Skip to main content
PeerJ logoLink to PeerJ
. 2022 Oct 10;10:e14185. doi: 10.7717/peerj.14185

A new bilaterally injured trilobite presents insight into attack patterns of Cambrian predators

Ruiwen Zong 1,, Russell DC Bicknell 2
Editor: Kenneth De Baets
PMCID: PMC9558619  PMID: 36248717

Abstract

Durophagous predation in the Cambrian is typically recorded as malformed shells and trilobites, with rarer evidence in the form of coprolites and shelly gut contents. Reporting novel evidence for shell-crushing further expands the understanding of where and when in the Cambrian durophagy was present. To expand the current documentation and present new records of malformed trilobites from the Cambrian of China, we present an injured Redlichia (Pteroredlichia) chinensis from the lower Cambrian Balang Formation, western Hunan, South China. The specimen has two distinct injuries along the thorax. The injuries show different degrees of regeneration, suggesting that the specimen was attacked twice. We propose that the individual may have been targeted more readily for the second attack. This predatory approach would have been highly energy efficient, maximizing net energy gain during the attack.

Keywords: Predation, Regeneration, Redlichia, Cambrian, South China

Introduction

Biomineralized trilobite exoskeleton was constructed from two layers of low magnesium calcite (Wilmot & Fallick, 1989; Hughes, 2007). Due to this construction, trilobites had a markedly durable dorsal exoskeleton when compared to most other Paleozoic euarthropods (Hughes, 2007). Although this cuticular construction protected the soft-bodied sections, these exoskeletons were still susceptible to damage from shell crushing (durophagous) predators and boring organisms especially post-molting, during the soft- and paper-shell stages (e.g.Owen, 1985; Babcock, 1993; Pratt, 1998; Zamora et al., 2011; Fatka, Budil & Grigar, 2015; Pates et al., 2017; Bicknell & Paterson, 2018; Bicknell & Pates, 2020; De Baets et al., 2021). This is evidence by the recorded in malformed and injured specimens (Owen, 1985). These injuries provide insight into Paleozoic predation strategies, predator–prey interactions, evolution of trilobite morphology and behavior, and Paleozoic foodwebs (Babcock & Robison, 1989; Babcock, 1993; Babcock, 2003; Babcock, 2007; Nedin, 1999; Brett & Walker, 2002; Brett, 2003; Bicknell & Paterson, 2018; Bicknell et al., 2022a).

While there have been rare instances of accidental injuries (Rudkin, 1985), the majority injured Cambrian and Ordovician trilobites are attributed to failed predation (Owen, 1985; Babcock, 1993; Bicknell & Paterson, 2018; Bicknell et al., 2021; Bicknell et al., 2022a). Within this fossil record, most injured specimens show unilaterally expressed injuries (Babcock, 1993; Bicknell & Paterson, 2018 and their references), with rarer evidence of multiple injuries across the exoskeleton (e.g.Šnajdr, 1979; Conway Morris & Jenkins, 1985; Ou et al., 2009; Pates & Bicknell, 2019; Bicknell & Holland, 2020; Bicknell & Pates, 2020; Bicknell et al., 2021; Bicknell et al., 2022a). Determining whether specimens with multiple injuries record one or multiple failed attacks is complex. However, the extent of exoskeletal regeneration can be considered a proxy for understanding the timing of attacks and subsequent recovery (e.g.Cheng et al., 2019; Zong, 2021a). To expand on this line of enquiry, we describe a malformed redlichiid trilobite from the Cambrian-aged Balang Formation (western Hunan, South China). This specimen shows a bilaterally expressed malformation and is used to explore patterns of trilobite regeneration, presenting new insight into early Cambrian predation strategies.

