ABSTRACT. A low diversity fossil assemblage dominated by Mongolitubulus spines, from the Early Cambrian Geres Member of the Shabakhty Formation at Koksu, Malyi Karatau, Kazakhstan, enables identi®cation of its sclerite variability within the scleritome. No other sclerotised structures could be matched with the spines, indicating that these were the only sclerotised part of the body and were periodically shed. The prominent spines of Mongolitubulus have a scale-like external ornamentation and ®brous internal structure. Possibly they armed the body of a lobopodian similar to Xenusion. The Mongolitubulus spines belong to a series of Cambrian phosphatic fossils, the other end members of which are sclerites of Microdictyon, the second most abundant component of the Koksu assemblage. The latter super®cially resemble schizochroal trilobite eyes, but in life covered the dorso-lateral sides of the body segments, as is evident from complete specimens from the Chinese Chengjiang locality. A pair of sclerites of Microdictyon, representing uncompleted exuviation, from Koksu show that each hole originally contained a non-phosphatised lenticular body. This makes a compound eye nature of the Microdictyon sclerites likely, and even their homology with arthropod eyes cannot be excluded.KEY WORDS: lobopodians, sclerites, Early Cambrian, Kazakstan.A F T E R more than 30 years of extensive research on Cambrian phosphatic and secondarily phosphatised skeletal microfossils, initiated by the classic works of Rozanov and Missarzhevsky (1966) and Rozanov et al. (1969), a lot of assembled information on isolated sclerites awaits anatomical interpretation. How risky it is to use such data to restore soft anatomy is strikingly exempli®ed by discoveries of complete fossil organisms (or recognition of earlier ®nds) which were the bearers of sclerites of the HadimopanellaMilaculum type (Kraft and Mergl 1989; Hinz et al. 1990;Conway Morris 1997), Microdictyon (Chen et al. 1989, 1995 or Halkieria (Conway Peel 1990, 1995). In all of these cases earlier attempts to guess the relationships of the fossils failed. The real anatomy has appeared too bizarre to be inferred from the limited morphological evidence provided by sclerites alone. Even now, for only a fraction of the Cambrian sclerites can zoological af®liations be offered. To wait, however, for the discovery of complete soft body fossils for many other kinds of sclerites would not be practical. Working hypotheses on af®nities and function of isolated sclerites are of use simply to guide the search for more complete fossils. In fact, sclerites are usually poorly preserved in otherwise exquisitely preserved soft bodied fossils. One approach to interpretation, which has a long tradition, is to arrange the data into a morphology transition series with forms of known relationships included as end-members. Its reliability depends on the speci®city of the morphology, how much of the series of morphologic transformations is complete, and how much time and space separate particular links of the cha...