The ontogeny of trilobite segmentation: a comparative approach

By N. Hughes, A. Minelli, G. Fusco. Paleobiology, 2006

141 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Oceanography, Paleontology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8341e438d3e8e7e2a28a07daf5f6e5bddfe4b2b7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Oceanography

1. Andreas Maas
2. J. Haug
3. Yu Liu
4. C. Haug
5. N. Hughes
6. D. Waloszek

In Paleontology

1. J. Haug
2. Andreas Maas
3. Yu Liu
4. C. Haug
5. D. Waloszek
6. N. Hughes

Citations in the corpus

• †Henningsmoenicaris scutula, †Sandtorpia vestrogothiensis gen. et sp. nov. and heterochronic events in early crustacean evolution (2009, background): “The condition of the caudal end in stage seven and stage eight fulfils the definition of a pygidium according to Hughes et al. 2006: ‘. . . conjoined segments posterior to the last trunk articulation, regardless of ontogenetic stage, specific identity or ultimate fate.’”
• The Evolution of Trilobite Body Patterning (2007, background): “The development of the facial suture marked the onset of the protaspid phase, followed by the separation of the cephalon and the trunk at the neck joint, marking onset of the meraspid phase (Hughes et al. 2006).”
• Functional morphology, ontogeny and evolution of mantis shrimp‐like predators in the Cambrian (2012, background): “Ontogenetic data for trilobites are obtained from dorsal hard parts only (Hughes et al. 2006, 2008).”