Materials and Methods

The examined specimen was collected from the Balang Formation, Huayuan County, Xiangxi Autonomous Prefecture, Hunan Province (Fig. 1). The Balang Formation is widely distributed in eastern Guizhou and northwestern Hunan, and is comprised of fine calcareous clastic rocks with limited limestone interbeds or lenses. The formation was therefore likely deposited in a shelf to slope environment (Fig. 1; Yin, 1996; Liang et al., 2017). The formation is located within the Arthricocephalus chauveaui-Changaspis elongata zone, which corresponds to the Cambrian Series 2, Stage 4 (Peng, 2009; Qin et al., 2010). The Balang Formation has yielded a diverse, exceptionally preserved fauna including radiodonts, trilobitomorphs, bivalved arthropods, worms, chancelloriids, cnidarians, echinoderms, and algae (Peng et al., 2005; Liu & Lei, 2013). Trilobites from this formation consist of primarily oryctocephalids, redlichiids, and ptychopariids that are arrayed across ten genera (Peng et al., 2018; Chen, 2019). The Balang redlichiids consist of four species (including one subspecies) within a Redlichia subgenus (Liang et al., 2017; Chen & Zhao, 2018), and the dominate taxon is Redlichia (Pteroredlichia) chinensis (Walcott, 1905). The dark gray calcareous shale of the Balang Formation in western Hunan has yielded a large number of well-preserved R. (Pteroredlichia) chinensis (Zong, 2021b). The malformed individual was assigned to this species and represents an internal mold of R. (Pteroredlichia) chinensis. The examined specimen was coated with magnesium oxide for photography. All photographs were taken with a Nikon D5100 camera using a Micro-Nikkor 55 mm F3.5 lens. Specimen measurements were made with ImageJ software (Schneider, Rasband & Eliceiri, 2012). The specimen is housed in the State Key Laboratory of Biogeology and Environmental Geology, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan) (BGEG).

Figure 1. Geological background map of study area and location of the fossil site.

Figure 1

(A) Cambrian sedimentary facies zones of South China (modified from Zhao et al., 1993). (B) Map of fossil site at Huayuan County, Xiangxi Autonomous Prefecture, Hunan Province. (C) Stratigraphic series showing relative position and age of the Balang Formation (modified from Zhu et al., 2021).

Results

The described specimen (BGEG-HXB-02) is an articulated exoskeleton lacking free cheeks and is therefore likely an exuvia (Daley & Drage, 2016; Drage, 2019). Two malformations along the thorax are noted (Fig. 2A). The more anterior malformation is an asymmetrical V-shaped indentation along the fourth and fifth pleural segments of the left pleural lobe showing limited cicatrization (Fig. 2B). The distal section of the fourth pleural segment is lacking a pleural spine, truncated by ∼1.8 mm. The pleural furrow of this segment is slightly S-shaped. The fifth thoracic segment is truncated by ∼2.9 mm and reduced abaxially. Distal section of this segment is rounded and reduced by ∼50% relative to the undamaged sixth pleural segment. The pleural furrow of this segment is also slightly distorted. Additionally, the third segment on the left side was rotated anteriorly and positioned under the second pleural segment. As this rotated segment lacks shortening or distortion (Fig. 2C), this reflects either taphonomic alteration or displacement during molting (Zong, 2021a).

Figure 2. Injured Redlichia (Pteroredlichia) chinensis (Walcott, 1905) from the Balang Formation (Cambrian Series 2, Stage 4), Hunan, South China.

Figure 2

(A) Complete specimen (BGEG-HXB-02) showing two injuries. (B, C) Close-up of the injury on the left pleural lobe. (B) V-shaped indentation. (C) Same as B showing overlap of the second (yellow) and third (red) pleural segments and injury (blue). (D, E) Close-up of injury on right pleural lobe. (D) U-shaped indentation. (E) Same as D showing injury (blue). Abbreviation: ts., thoracic segment.

The second malformation is a U-shaped indentation located across the seventh to ninth pleural segments on the right pleural lobe (Figs. 2D and 2E). The seventh and eight segments are truncated by ∼1.8 mm and ∼2.6 mm, respectively. The ninth segment is truncated by 2.5 mm, and the distal portion is narrower when compared to the ninth segment on the left pleural lobe. All malformed segments have reduced pleural spines that are ∼50% smaller when compared to undamaged segments, indicating pleural spine regeneration (Pates et al., 2017).

