, the second segment bears these cavities, but as the thorax has only four segments, this segment is also the second instead of the fourth ahead of the pygidium. The pygidium itself, instead of being entirely smooth, as in the adult state, is smooth on the posterior half, but on the anterior portion has two well formed but still connected segments, the anterior one being more perfect than the other. These are evidently the two missing segments of the thorax, and instead of being in the process of being incorporated in the pygidium, they are in fact about to be cast off from it to become free thoracic segments. In other words, the thorax grows through the degeneration of the pygidium. That the thorax grows at actual expense to the pygidium is shown by the proportions of this specimen. In an adult of this species the pygidium, thorax, and cephalon are to each other as 9:11:13. In the young specimen they are as 10:6:12, the pygidium being longer in proportion both to the thorax and to the cephalon than it would be in the adult.

This conception of the breaking down of the pygidium to form the thorax will be very helpful in explaining many things which have hitherto seemed anomalous. For instance, it indicates that the Agnostidae, whose subequal shields in early stages have been a puzzle, are really primitive forms whose pygidia do not degenerate; likewise the Eodiscidae, which, however, show within the family a tendency to free some of the segments. The annelidan Mesonacidae may not be so primitive after all, and their specialized cephala may be more truly indicative of their status than has previously been supposed.

The facts of ontogeny of trilobites with both small and large pygidia do show that there is a reduction of the relative size of the caudal shield during the growth-stages, and therefore that the large pygidium in the protaspis is probably primitive. The same study also shows that the large pygidium is made up of "coalesced segments" only to the extent that they are potentially free, and not in the sense of fused segments.

WIDTH OF THE AXIAL LOBE.

That the narrow type of axial lobe is more primitive than the wide one has already been demonstrated by the ontogeny of various species, and s.p.a.ce need not be taken here to discuss the question. Most Cambrian trilobites have narrow axial lobes even in the adult so that their development does not bring this out very strikingly, though it can be seen in Sao, Ptychoparia, etc., but in Ordovician trilobites such as Triarthrus and especially Isotelus, it is a conspicuous feature.

PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF A "BRIM."

That the extension of the glabella to the front of the cephalon is a primitive feature is well shown by the development of Sao (Barrande, 1852, pl. 7), Ptychoparia (Beecher, 1895 C, pl. 8), and Paradoxides (Raymond, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., vol. 57, 1914), although in the last genus the protaspis has a very narrow brim, the larva during the stages of introduction of new segments a fairly wide one, and most adults a narrow one.

The brim of Sao seems to be formed partly by new growth and partly at the expense of the frontal lobe, for that lobe is proportionately shorter in the adult than in the protaspis. In _Cryptolithus_ and probably in _Harpes_, _Harpides_, etc., the brim is quite obviously new growth and has nothing to do with the vital organs. Its presence or absence may not have any great significance, but when the glabella extends to the frontal margin, it certainly suggests a more anterior position of certain organs. In _Sao_, the only trilobite in which anything is known of the position of the hypostoma in the young, the posterior end is considerably further forward in a specimen a. 5 mm.

long than in one 4 mm. long, thus indicating a backward movement of the mouth during growth, comparable to the backward movement of the eyes.

SEGMENTATION OF THE GLABELLA.

The very smallest specimens of _Sao_ show a simple, unsegmented axial lobe, and the same simplicity has been noted in the young of other genera. Beecher considered this as due to imperfect preservation of the exceedingly small sh.e.l.ls, which practically always occur as moulds or casts in soft shale. There is, however, a very general increase in the strength of glabellar segmentation in the early part of the ontogeny of all trilobites whose life history is known, and in some genera, like the Agnostidae, there is no question of the comparatively late acquisition of glabellar furrows. Even in _Paradoxides_, the furrows appear late in the ontogeny.

_Summary._

If absence of eyes on the dorsal surface be primitive, as Beecher has shown, and if the large pygidium, narrow axial lobe, and long unsegmented glabella be primitive, then the known protaspis of the Mesonacidae and Paradoxidae is not primitive, that of the Olenidae is very primitive, and that of the Agnostidae is primitive except that in one group the axial lobe, when it appears, is rather wide, and in the other a brim is present.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 35.--A specimen of _Weymouthia n.o.bilis_ (Ford), collected by Mr. Thomas H. Clark at North Weymouth, Ma.s.s. Note the broad smooth shields of this Lower Cambrian eodiscid. 6.]

