PART III.

RELATIONSHIP OF THE TRILOBITES TO OTHER ARTHROPODA.

It can not be said that the new discoveries of appendagiferous trilobites have added greatly to previous knowledge of the systematic position of the group. Probably none will now deny that trilobites are Crustacea, and more primitive and generalized than any other group in that cla.s.s. The chief interest at present lies in their relation to the most nearly allied groups, and to the crustacean ancestor.

Trilobites have been most often compared with Branchiopoda, Isopoda, and Merostomata, the present concensus of opinion inclining toward the notostracan branchiopods (Apodidae in particular) as the most closely allied forms. It seems hardly worth while to burden these pages with a history of opinion on this subject, since it was not until the appendages were fully made out, from 1881 to 1895, that zoologists and palaeontologists were in a position to give an intelligent judgment.

The present status is due chiefly to Bernard (1894), Beecher (1897, 1900, et seq.), and Walcott (1912, et seq.).

The chief primitive characteristics of trilobites are: direct development from a protaspis common to the subcla.s.s; variability in the number of segments, position of the mouth, and type of eyes; and serially similar biramous appendages.

The recent study has modified the last statement slightly, since it appears that in some trilobites there was a modification of the appendages about the mouth, suggesting the initiation of a set of tagmata.

In comparing the trilobites with other Crustacea, the condition of the appendages must be especially borne in mind, for while these organs are those most intimately in contact with the environment, and most subject to modification and change, yet they have proved of greatest service in cla.s.sification.

Appendages have been found on trilobites from only the Middle Cambrian and Middle and Upper Ordovician, but as the Ordovician was the time of maximum development of the group, it is probable that trilobites of later ages would show degradational rather than progressive changes.

All the genera which are known show appendages of the same plan, and although new discoveries will doubtless reveal many modifications of that plan, general inferences may be drawn now with some a.s.surance.

The chief characteristics of the appendages are: first, simple antennules, a primitive feature in all Crustacea, as shown by ontogeny; second, paired biramous appendages, similar to each other all along the body, the youngest and simplest in front of the a.n.a.l segment, the oldest and most modified on the cephalon. The endobases are retained on all the c.o.xopodites, except possibly, in some species, the anterior ones, and these gnathobases are modified in some genera as mouth-parts, while in others they are similar throughout the series. With these few fundamentals in mind, other Crustacea may be examined for likenesses. The differences are obvious.

Crustacea.

BRANCHIOPODA.

The early idea that the trilobites were closely related to the Branchiopoda was rejuvenated by the work of Bernard on the Apodidae (1892) and has since received the support of most writers on the subject. Fundamentally, a great deal of the argument seems to be that _Apus_ lies the nearest of any modern representative of the cla.s.s to the theoretical crustacean ancestor, and as the trilobites are the oldest Crustacea, they must be closely related. Most writers state that the trilobites could not be derived from the Branchiopoda (see, however, Walcott 1912 A), nor the latter from any known trilobite, but both subcla.s.ses are believed to be close to the parent stem.

Viewed from the dorsal side, there is very little similarity between any of the branchiopods and the trilobites, and it is only in the Notostraca, with their sessile eyes and depressed form, that any comparison can be made. The chief way in which modern Branchiopoda and Trilobita agree is that both have a variable number of segments in the body, that number becoming very large in _Apus_ on the one hand and _Mesonacis_ and _Paedeumias_ on the other. In neither are the appendages, except those about the mouth, grouped in tagmata. Other likenesses are: the Branchiopoda are the only Crustacea, other than Trilobita, in which gnathobases are found on limbs far removed from the mouth; the trunk limbs are essentially leaf-like in both, though the limb of the branchiopod is not so primitive as that of the trilobite; caudal cerci occur in both groups.

If the appendages be compared in a little more detail, the differences prove more striking than the likenesses.

In the Branchiopoda, the antennules are either not segmented or only obscurely so. In trilobites they are richly segmented.

In Branchiopoda, the antennae are variable. In the Notostraca they are vestigial, while in the males of the Anostraca they are powerful and often complexly developed claspers. Either condition might develop from the generalized biramous antennas of Trilobita, but the present evidence indicates a tendency toward obsolescence. Claus' observations indicate that the antennae of the Anostraca are developments of the exopodites, rather than of the endopodites.

The mandibles and maxillae of the Branchiopoda are greatly reduced, and grouped closely about the mouth. Only the c.o.xopodites of the Trilobita are modified as oral appendages.

The trunk limbs of _Apus_ are supposed to be the most primitive among the Branchiopoda, and comparison will be made with them. Each appendage consists of a flattened axial portion, from the inner margin of which spring six endites, and from the outer, two large flat exites (see fig. 34). This limb is not articulated with the ventral membrane, but attached to it, and, if Lankester's interpretation of the origin of schizopodal limbs be correct, then the limb of _Apus_ bears very little relation to that of the Trilobita. In _Apus_ there is no distinct c.o.xopodite and the endobases which so greatly resemble the similar organs in the Trilobita are not really h.o.m.ologous with them, but are developments of the first endite. Beecher's comparison of the posterior thoracic and pygidial limbs of _Triarthrus_ with those of _Apus_ can not be sustained. Neither _Triarthrus_ nor any other trilobite shows any trace of phyllopodan limbs. Beecher figured (1894 B, pl. 7, figs. 3, 4) a series of endopodites from the pygidium of a young _Triarthrus_ beside a series of limbs from a larval _Apus_.