Discussion

Several factors likely produced malformations in trilobites. These include failed predation or molting resulting in injuries, developmental malformations producing teratologies, and pathological infections (e.g., Šnajdr, 1978; Rudkin, 1985; Owen, 1985; Babcock, 1993; Babcock, 2003; Owen & Tilsley, 1996; Chen, 2011; Fatka, Budil & Grigar, 2015; Bicknell & Pates, 2020; Bicknell & Smith, 2021; De Baets et al., 2021; Zong, 2021b). Morphologically comparable abnormalities are observed in modern arthropods (Juanes & Smith, 1995; Brandt, 2002; Pandourski & Evtimova, 2005; Pandourski & Evtimova, 2009; Hopkins & Das, 2015; Bicknell, Pates & Botton, 2018; Bicknell et al., 2022b; Das et al., 2021; De Baets et al., 2021), supporting the hypotheses that trilobites experienced similar malformations as extant species. Abnormal trilobite and horseshoe crab specimens with U-, V- or W-shaped breakages, reduced segments, and evidence of cicatrization or regeneration are considered indicative of non-lethal predation (Šnajdr, 1978; Babcock, 1993; Nedin, 1999; Zhu et al., 2007; Bicknell & Paterson, 2018; Bicknell, Pates & Botton, 2018; Bicknell et al., 2022a; Pates & Bicknell, 2019; Bicknell & Pates, 2020; Zong, 2021b). Two indentations documented here are V- and U-shaped with cicatrization on the left injury and pleural spine regeneration on the right injury. Given this, we confidently assign these indentations to failed predation within the Balang Formation. More importantly, these injuries show distinctly different stages of recovery (Fig. 2).

Trilobites are thought to have recovered from injury in an antero-posterior manner, such that anterior segments show markedly more recovery than posterior sections (e.g., Šnajdr, 1981; Conway Morris & Jenkins, 1985; Babcock, 1993; McNamara & Tuura, 2011). This pattern is common to modern arthropods and annelids and is controlled by segmentation polarity genes (McNamara & Tuura, 2011). In BGEG-HXB-02, the anterior injury shows cicatrization, but no evidence for segment regeneration. This presents an apparent conundrum. If we assume the injuries were incurred at the same time, we directly contradict fundamental theories on arthropod development (McNamara & Tuura, 2011). The most parsimonious explanation for the observed pattern is that the posterior injury was incurred first. This injury was able to regenerate before the more anterior injury was incurred.

The presence of two injuries from two distinct attacks demonstrates that Cambrian trilobites could have experienced multiple attacks during their life cycle. This has important implications for Cambrian predator–prey systems, especially with comparison to modern systems. Extant predators in both terrestrial and marine ecosystems will target weaker prey within a population as these individuals require less energy in predation and likely represent a more successful attack (Temple, 1987; Mesa et al., 1994; Hethcote et al., 2004; Peharda & Morton, 2006; Genovart et al., 2010). It seems that predation targeting more vulnerable individuals had therefore arisen in the Cambrian and may have allowed the first durophages to maximizing net energy gain (i.e., energy derived from prey after accounting for energy lost during predation; Forsman, 1996; Gosselin & Chia, 1996) during predation. Finally, the rarity of trilobite specimens with multiple distinct injuries likely reflects an increased rate of successful predation, and a higher rate of mortality in previously injured individuals.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the constructive comments from Kenneth McNamara, Jean Vannier, Oldřich Fatka and editor Kenneth De Baets that improved the clarity and scope of the manuscript.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 42072041), an Australian Research Council grant (DP200102005) and a University of New England Postdoctoral Fellowship. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Additional Information and Declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare there are no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Ruiwen Zong conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Russell D.C. Bicknell performed the experiments, analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Data Availability

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The raw data are available in Figures 1 and 2.

The specimen is stored in the State Key Laboratory of Biogeology and Environmental Geology, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China: BGEG-HXB-02.