Subsequent development from the simple unsegmented protaspis would appear to show, first, an adaptation to swimming by the use of the pygidium; next, the inv.a.g.i.n.ation of the appendifers as shown in the segmentation of the axial lobe indicates the functioning of the appendages as swimming legs; then with the introduction of thoracic segments the a.s.sumption of a bottom-crawling habit is indicated. Some trilobites were fully adapted for bottom life, and the pygidium became reduced to a mere vestige in the production of a worm-like body. Other trilobites retained their swimming habits, coupled with the crawling mode of life, and kept or even increased (_Isotelus_) the large pygidium.

The Simplest Trilobite.

In the discussion above I have placed great emphasis on the large size of the primitive pygidium, because, although there is nothing new in the idea, its significance seems to have been overlooked.

If the large pygidium is primitive, then multisegmentation in trilobites can not be primitive but is the result of adaptation to a crawling life. It is annelid-like, but is not in itself to be relied upon as showing relationship to the Chaetopoda. Simple trilobites with few segments, like the Agnostidae, Eodiscidae etc., were, therefore, properly placed by Beecher at the base of his cla.s.sification, and there is now less chance than ever that they can be called degenerate animals.

From the phylogeny of certain groups, such as the Asaphidae, it is learned that the geologically older members of the family have more strongly segmented anterior and posterior shields than the later ones.

That there has been a "smoothing out" is demonstrated by a study of the ontogeny of the later forms. From such examples it has come to be thought that all smooth trilobites are specialized and occupy a terminal position in their genealogical line. This has caused some wonder that smooth agnostids like _Phalacroma bibullatum_ and _P.

nudum_ should be found in strata so old as the Middle Cambrian, and was a source of great perplexity to me in the case of _Weymouthia_ (Ottawa Nat., vol. 27, 1913) (fig. 35). This is a smooth member of the Eodiscidae, and, in fact, one of the simplest trilobites known, for while it has three thoracic segments, it shows almost no trace of dorsal furrows or segmentation on cephalon or pygidium, and, of course, no eyes. Following the general rule, I took this to be a smooth-out eodiscid, and was surprised that it should come from the Lower Cambrian, where it is a.s.sociated with _Elliptocephala_ at Troy, New York, and with _Callavia_ at North Weymouth, Ma.s.sachusetts, and where it has lately been found by Kiaer a.s.sociated with _Holmia_ and _Kjerulfia_ at Tmten, Norway. It now appears it is really in its proper zone, and instead of being the most specialized, is the simplest of the Eodiscidae.

What appears to be a still simpler trilobite is the form described by Walcott as Naraoia.

=Naraoia compacta= Walcott.

(Text fig. 36.)

Ill.u.s.trated: Walcott, Smithson. Misc. Coll., vol. 57, 1912, p. 175, pl. 28, figs. 3, 4.--Cleland, Geology, Physical and Historical, New York, 1916, p. 412, fig. 382 F (somewhat restored).

This very imperfectly known form is referred by Walcott to the Notostraca on what appear to be wholly inadequate grounds, and while I do not insist on my interpretation, I can not refrain from calling attention to the fact that it _can_ be explained as the most primitive of all trilobites. It consists of two subequal shields, the anterior of which shows slight, and the posterior considerable evidence of segmentation. It has no eyes, no glabella, and no thorax, and is directly comparable to a very young _Phalacroma bibullatum_ (see Barrande 1852, pl. 49, figs. a, b). Walcott states that there is nothing to show how many segments there are in the cephalic shield, but that on one specimen fourteen were faintly indicated on the abdominal covering. The appendages are imperfectly unknown, as no specimen showing the ventral side has yet been described. The possible presence of antennas and three other appendages belonging to the cephalic shield is mentioned, and there are tips of fourteen legs projecting from beneath the side of one specimen. As figured, some of the appendages have the form of exopodites, others of endopodites, indicating that they were biramous.

_Naraoia_ is, so far as now known, possessed of no characteristics which would prevent its reference to the Trilobita, while the presence of a large abdominal as well as a cephalic shield would make it difficult to place in even so highly variable a group as the Branchiopoda. On the other hand, its only exceptional feature as a trilobite is the lack of thorax, and all study of the ontogeny of the group has led us to expect just that sort of a trilobite to be found some day in the most ancient fossiliferous rocks. _Naraoia_ can, I think, be best explained as a trilobite which grew to the adult state without losing its protaspian form. It was found in the Middle Cambrian of British Columbia.

