Intro | Search taxa | Taxon tree | Search literature | Taxon match | Homonyms | Statistics | Webservice | Manual | FAQ | LifeWatch | Download | Log in

IRMNG taxon details

Lobopoda †

113  (urn:lsid:irmng.org:taxname:113)

Cavalier-Smith, 1998
accepted
Phylum
Class Xenusia †
marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
fossil only
Cavalier-Smith, T. (1998). A revised six-kingdom system of life. <em>Biological Reviews.</em> 73(3): 203-266., available online at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185x.1998.tb00030.x [details]   
Taxonomic remark Introduced (?as an informal group) by Boudreaux, 1979 and as a phylum by Hou & Bergström, 1995 (both with spelling and...  
Taxonomic remark Introduced (?as an informal group) by Boudreaux, 1979 and as a phylum by Hou & Bergström, 1995 (both with spelling and authorship "Lobopodia Snodgrass 1938"), although Snodgrass never used this term, merely "lobopod annelids" to describe a hypothetical ancestor of Onychophora, etc.; subsequently by Cavalier-Smith, 1998, as "Lobopoda phyl. nov." with Onychophora and Tardigrada as subphyla. If the latter two groups are treated as phyla, as per Ruggiero et al., 2015, Lobopoda can conceptually be viewed either as a superphylum (and is referred to thus in some works), or as a restricted phylum to cover just the fossil presumed ancestors of Onychophora and Tardigrada, which is the position taken by Hou & Bergström, under the name Lobopodia (not defined therein), and presently in IRMNG but using Cavalier-Smith's spelling, since (1) Cavalier-Smith was the first to formally erect the taxon as a phylum, (2) the spelling -ia ascribed to Snodgrass does not exist in his work, and (3) the ending -a (as opposed to -ia) is that generally used at phylum level, as per Arthropoda, Mollusca, Nematoda, etc. etc. The fossil lobopodians under consideration here (class Xenusia) are included within Onychophora by some workers. Note, recent work (cited in Ortega-Hernández, 2014) refutes any close connection between Onychophora and Tardigrada. [details]
IRMNG (2021). Lobopoda †. Accessed at: https://irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=113 on 2022-05-21
Date
action
by
2010-05-31 22:00:00Z
created
2011-12-31 23:00:00Z
changed
2017-04-18 20:16:25Z
changed
2020-04-06 02:42:29Z
changed

original description Cavalier-Smith, T. (1998). A revised six-kingdom system of life. <em>Biological Reviews.</em> 73(3): 203-266., available online at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185x.1998.tb00030.x [details]   

additional source Hou, X.; Bergström, J. (1995). Cambrian lobopodians - ancestors of extant onychophorans?. <em>Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society.</em> 114(1): 3-19., available online at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1995.tb00110.x
note: as "Lobopodia Snodgrass 1938" [details]   

additional source Ma, X.; Hou, X.; Bergström, J. (2009). Morphology of Luolishania longicruris (Lower Cambrian, Chengjiang Lagerstätte, SW China) and the phylogenetic relationships within lobopodians. <em>Arthropod Structure & Development.</em> 38(4): 271-291., available online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asd.2009.03.001 [details]   

additional source Liu, J.; Dunlop, J. A. (2014). Cambrian lobopodians: A review of recent progress in our understanding of their morphology and evolution. <em>Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology.</em> 398: 4-15., available online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2013.06.008 [details]   

additional source Ortega-Hernández, J. (2014). Making sense of 'lower' and 'upper' stem-group Euarthropoda, with comments on the strict use of the name Arthropoda von Siebold, 1848. <em>Biological Reviews.</em> 91(1): 255-273., available online at https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12168
note: includes some discussion of historic usage of the tems Lobopoda/Lobopodia (although concludes they should not be used) [details]   

current name source Rees, T.; Vandepitte, L.; Vanhoorne, B.; Decock, W. (2020). All genera of the world: an overview and estimates based on the March 2020 release of the Interim Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera (IRMNG). <em>Megataxa.</em> 1(2): 123-140., available online at https://doi.org/10.11646/megataxa.1.2.3 [details]   
From other sources
Taxonomic remark Introduced (?as an informal group) by Boudreaux, 1979 and as a phylum by Hou & Bergström, 1995 (both with spelling and authorship "Lobopodia Snodgrass 1938"), although Snodgrass never used this term, merely "lobopod annelids" to describe a hypothetical ancestor of Onychophora, etc.; subsequently by Cavalier-Smith, 1998, as "Lobopoda phyl. nov." with Onychophora and Tardigrada as subphyla. If the latter two groups are treated as phyla, as per Ruggiero et al., 2015, Lobopoda can conceptually be viewed either as a superphylum (and is referred to thus in some works), or as a restricted phylum to cover just the fossil presumed ancestors of Onychophora and Tardigrada, which is the position taken by Hou & Bergström, under the name Lobopodia (not defined therein), and presently in IRMNG but using Cavalier-Smith's spelling, since (1) Cavalier-Smith was the first to formally erect the taxon as a phylum, (2) the spelling -ia ascribed to Snodgrass does not exist in his work, and (3) the ending -a (as opposed to -ia) is that generally used at phylum level, as per Arthropoda, Mollusca, Nematoda, etc. etc. The fossil lobopodians under consideration here (class Xenusia) are included within Onychophora by some workers. Note, recent work (cited in Ortega-Hernández, 2014) refutes any close connection between Onychophora and Tardigrada. [details]

This service is powered by LifeWatch Belgium
Learn more»