References

  • Babcock (1993).Babcock LE. Trilobite malformations and the fossil record of behavioral asymmetry. Journal of Paleontology. 1993;67(2):217–229. doi: 10.1017/S0022336000032145. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Babcock (2003).Babcock LE. Trilobites in Paleozoic predatorprey systems, and their role in reorganization of early Paleozoic ecosystems. In: Kelley PH, Kowalewski M, Hansen TA, editors. Predator–prey interactions in the fossil record. Spinger; New York: 2003. pp. 55–92. [Google Scholar]
  • Babcock (2007).Babcock LE. Role of malformations in elucidating trilobite paleobiology: a historical synthesis. In: Mikulic DG, Landing E, Kluessendorf J, editors. Fabulous fossils—300 years of worldwide research on trilobites. The University of State of New York; New York: 2007. pp. 3–19. [Google Scholar]
  • Babcock & Robison (1989).Babcock LE, Robison RA. Preferences of Palaeozoic predators. Nature. 1989;337(23):695–696. doi: 10.1038/337695c0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Bicknell & Holland (2020).Bicknell RDC, Holland B. Injured trilobites within a collection of dinosaurs: using the royal tyrrell museum of palaeontology to document Cambrian predation. Palaeontologia Electronica. 2020;23:a33. doi: 10.26879/1087. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Bicknell et al. (2022a).Bicknell RDC, Holmes JD, Pates S, García-Bellido DC, Paterson JR. Cambrian carnage: trilobite predator–prey interactions in the Emu Bay Shale of South Australia. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 2022a;591:110877. doi: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2022.110877. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Bicknell & Paterson (2018).Bicknell RDC, Paterson JR. Reappraising the early evidence of durophagy and drilling predation in the fossil record: implications for escalation and the Cambrian Explosion. Biological Reviews. 2018;93(2):754–784. doi: 10.1111/brv.12365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Bicknell & Pates (2020).Bicknell RDC, Pates S. Exploring abnormal Cambrian-aged trilobites in the Smithsonian collection. PeerJ. 2020;8:e8453. doi: 10.7717/peerj.8453. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Bicknell, Pates & Botton (2018).Bicknell RDC, Pates S, Botton ML. Abnormal xiphosurids, with possible application to Cambrian trilobites. Palaeontologia Electronica. 2018;21(2):1–17. doi: 10.26879/866. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Bicknell et al. (2022b).Bicknell RDC, Pates S, Kaiser D, Zakrzewski S, Botton ML. Applying records of extant and extinct horseshoe crab abnormalities to xiphosurid conservation. In: Tanacredi JT, Botton ML, Shin PKS, Iwasaki Y, Cheung SG, Kwan KY, Mattei JH, editors. International horseshoe crab conservation and research efforts: 2007–2020—conservation of horseshoe crabs species globally; Berlin. 2022b. pp. 85–104. [Google Scholar]
  • Bicknell & Smith (2021).Bicknell RDC, Smith PM. Teratological trilobites from the Silurian (Wenlock and Ludlow) of Australia. The Science of Nature. 2021;108:58. doi: 10.1007/s00114-021-01766-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Bicknell et al. (2021).Bicknell RDC, Smith PM, Bruthansová J, Holland B. Malformed trilobites from the Ordovician and Devonian. Paläontologische Zeitschrift. 2021;96:1–10. doi: 10.1007/s12542-021-00572-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Brandt (2002).Brandt DS. Ecydsial efficiency and evolutionary efficacy among marine arthropods: Implications for trilobite survivorship. Alcheringa. 2002;26(3):399–421. doi: 10.1080/03115510208619264. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Brett (2003).Brett CE. Durophagous predation in Paleozoic marine benthic assemblages. In: Kelley PH, Kowalewski M, Hansen TA, editors. Predator–prey interactions in the fossil record. Springer; New York: 2003. pp. 401–432. [Google Scholar]
  • Brett & Walker (2002).Brett CE, Walker SE. Predators and predation in Paleozoic marine environments. Paleontological Society Papers. 2002;8:93–118. doi: 10.1017/S1089332600001078. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Chen (2011).Chen GY. PhD Thesis. 2011. The Silurian trilobite Coronocephalus gaoluoensis Wu from western Hunan: its features, exuviation and abnormalities; pp. 1–93. [Google Scholar]