Even if _Naraoia_ should eventually prove to possess characteristics which preclude the possibility of its being a primitive trilobite, it at least represents what I should expect a pre-Cambrian trilobite to look like. What the ancestry of the nektonic primitive trilobite may have been is not yet clear, but all the evidence from the morphology of cephalon, pygidium, and appendages indicates that it was a descendant of a swimming and not a crawling organism.

Since the above was written, the Museum of Comparative Zoology has purchased a specimen of this species obtained from the original locality. The shields are subequal, the posterior one slightly the larger, and the axial lobes are definitely outlined on both. The glabella is about one third the total width, nearly parallel-sided, somewhat pointed at the front. There are no traces of glabellar furrows. The axial lobe of the pygidium is also about one third the total width, extends nearly to the posterior margin, and has a rounded posterior end. The measurements are as follows: Length, 33 mm.; length of cephalon, 16 mm., width, 15 mm.; length of glabella, 11.5 mm., width, 5.5 mm.; length of pygidium, 17 mm., width, 15 mm.; length of axial lobe, 14 mm., width, 5.5 mm.

The species is decidedly _Agnostus_-like in both cephalon and pygidium, and were it not so large, might be taken for the young of such a trilobite. The pointed glabella is comparable to the axial lobes of the so-called pygidia of the young of _Condylopyge rex_ and _Peronopsis integer_ (Barrande, Syst. Sil., vol. 1, pl. 49).

The Ancestor of the Trilobites, and the Descent of the Arthropoda.

The "annelid" theory of the origin of the Crustacea and therefore of the trilobites, originating with Hatschek (1877) and so ably championed by Bernard (1892), has now been a fundamental working hypothesis for some years, and has had a profound influence in shaping thought about trilobites. This hypothesis has, however, its weak points, the princ.i.p.al one being its total inhibition of the workings of that great talisman of the palaeontologist, the law of recapitulation. Its acceptance has forced the zoologist to look upon the nauplius as a specially adapted larva, and has caused more than one forced explanation of the protaspis of the trilobite. When so keen a student as Calman says that the nauplius must point in some way to the ancestor of the Crustacea (1909, p. 26), it is time to reexamine some of the fundamentals. This has been done in the preceding pages and evidence adduced to show that the primitive features of a trilobite indicate a swimming animal, and that the adaptations are those which enabled it to a.s.sume a crawling mode of existence. It has also been pointed out that in Naraoia there is preserved down to Middle Cambrian times an animal like that to which ontogeny points as a possible ancestor of the trilobites. _Naraoia_ is not the simplest conceivable animal of its own type, however, for it has built up a pygidium of fourteen or fifteen somites. One would expect to find in Proterozoic sediments remains of similar animals with pygidia composed of only one or two somites, with five pairs of appendages on the cephalon, one or two pairs on the pygidium, a ventral mouth, and a short hypostoma. Anything simpler than this could not, in my opinion, be cla.s.sed as a trilobite.

What the ancestor of this animal was is mere surmise. It probably had no test, and it may be noted in this connection that _Naraoia_ had a very thin sh.e.l.l, as shown by its state of preservation, and was in that respect intermediate between the trilobite and the theoretical ancestor. Every a.n.a.lysis of the cephalon of the trilobite shows that it is made up of several segments, certainly five, probably six, possibly seven. Every study of the trilobite, whether of adult, young, or protaspis, indicates the primitiveness of the lateral extensions or pleural lobes. The same studies indicate as clearly the location of the vital organs along the median lobe. These suggestions all point to a soft-bodied, depressed animal composed of few segments, probably with simple marginal eyes, a mouth beneath the anterior margin, tactile organs at one or both ends, with an oval shape, and a straight narrow gut running from anterior mouth to terminal a.n.u.s. The broad flat shape gives great buoyancy and is frequently developed in the plankton. Inherited by the trilobites, it proved of great use to the swimmers among them.

The known animal which most nearly approaches the form which I should expect the remote ancestor of the trilobites to have had is _Amiskwia sagittiformis_ Walcott (Smithson. Misc. Coll., vol. 57, 1911, p. 112, pl. 22, figs. 3, 4). This "worm" from the Middle Cambrian is similar in outline to the recent _Spadella_, and is referred by Walcott to the Chaetognatha. It has a pair of lateral expansions and a flattened caudal fin, a narrow median alimentary ca.n.a.l, and a pair of rather long simple tentacles. With the exception of a thin septum back of the head, no traces of segmentation are shown.