Superficially, they are strikingly alike, but while the endopodites of _Triarthrus_ are segmented, the limbs of _Apus_ are not, and the parts which appear to be similar are really not h.o.m.ologous. The similarity of the thoracic limbs in the two groups is therefore a case of parallelism and does not denote relationship.

Geologically, the Branchiopoda are as old as the Trilobita, and while they did not have the development in the past that the trilobite had, they were apparently differentiated fully as early. Anostraca, Notostraca and Conchostraca, three of the four orders, are represented in the Cambrian by forms which are, except in their appendages, as highly organized as the existing species. Brief notes on the princ.i.p.al Middle Cambrian Branchiopoda follow:

=Burgessia bella= Walcott.

Ill.u.s.trated: Walcott, Smithson. Misc. Coll., vol. 57, 1912, p. 177, pl. 27, figs. 1-3; pl. 30, figs. 3, 4.

This is the most strikingly like the modern Branchiopoda of any species described by Walcott from the Middle Cambrian, and invites comparison with _Apus_. The carapace is long, loosely attached to the body, and extends over the greater part of the thorax. The eyes are small, sessile, and close to the anterior margin.

The appendages of the head consist of two pairs of antennae, and three pairs of slender, jointed legs. Both pairs of antennae are slender and many-jointed, the antennules somewhat smaller than the antennae. The exact structure of the limbs about the mouth has not yet been made out, but they are slender, tapering, endopodite-like legs, with at least three or four segments in each, and probably more.

There are eight pairs of thoracic appendages, each limb having the form of the endopodite of a trilobite and consisting of seven segments and a terminal spine. The proximal three segments of each appendage are larger than the outer ones, and have a flattened triangular expansion on the inner side. Walcott also states that "One specimen shows on seven pairs of legs, small, elongate, oval bodies attached near the first joint to the outer side of the leg. These bodies left but slight impression on the rock and are rarely seen. They appear to represent the gills." They are not figured, but taken in connection with the endopodite-like appearance of the segmented limbs, one would expect them to be vestigial exopodites.

A small hypostoma is present on the ventral side, and several of the specimens show wonderfully well the form of the alimentary ca.n.a.l and the hepatic caeca. The main branches of the latter enter the mesenteron just behind the fifth pair of cephalic appendages.

Behind the thorax the abdomen is long, limbless, and tapers to a point. It is said to consist of at least thirty segments.

Compared with _Apus_, _Burgessia_ appears both more primitive and more specialized. The carapace and limbless abdomen are _Apus_-like, but there are very few appendagiferous segments, and the appendages are not at all phyllopodan, but directly comparable with those of trilobites, except, of course, for the uniramous character of the cephalic limbs. A closer comparison may be made with _Marrella_.

=Waptia fieldensis= Walcott.

Ill.u.s.trated: Walcott, Smithson. Misc. Coll., vol. 57, 1912, p. 181, pl. 27, figs. 4, 5.

The carapace is short, covering the head and the anterior part of the thorax. The latter consists of eight short segments with appendages, while the six abdominal segments, which are similar to those of the thorax, are without limbs except for the last, which bears a pair of broad swimmerets. The eyes are marginal and pedunculate. The antennules are imperfectly known, but apparently short, while the antennas are long and slender, with relatively few, long, segments.

The mandibles appear to be like endopodites of trilobites and show at least six segments. As so often happens in these specimens from British Columbia, the preservation of the other appendages is unsatisfactory. As ill.u.s.trated (Walcott, 1912 A, pl. 27, fig. 5), both endopodites and exopodites appear to be present, and the shaft of the exopodite seems to be segmented as in _Triarthrus_.

Walcott considers _Waptia_ as a transitional form between the Branchiopoda and the Malacostraca.

=Yohoia tenuis= Walcott.

Ill.u.s.trated: Walcott, Smithson. Misc. Coll., vol. 57, 1912, p. 172, pl. 29, figs. 7-13.

This species, though incompletely known, has several interesting characteristics. The head shows, quite plainly in some specimens, the five segments of which it is composed. The eyes are small, situated in a niche between the first and second segments, and are described as being pedunculate. The eight segments of the thorax all show short triangular pleural extensions, somewhat like those of _Remopleurides_ or _Robergia_. The abdomen consists of four cylindrical segments, the last with a pair of expanded caudal rami.

The antennules appear to be short, while the antennas are large, with several segments, ending in three spines, and apparently adapted for serving as claspers in the male. The third, fourth, and fifth pairs of cephalic appendages are short, tapering, endopodite-like legs similar to those of _Burgessia_.

The appendages of the thorax are not well preserved, and there seem to be none on the abdomen.

This species is referred by Walcott to the Anostraca.

=Opabina regalis= Walcott.

Ill.u.s.trated: Walcott, Smithson. Misc. Coll., vol. 57, 1912, p. 167, pl. 27, fig. 6; pl. 28, fig. 1.

This most remarkably specialized anostracan is not well enough known to allow comparison to be made with other contemporaneous Crustacea, but it is worthy of mention.

There is no carapace, the eyes are pedunculated, thorax and abdomen are not differentiated, and the telson is a broad, elongate, spatulate plate. There seem to be s.e.xual differences in the form of the anterior cephalic and caudal appendages, but this is not fully established. The most remarkable feature is the long, large, median cephalic appendage which is so suggestive of the proboscis of the recent _Thamnocephalus platyurus_ Packard. The appendages are not well enough preserved to permit a determination as to whether they are schizopodal or phyllopodan.

_Summary._