  • Chen (2019).Chen ZP. Master Thesis. 2019. The trilobite biostratigraphy of the Cambrian Series 2, Stage 4 in Jianhe County, Guizhou Province; pp. 1–73. [Google Scholar]
  • Chen & Zhao (2018).Chen ZP, Zhao YL. Trilobite Redlichia from the Cambrian Tsinghsutung Formation (Series 2, Stage 4) of Eastern Guizhou, South China. Journal of Guizhou University (Natural Sciences) 2018;35(4):54–61. [Google Scholar]
  • Cheng et al. (2019).Cheng MR, Han J, Ou Q, Zhang ZF, Guo J, Zhang XL. Injured trilobite Eoredichia intermedia from the Early Cambrian Chengjiang biota. Acta Palaeontologica Sinica. 2019;58(4):425–435. doi: 10.19800/j.cnki.aps.2019.04.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Conway Morris & Jenkins (1985).Conway Morris S, Jenkins RJF. Healed injuries in early Cambrian trilobites from South Australia. Alcheringa. 1985;9(3):167–177. doi: 10.1080/03115518508618965. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Daley & Drage (2016).Daley AC, Drage HB. The fossil record of ecdysis, and trends in the moulting behaviour of trilobites. Arthropod Structure & Development. 2016;45(2):71–96. doi: 10.1016/j.asd.2015.09.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Das et al. (2021).Das S, Tripathy B, Subramanian KA, Bicknell RDC. On abnormal Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda (Latreille, 1802)(Chelicerata: Xiphosurida) from the Indian Sundarbans and possible conservation directions. Arthropoda Selecta. 2021;30(1):63–88. doi: 10.15298/arthsel.30.1.06. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • De Baets et al. (2021).De Baets K, Budil P, Fatka O, Geyer G. Trilobites as hosts for parasites: from paleopathologies to etiologies. In: De Baets K, Huntley JW, editors. The evolution and fossil record of parasitism: coevolution and paleoparasitological techniques. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2021. pp. 173–201. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Drage (2019).Drage HB. Quantifying intra- and interspecific variability in trilobite moulting behaviour across the Palaeozoic. Palaeontologia Electronica. 2019;22.2.34:1–39. doi: 10.26879/940. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Fatka, Budil & Grigar (2015).Fatka O, Budil P, Grigar L. A unique case of healed injury in a Cambrian trilobite. Annales de Paleontologie. 2015;101(4):295–299. doi: 10.1016/j.annpal.2015.10.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Forsman (1996).Forsman A. Body size and net energy gain in gape-limited predators: a model. Journal of Herpetology. 1996;30(3):307–319. doi: 10.2307/1565167. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Genovart et al. (2010).Genovart M, Negre N, Tavecchia G, Bistuer A, Parpal L, Oro D. The young, the weak and the sick: evidence of natural selection by predation. PLOS ONE. 2010;5(3):e9774. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009774. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Gosselin & Chia (1996).Gosselin LA, Chia F-S. Prey selection by inexperienced predators: do early juvenile snails maximize net energy gains on their first attack? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 1996;199(1):45–58. doi: 10.1016/0022-0981(95)00190-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Hethcote et al. (2004).Hethcote HW, Wang W, Han L, Ma Z. A predator–prey model with infected prey. Theoretical Population Biology. 2004;66(3):259–268. doi: 10.1016/j.tpb.2004.06.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hopkins & Das (2015).Hopkins PM, Das S. Regeneration in crustaceans. In: Chang ES, Thiel M, editors. The natural history of the Crustacea. Oxford University Press; Oxford: 2015. pp. 168–198. [Google Scholar]
  • Hughes (2007).Hughes NC. The evolution of trilobite body patterning. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. 2007;35(1):401–434. doi: 10.1146/annurev.earth.35.031306.140258. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Juanes & Smith (1995).Juanes F, Smith LD. The ecological consequences of limb damage and loss in decapod crustaceans: a review and prospectus. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 1995;193(1–2):197–223. doi: 10.1016/0022-0981(95)00118-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Liang et al. (2017).Liang BY, Peng J, Wen RQ, Liu S. Ontogeny of the trilobite Redlichia (Pteroredlichia) chinensis (Walcott, 1905) from the Cambrian Balang Formation. Acta Palaeontologica Sinica. 2017;56(1):25–36. [Google Scholar]
