The Royal Ontario Museum and Parks Canada gratefully acknowledge the financial investment by the Department of Canadian Heritage in the creation of this website for the Virtual Museum of Canada.
The Royal Ontario Museum and Parks Canada gratefully acknowledge the financial investment by the Department of Canadian Heritage in the creation of this website for the Virtual Museum of Canada.
Grant Proposal, Concept and Research, Content Supervision and Creation, Validation:
Jean-Bernard Caron
Project Manager:
Jason French
Producer:
David Smillie
Assistant Producers:
Peter Fenton
Amanda Govan (intern)
Scientific Writers (Fossil Gallery):
Jean-Bernard Caron
Allison Daley
Lorna O’Brien
Sean Robson
David Rudkin
Martin Smith
Writers (History):
Jacques Lavoie (Historical Context)
David Rudkin (The Early Royal Ontario Museum Connection: Sir Edmund Walker)
External Reviewers (Science Texts and/or Media):
Derek Briggs
Robert Gaines
Marc Laflamme
Alex Page
Michael Streng
Jean Vannier
Editors:
David Rudkin
Sara Scharf
Martin Smith
Rachel Thorpe
Interpretive Planning:
Richard Lahey
Library and Archives:
Arthur Smith
Historian:
Arni Brownstone
Learning Object Collection on the VMC Teachers’ Centre Website (Agora):
Bethany Kempster (Science)
Jacques Lavoie (History)
French Translation:
Dominique Picouet (Co-Ordinator)
Lorraine Boury
Lucie Chevalier
Louis Émond
Serge Gagné
Patrice Joubert
Newart (Rose) Sarkisyan
Marianne Symoens
Monique Tanton-Lawson
Scientific Reconstructions (drawings):
Marianne Collins (Artoffact)
Digital Reconstructions and Animations:
Jilli and Lars Fields (Phlesch Bubble)
Graphic Design:
Jacquie Jeanes (intern)
Video Reviews:
Randy Dreager
Web Support:
Daniel Harris
Website Design:
Daniel Harris
Ismael Cifuentes
Donnel Lao
Website Development & Technical Support:
Victor Diaz
Acknowledgements:
Special thanks to the following individuals for allowing access and photography of collections including archives: Doug Erwin from the Smithsonian Institution (National Museum of Natural History), Daniel Miller from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor (Museum of Paleontology), and Jean Dougherty from the Geological Survey of Canada in Ottawa.
We also thank Sarah Stauderman from the Smithsonian Institution Archives, for allowing access to the Walcott archives and use of historical images, Erin Younger, the great grand-daughter of Charles Walcott, for allowing use of her family images, and Stefan Bengtson (Swedish Museum of Natural History), Nick Butterfield (Cambridge University), Robert Gaines (Pomona College), Jim Gehling (The Museum Board of South Australia), David Harper (Natural History Museum of Denmark), Jihpai Lin, Maoyan Zhu and Fangchen Zhao (Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chinese Academy of Science), John Paterson (University of New England), John Peel (Uppsala University), and Jean Vannier (University of Lyon) for images of fossils or landscapes.
Harvard University, the Canadian Pacific Railway Archives, the University of British Columbia, Rare Books and Special Collections, the McCord Museum, the Palaeontological Association and the Royal Society provided additional images.
Alex Kolesch (Co-ordinator)
Sarah Fabbri
Amy Krause
Deborah Griffith
Adele Laramee
The Whyte Museum of the Canadian Rockies provided images (free of charge) for the historical section of this website, special thanks to Ted Hart and Elizabeth Kundert-Cameron.
The Canadian Geoscience Education Network and the Columbia Basin Environment Education Network helped promote this website as a resource to their members.
In 1990, noted palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould spoke at the Royal Ontario Museum about the fossils of the Burgess Shale. While many of Gould’s interpretations have been challenged, his talk provides a snapshot of how the organisms were viewed then. (6:20)
So this is Marrella. I should say that arthropods are classified primarily by numbers of segments and patterns in their various body parts.
And here’s Marrella, it’s an arthropod that doesn’t fit into any group. It has these two sets of spines… there it is. It doesn’t have any allegiance.
So Whittington was puzzled when he first published on Marrella in 1971 but he went on and the next creature he studied was Yohoia.
Looked like a shrimp, had been called one by Walcott, and again, as Whittington studied it with care, it just didn’t fit into any modern group. It looks like a shrimp superficially, but when you start counting the segments you don’t have anything like the crustacean body plan.