Some time in the late pre-Cambrian, the pre-trilobite, which probably swam by rhythmic undulations of the body, began to come into occasional contact with a substratum, and two things happened: symmetrically placed, i. e., paired, appendages began to develop on the contact surface, and a test on the dorsal side. The first use of the appendages may have been in pushing food forward to the mouth, and for the greater convenience in catching such material, a fold in front of the mouth may have elongated to form the prototype of the hypostoma. At this time the substratum may not have been the ocean bottom at all, but the animals, still free swimmers, may have alighted at feeding time on floating algae from the surface of which they collected their food. While the dorsal test was originally jointed at every segment, the undulatory mode of swimming seems to have given way to the method of sculling by means of the posterior end only, or by the use of the appendages, and the anterior segments early became fused together.

The result of the hardening of the dorsal test was of course to reduce to that extent the area available for respiration, and this function was now transferred in part to the limbs, which bifurcated, one branch continuing the food-gathering process and the other becoming a gill.

The next step may have been the "discovery" of the ocean bottom and the tapping of an hitherto unexploited supply of food. Upon this, there set in those adaptations to a crawling mode of existence which are so well shown in the trilobite. The crawling legs became lengthened and took on a hardened test, the hypostoma was greatly elongated, pushing the mouth backward, and new segments were added to produce a long worm-like form which could adapt itself to the inequalities of the bottom. That the test of the appendages became hardened later than that of the body is shown by the specimens of Neolenus, in which the dorsal sh.e.l.l as preserved in the shale is thick and solid, while the test of the appendages is a mere film.

The late Proterozoic or very earliest Cambrian was probably the time of the great splitting up into groups. The first development seems to have been among the trilobites themselves, the Hypoparia giving rise to two groups with compound eyes, first the Opisthoparia and later the Proparia. About this same time the Copepoda may have split off from the Hypoparia, continuing in the pelagic habitat. At first, most of the trilobites seem to have led a crawling existence, but about Middle Cambrian time they began to go back partially to the ancestral swimming habits, and retained some of the trunk segments to form a larger pygidium. The functional importance of the pygidium explains why it can not be used successfully in making major divisions in cla.s.sification. Nearly related trilobites may be adapted to diverse methods of life.

EVOLUTION WITHIN THE CRUSTACEA.

The question naturally arises as to whether the higher Crustacea were derived from some one trilobite, or whether the different groups have been developed independently from different stocks. The opinion that all other crustaceans could have been derived from an _Apus_-like form has been rather generally held in recent years, but Carpenter (1903, p. 334) has shown that the leptostracan, _Nebalia_, is really a more primitive animal than _Apus_. He has pointed out that in Leptostraca the thorax bears eight pairs of simple limbs with lamelliform exopodites and segmented endopodites, while the abdomen of eight segments has six pairs of pleopods and a pair of furcal processes, so that only one segment is limbless. Contrasted with this are the crowded and complicated limbs of the anterior part of the trunk of _Apus_, and the appendage-less condition of the hinder portion.

Further, a comparison between the appendages of the head of _Nebalia_ and those of _Apus_ shows that the former are the more primitive. The antennules of Nebalia are elongate, those of _Apus_ greatly reduced; the mandible of _Nebalia_ has a long endopodite, and Carpenter points out that from it either the malacostracan mandible with a reduced endopodite or the branchiopodan mandible with none could be derived, but that the former could not have arisen from the latter. The maxillae of _Apus_ are also much the more specialized and reduced.

_Nebalia_ being in all else more primitive than _Apus_, it follows that the numerous abdominal segments of the latter may well have arisen by the multiplication of an originally moderate number, and the last trace of primitiveness disappears.

It is now possible to add to the results obtained from comparative morphology the testimony of palaeontology, already outlined above, and since the two are in agreement, it must be admitted that the modern Branchiopoda are really highly specialized.

As has already been pointed out, _Hymenocaris_, the leptostracan of the Middle Cambrian, has very much the same sort of appendages as the Branchiopoda of the same age, both being of the trilobite type. Which is the more primitive, and was one derived from the other?