  • Liu & Lei (2013).Liu Q, Lei QP. Discovery of an exceptionally preserved fossil assemblage in the Balang Formation (Cambrian Series 2, Stage 4) in Hunan, China. Alcheringa. 2013;37(2):269–271. doi: 10.1080/03115518.2013.764663. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • McNamara & Tuura (2011).McNamara KJ, Tuura ME. Evidence for segment polarity during regeneration in the Devonian asteropygine trilobite Greenops widderensis. Journal of Paleontology. 2011;85(1):106–110. doi: 10.2307/23019504. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Mesa et al. (1994).Mesa MG, Poe TP, Gadomski DM, Petersen JH. Are all prey created equal? A review and synthesis of differential predation on prey in substandard condition. Journal of Fish Biology. 1994;45(Supplement A):81–96. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.1994.tb01085.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Nedin (1999).Nedin C. Anomalocaris predation on nonmineralized and mineralized trilobites. Geology. 1999;27(11):987–990. doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(1999)027<0987:APONAM. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Ou et al. (2009).Ou Q, Shu DG, Han J, Zhang XL, Zhang ZF, Liu JN. A juvenile redlichiid trilobite caught on the move: evidence from the Cambrian (Series 2) Chengjiang Lagerstätte, southwestern China. Palaios. 2009;24(7):473–477. doi: 10.2110/palo.2008.p08-105r. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Owen (1985).Owen AW. Trilobite abnormalities. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences. 1985;76(2–3):255–272. doi: 10.1017/s0263593300010488. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Owen & Tilsley (1996).Owen AW, Tilsley JW. An abnormal pygidium of the trilobite Brachymetopus ornatus Woodward from the Lower Carboniferous of Derbyshire. Geological Journal. 1996;31(4):389–392. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1034(199612)31:4<389::AID-GJ718>3.0.CO;2-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Pandourski & Evtimova (2005).Pandourski I, Evtimova V. Teratological morphology of copepods (Crustacea) from Iceland. Acta Zoologica Bulgarica. 2005;57(3):305–312. [Google Scholar]
  • Pandourski & Evtimova (2009).Pandourski I, Evtimova V. Morphological variability and teratology of lower crustaceans (Copepoda and Branchiopoda) from circumpolar regions. Acta Zoologica Bulgarica. 2009;61(1):55–67. [Google Scholar]
  • Pates & Bicknell (2019).Pates S, Bicknell RDC. Elongated thoracic spines as potential predatory deterrents in olenelline trilobites from the lower Cambrian of Nevada. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 2019;516(15):295–306. doi: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2018.12.013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Pates et al. (2017).Pates S, Bicknell RDC, Daley AC, Zamora S. Quantitative analysis of repaired and unrepaired damage to trilobites from the Cambrian (Stage 4, Drumian) Iberian Chains, NE Spain. Palaios. 2017;32(12):750–761. doi: 10.2110/palo.2017.055. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Peharda & Morton (2006).Peharda M, Morton B. Experimental prey species preferences of Hexaplex trunculus (Gastropoda: Muricidae) and predator–prey interactions with the Black mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis (Bivalvia: Mytilidae) Marine Biology. 2006;148:1011–1019. doi: 10.1007/s00227-005-0148-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Peng (2009).Peng J. PhD Thesis. 2009. The Qiandongian (Cambrian) Balang Fauna from eastern Guizhou, South China; pp. 1–137. [Google Scholar]
