2004
DOI: 10.1666/0022-3360(2004)078<0359:rotaec>2.0.co;2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recognition of the Asteroid (Echinodermata) Crown Group: Implications of the Ventral Skeleton

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

5
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The actinals develop as gusset plate systems. The development of actinal gusset plate systems is developmentally secondary to marginals and adambulacrals (Hotchkiss & Clark 1976, Blake & Hotchkiss 2004). The actinals are not adjacent to the terminal plate.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The actinals develop as gusset plate systems. The development of actinal gusset plate systems is developmentally secondary to marginals and adambulacrals (Hotchkiss & Clark 1976, Blake & Hotchkiss 2004). The actinals are not adjacent to the terminal plate.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We instead find the marginals and abactinals of Porania antartica Smith to be remarkably similar (using another such term) to those of N. barberoi based on direct specimen comparisons (Blake et al 2000, figs. 1-4;Blake & Hotchkiss 2004, fig. 1.2).…”
Section: Interpretation Of a Meager But Important Fossil Ecordmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, given phrasing difficulties, another criterion is important. Although Gale (2011a: 65) acknowledged that the original interpretation of Noriaster barberoi was "largely on the basis of similarities of ossicle arrangement of the actinal surface with that family," he did not note the crucial alignment of the actinal ossicles with the marginal frame, an expression emphasized in poraniids by Hotchkiss and Clark (1976) and reviewed for asteroids of all ages by Blake and Hotchkiss (2004). Such alignment is suggested in certain members of the Porcellanasteridae (Madsen 1961) but it is otherwise unknown beyond the poraniids and forcipulataceans, and it thereby provides an objective rather than a subjective criterion.…”
Section: Interpretation Of a Meager But Important Fossil Ecordmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The basis for much of the controversy over the functional morphology of Palaeozoic starfish is that the phylogenetic relationships of the Asteroidea are poorly understood. It is generally agreed that all Palaeozoic taxa belong to the stem (Blake, 1987; Gale, 1987; Blake & Guensburg, 1990; Donovan & Gale, 1990; Blake, Janies & Mooi, 2000; Blake & Hotchkiss, 2004; Shackleton, 2005), with crown‐group starfish known only from the post‐Permian, but no consensus has been reached as to which are the most basal extant asteroids. Some authors (e.g.…”
Section: Implications Of Supernumerary Rays In Lepidastermentioning
confidence: 99%