中国科学院南京地质古生物研究所机构知识库

简述Claraia tumida(Patte)的研究历史,依据共模标本再度描述研究其右壳的足丝凹口特征。《中国的瓣鳃类化石》一书中曾描述的本种的半轮状"足丝凹口",实际上是完全依照裂缝或破口的痕迹修剪而成,与真正的足丝凹口并无关系。这一虚假的"足丝凹口"近年来曾被广泛引用,企图借以证明本种和克氏蛤属也发育了Claraioides型足丝凹口。凡是由这个虚假的"足丝凹口"派生而来的观点和推论都不能成立。

The original photo of the species Claraia tumida published by Patte(1935, p. 22, pl. 2, fig. 4 b, accession number: NIGP 6442) has clearly shown the typical Claraia-type byssal notch(also see text-fig. 1-1 a-1-1 d, 1-1 f of this paper). But Gu Zhi-wei et al.(Editorial Group on "The Lamellibranch Fossils of China", 1976, p. 201, pl. 33, fig. 13, also see text-fig. 1-1 e of this paper) cut the photo according to the crevasse traces(please compare with black arrows in text-fig. 1-1 b, 1-1 d and 1-1 f for confirming their positional relationship), so that they got a false "byssal notch" of a half wheel shape in ‘The Lamellibranch Fossils of China". This so-called "byssal notch" has been widely cited in recent years as a "real" Claraioides-type byssal notch(Yang et al., 2001;Gao et al., 2004, 2009;He et al., 2007, 2014). However, this "byssal notch" has been turn out to be false herein and it has nothing to do with the real byssal notch. The species of Claraia tumida does not develop the Claraioides-type byssal notch. Therefore, all the views and inferences derived from the false "byssal notch" of Claraia tumida may not be valid, such as the "Scatter plot of measured characters" of He et al.(2007, p. 1013, Fig. 4) using the measurement data of the false "byssal notch" of Claraia tumida, and their related conclusion on "progressive morphological changes" in Claraia(also including Claraioides) from the early Changhsingian to the Induan(He et al., 2007, p. 1017, Fig. 6;2014;Ros-Franch et al., 2014), losing their necessary basis too. There is no so-called intermediate transition type has been found between Claraia-type and Claraioides-type byssal notches so far, which represent two different mode of byssal notch development in Claraia-like species, indicating that they are two separate and parallel evolutionary lineages. In addition, the genera Claraia and Claraioides had never coexisted in geological and geographical distribution, and there is no possibility of establishing an evolutionary relationship between them(Fang, 2003, 2004, 2010;Fang in Fang et al., 2009).