  • Peng et al. (2018).Peng SC, Babcock LE, Zhu XJ, Dai T. A new oryctocephalid trilobite from the Balang Formation (Cambrian Stage 4) of northwestern Hunan, South China, with remarks on the classification of oryctocephalids. Palaeoworld. 2018;27(3):322–333. doi: 10.1016/j.palwor.2018.04.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Peng et al. (2005).Peng J, Zhao YL, Wu YS, Yuan JL, Tai TS. The Balang Fauna—a new early Cambrian fauna from Kaili City, Guizhou Province. Chinese Science Bulletin. 2005;50(11):1159–1162. doi: 10.1360/982005-183. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Pratt (1998).Pratt BR. Probable predation on Upper Cambrian trilobites and its relevance for the extinction of soft-bodied Burgess Shale-type animals. Lethaia. 1998;31(1):73–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1502-3931.1998.tb00493.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Qin et al. (2010).Qin Q, Peng J, Fu XP, Da Y. Restudy of Changaspis (Lee), 1961 from Qiandongian (Early Cambrian) Balang Formation near eastern Guizhou, south China. Acta Plaeontological Sinica. 2010;49(2):220–230. [Google Scholar]
  • Rudkin (1985).Rudkin DM. Exoskeletal abnormalities in four trilobites. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. 1985;22(3):479–483. doi: 10.1139/e85-047. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Schneider, Rasband & Eliceiri (2012).Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nature Methods. 2012;9(7):671–675. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2089. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Šnajdr (1978).Šnajdr M. Anomalous carapaces of Bohemian paradoxid trilobites. Sborník geologických věd, Paleontologie. 1978;20:7–31. [Google Scholar]
  • Šnajdr (1979).Šnajdr M. Two trinucleid trilobites with repair of traumatic injury. Věstník Ústředního ústavu geologického. 1979;54(1):49–50. [Google Scholar]
  • Šnajdr (1981).Šnajdr M. Bohemian Proetidae with malformed exoskeletons (Trilobita) Sborník Geologických Věd Paleontologie. 1981;24:37–60. [Google Scholar]
  • Temple (1987).Temple SA. Do predators always capture substandard individuals disproportionately from prey populations? Ecology. 1987;68(3):669–674. doi: 10.2307/1938472. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Walcott (1905).Walcott CD. Cambrian faunas of China. Proceedings of the United States National Museum. 1905;29(1415):1–106. doi: 10.5479/si.00963801.1415. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Wilmot & Fallick (1989).Wilmot NV, Fallick AE. Original mineralogy of trilobite exoskeletons. Palaeontology. 1989;32(2):297–304. [Google Scholar]
  • Yin (1996).Yin GZ. Division and correlation of Cambrian in Guizhou. Guizhou Geology. 1996;13(2):115–128. [Google Scholar]
  • Zamora et al. (2011).Zamora S, Mayoral E, Esteve J, Gámez-Vintaned JA, Santos A. Exoskeletal abnormalities in paradoxidid trilobites from the Cambrian of Spain, and a new type of bite trace. Bulletin of Geosciences. 2011;86(3):665–673. doi: 10.3140/bull.geosci.1275. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhao et al. (1993).Zhao YL, Yuan JL, Zhang ZH, Mao JR, Huang YZ, Gong XY, Wang K. Preliminary study of the Kaili Formation and its synchronous strata in the transitional belt of South China. Journal of Stratigraphy. 1993;17(3):171–178. [Google Scholar]
  • Zhu et al. (2007).Zhu XJ, Peng SC, Du SX, Hu YS. Ontogeny and malformation of Tamdaspis jingxiensis sp. nov. (trilobite, Cambrian) from Jingxi, Guangxi, China. Acta Palaeontologica Sinica. 2007;46(2):225–231. [Google Scholar]
  • Zhu et al. (2021).Zhu MY, Sun ZX, Yang AH, Yuan JL, Li GX, Zhou ZQ, Zhang JM. Lithostratigraphic subdivision and correlation of the Cambrian in China. Journal of Stratigraphy. 2021;45(3):223–249. doi: 10.19839/j.cnki.dcxzz.2021.0022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Zong (2021a).Zong RW. Injuries and molting interference in a trilobite from the Cambrian (Furongian) of South China. PeerJ. 2021a;9:e11201. doi: 10.7717/peerj.11201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Zong (2021b).Zong RW. Abnormalities in early Paleozoic trilobites from central and eastern China. Palaeoworld. 2021b;30(3):430–439. doi: 10.1016/j.palwor.2020.07.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The raw data are available in Figures 1 and 2.

The specimen is stored in the State Key Laboratory of Biogeology and Environmental Geology, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China: BGEG-HXB-02.


Articles from PeerJ are provided here courtesy of PeerJ, Inc

RESOURCES