For instance, up in the head you have this unique set of frontal appendages which have no homologue anywhere else in the arthropods. Whittington ended up calling them simply “the great appendages” because he didn’t know what to do with them.
This is Odaraia, a creature that swims on its back and has a tail fluke that looks more like a whale than an arthropod, but again, not allied to anything.
Looked vaguely like a swimming crustacean, but isn’t when you look at the segments and their patterns of the tail.
This is Sidneyia, which was described by Walcott as a chelicerate, that is a member of the horseshoe crab, eventually the spider-scorpion group. And in some superficial sense that’s what it looks like. But in detail it isn’t.
All chelicerates have six pairs of appendages on their head. Sidneyia has one pair. It’s not like anything… just these antennae… it’s not like anything else… it is just is what it is.
This is Habelia, an odd creature…
… with tubercules all over its body.
This is Leanchoilia, my personal favourite for elegance, but not among the survivors.
Again, these odd great appendages, as Whittington calls them, with their whiplash endings.
This is Aysheaia.
Now, this creature is probably an onychophore, that is it is a member of a modern group symbolized by the genus with the wonderful name Peripatus, which is a not very well known group, but it’s thought to be possibly intermediary between annelids and arthropods and may be the ancestor of the insect group. So here we may have a creature that is truly related to one of the surviving groups of arthropods.
And here is a form that Des Collins found and initially gave a field name, following paleontological tradition…
… he called it “Santa Claws”. And eventually named it Sanctacaris, which means much the same thing. Now again, does it look any different than the ones I just showed you?
Would you have picked out this creature for success? Could you have predicted that this, by virtue of superiority would go on? Yet it looks as though Sanctacaris really is a chelicerate.
There are six pairs of appendages in the right place on the head so this animal may be at least a cousin to one of the successful lineages. Again, would you have known? Could anyone have known?
This is Opabinia. Opabinia, I think, should stand as one of the great moments in the history of human knowledge.
Because Opabinia, which was described as an arthropod, a shrimp-like creature, by Walcott, who shoehorned it into modern groups as he always did. Opabinia was the first creature re-studied by Whittington that broke the conceptual dam, so to speak, and gave insights into this new world.
Because Whittington began his studies in the early 1970s on Opabinia thinking it would be an arthropod. He realizes, as Walcott did not, that there was some three-dimensionality in these creatures, that they were not just films on the rock.
That he could therefore dissect through and find structures underneath. So he said “Now I can resolve this, I’ll dissect through the body and find the appendages underneath which will prove its arthropod nature. He dissected through and he found nothing. There are no appendages.
And as he reconstructed Opabinia, he came to understand it is not an arthropod, it is some bizarre creature of its own unique anatomy. And in publishing a monograph on Opabinia in 1975 I think you have the breakthrough point in the new interpretation of the Burgess Shale.
Here is Marianne’s picture of Opabinia, a bizarre creature with five-count them, five-eyes, this vacuum-cleaner like nozzle with a food-collecting device in front, this bellows-like apparatus behind, followed by a tail. I don’t know what it is. It’s just weird.
This is Nectocaris, a peculiar creature that looks like a chordate behind, combined with a fin ray…
… and more like an octopod in the front. Who knows?
This is Dinomischus, a peculiar, stalked, stemmed creature…
… with no known affinity to anything else.
This is Odontogriphus, literally meaning “the toothed mystery” a good name.
A flat, gelatinous, annulated creature with a row of tooth-like structures surrounding a mouth and a pair of sensory palps.
Walcott described three separate genera which he allocated, as was his wont, according to the shoehorn, into three conventional groups.
This animal he called a jellyfish and called Peytoia.
This creature he called a sea cucumber and called Laggania.
And this, which had been described before and looks like the body of an arthropod, he called (it had been named before) Anomalocaris, meaning “the odd shrimp”. Well I think that you’ve guessed it already.
It turns out that all three go together. They form a single creature which is one of the weirdest of all the odd animals of the Burgess.
It’s also the largest Cambrian organism. Some specimens are almost a metre in length.
The so-called jellyfish is the mouth of this creature, working on a circular, nutcracker principle rather than the jaw of vertebrates principle.
The Anomalocaris itself turns out to be one of a pair of feeding appendages, and the so-called sea cucumber is the body of the whole animal.