Trilobita

Definition and stakes

Sir A. E. Shipley,  The Cambridge natural history, Vol… (1909)

“ The view [196] that some connexion may exist between the Isopoda and the Trilobita seems to have been based on the similar dorso-ventral flattening of the body, its division into three regions—head, thorax, and abdomen—and the presence of sessile eyes. Beyond this it is difficult to find any resemblance; whilst the differences, such as the variable number of thoracic segments and their biramous appendages in Trilobites, are important. ”
Source: Gutenberg

Percy E. Raymond,  The Appendages, Anatomy, and Relationships of Trilobites

“ These relationships have been emphasized by Walcott, who derives the Eurypterida through the Limulava and the Aglaspina from the Trilobita. The Limulava may be derived from the Trilobita, but indicate a line somewhat different from that of the remainder of the Crustacea. In this line the second cephalic appendages do not become antennæ. and the axial lobe seems to broaden out, so that the pleural lobes become an integral part of the body. As in the modern Crustacea, the pygidium is reduced to the anal plate, and this grows out into a spine-like telson. ”
Source: Gutenberg

Percy E. Raymond,  The Appendages, Anatomy, and Relationships of Trilobites

“ In Isopoda the antennæ are practically uniramous sensory organs. The second cephalic appendages of trilobites are capable of such development through reduction of the exopodite.
In the Isopoda the coxopodites are usually fused with the body, remaining as free, movably articulated segments only in a part of the thoracic legs of one suborder, the Asellota. Endobases are entirely absent. This is of course entirely unlike the condition in Trilobita, but a probable modification.
”
Source: Gutenberg

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature