Home > Worthenella cambria
Worthenella cambria (USNM 57643) – Holotype, part and counterpart. Left, plate 22 of Walcott (1911), showing a retouched image of the original specimen described (figure 2) together with other “worms.” Right, images of the same specimen. Specimen length = 60 mm. Specimen wet – direct light (left column), dry – polarized light (right column). Walcott Quarry.
© SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION – NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. PHOTOS: JEAN-BERNARD CARON
Worthenella has long remained problematic (Briggs & Conway Morris 1986). Legg (2013) proposed that it was a multisegmented “great-appendage” arthropod and formally included it within Megacheira. However, the taxon has remained marginal to recent discussions on early arthropod evolution and phylogenetic analyses, probably because the unique specimen is challenging to interpret and does not provide definitive evidence of its affinity.
Worthenella – Possibly after the American palaeontologist Amos Henry Worthen, who died in 1888, just as Walcott’s career was taking off.
cambria – from the Welsh Cambria meaning Wales, in reference to the age of the fossil.
Burgess Shale and vicinity: none
Other deposits: none
The Walcott Quarry on Fossil Ridge.
Worthenella was first described by Walcott from a single specimen in a 1911 monograph dealing with various Burgess Shale worms. Walcott interpreted this animal as a polychaete annelid (or bristle worm), in the same family as the animal Wiwaxia (which is now interpreted as a stem mollusc). However, This interpretation was questioned (Conway Morris, 1979), and the affinities of Worthenella have remained difficult to establish because this singular fossil is too poorly known (Briggs and Conway Morris, 1986). In light of comparisons with other known Cambrian taxa, Legg (2013) included Worthenella in the class Megacheira, positing the existence of a pair of “great appendages” at the front of the animal.
The animal is very elongate and tubular, bearing a small head and at least 46 segments of similar size, possibly biramous. Longer appendages are present under the head shield, but their precise nature and arrangement is difficult to determine. The gut is straight and the anus is terminal.
This animal is known from a single specimen.
This arthropod was likely eating small organic particles or preying on minute prey items on the sea floor. The lack of detailed information on appendage morphology precludes further ecological interpretations.
None