The phylum of annelids is one of the most disparate animal phyla and encompasses ambush predators, suspension feeders and terrestrial earthworms1. The early evolution of annelids remains obscure or controversial2,3, partly owing to discordance between molecular phylogenies and fossils2,4. Annelid fossils from the Cambrian period have morphologies that indicate epibenthic lifestyles, whereas phylogenomics recovers sessile, infaunal and tubicolous taxa as an early diverging grade5. Magelonidae and Oweniidae (Palaeoannelida1) are the sister group of all other annelids but contrast with Cambrian taxa in both lifestyle and gross morphology2,6. Here we describe a new fossil polychaete (bristle worm) from the early Cambrian Canglangpu formation7 that we name Dannychaeta tucolus, which is preserved within delicate, dwelling tubes that were originally organic. The head has a well-defined spade-shaped prostomium with elongated ventrolateral palps. The body has a wide, stout thorax and elongated abdomen with biramous parapodia with parapodial lamellae. This character combination is shared with extant Magelonidae, and phylogenetic analyses recover Dannychaeta within Palaeoannelida. To our knowledge, Dannychaeta is the oldest polychaete that unambiguously belongs to crown annelids, providing a constraint on the tempo of annelid evolution and revealing unrecognized ecological and morphological diversity in ancient annelids.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $3.90 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
The phylogenetic dataset, and the commands and topological constraints necessary to run the MrBayes analyses, are included as NEXUS formatted files in the Supplementary Information.
Weigert, A. & Bleidorn, C. Current status of annelid phylogeny. Org. Divers. Evol. 16, 345–362 (2016).
Eibye-Jacobsen, D. & Vinther, J. Reconstructing the ancestral annelid. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 50, 85–87 (2012).
Parry, L., Vinther, J. & Edgecombe, G. D. Cambrian stem-group annelids and a metameric origin of the annelid head. Biol. Lett. 11, 20150763 (2015).
Sperling, E. A. et al. MicroRNAs resolve an apparent conflict between annelid systematics and their fossil record. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 4315–4322 (2009).
Weigert, A. et al. Illuminating the base of the annelid tree using transcriptomics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 31, 1391–1401 (2014).
Parry, L. A., Edgecombe, G. D., Eibye-Jacobsen, D. & Vinther, J. The impact of fossil data on annelid phylogeny inferred from discrete morphological characters. Proc. R. Soc. B 283, 20161378 (2016).
Zeng, H., Zhao, F., Yin, Z., Li, G. & Zhu, M. A Chengjiang-type fossil assemblage from the Hongjingshao Formation (Cambrian Stage 3) at Chenggong, Kunming, Yunnan. Chin. Sci. Bull. 59, 3169–3175 (2014).
Gabbott, S. E., Hou, X.-G., Norry, M. J. & Siveter, D. J. Preservation of Early Cambrian animals of the Chengjiang biota. Geology 32, 901–904 (2004).
Briggs, D. E. G. & Kear, A. J. Decay and preservation of polychaetes: taphonomic thresholds in soft-bodied organisms. Paleobiology 19, 107–135 (1993).
Parry, L. A., Eriksson, M. & Vinther, J. in Handbook of Zoology: Annelida. Volume 1: Annelida Basal Groups and Pleistoannelida, Sedentaria I (eds Purschke, G. et al.) 69–88 (De Gruyter, 2019).
Vinther, J., Eibye-Jacobsen, D. & Harper, D. A. An Early Cambrian stem polychaete with pygidial cirri. Biol. Lett. 7, 929–932 (2011).
Eibye-Jacobsen, D. A reevaluation of Wiwaxia and the polychaetes of the Burgess Shale. Lethaia 37, 317–335 (2004).
Liu, J. et al. Lower Cambrian polychaete from China sheds light on early annelid evolution. Sci. Nat. 102, 34 (2015).
Han, J., Conway Morris, S., Hoyal Cuthill, J. F. & Shu, D. Sclerite-bearing annelids from the lower Cambrian of South China. Sci. Rep. 9, 4955 (2019).
Parry, L. & Caron, J.-B. Canadia spinosa and the early evolution of the annelid nervous system. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax5858 (2019).
Parry, L. A., Edgecombe, G. D., Sykes, D. & Vinther, J. Jaw elements in Plumulites bengtsoni confirm that machaeridians are extinct armoured scaleworms. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20191247 (2019).
Helm, C. et al. Convergent evolution of the ladder-like ventral nerve cord in Annelida. Front. Zool. 15, 36 (2018).
Westheide, W. The direction of evolution within the Polychaeta. J. Nat. Hist. 31, 1–15 (1997).
Beckers, P. et al. The central nervous system of Oweniidae (Annelida) and its implications for the structure of the ancestral annelid brain. Front. Zool. 16, 6 (2019).
Struck, T. Direction of evolution within Annelida and the definition of Pleistoannelida. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 49, 340–345 (2011).
Huang, D. Y., Chen, J. Y., Vannier, J. & Saiz Salinas, J. I. Early Cambrian sipunculan worms from southwest China. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 1671–1676 (2004).
Carrillo-Baltodano, A. M., Boyle, M. J., Rice, M. E. & Meyer, N. P. Developmental architecture of the nervous system in Themiste lageniformis (Sipuncula): new evidence from confocal laser scanning microscopy and gene expression. J. Morphol. 280, 1628–1650 (2019).
Jones, M. L. On the morphology, feeding, and behavior of Magelona sp. Biol. Bull. 134, 272–297 (1968).
Mortimer, K. in Handbook of Zoology (eds Westheide, W. & Purschke, G.) (De Gruyter, 2019).
Allen, E. J. The anatomy of Poecilochaetus, Claparede. Q. J. Microsc. Sci. 48, 79–151 (1904).
Mills, K. & Mortimer, K. Observations on the tubicolous annelid Magelona alleni (Magelonidae), with discussions on the relationship between morphology and behaviour of European magelonids. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K. 99, 715–727 (2019).
Hausen, H. Chaetae and chaetogenesis in polychaetes (Annelida). Hydrobiologia 535/536, 37–52 (2005).
Barnes, R. D. Tube-building and feeding in the chaetopterid polychaete, Spiochaetopterus oculatus. Biol. Bull. 127, 397–412 (1964).
Ippolitov, A., Vinn, O., Kupriyanova, E. K. & Jäger, M. Written in stone: history of serpulid polychaetes through time. Mem. Mus. Vic. 71, 123–159 (2014).
Schiffbauer, J. D. et al. Discovery of bilaterian-type through-guts in cloudinomorphs from the terminal Ediacaran Period. Nat. Commun. 11, 205 (2020).
Nanglu, K. & Caron, J.-B. A new Burgess Shale polychaete and the origin of the annelid head revisited. Curr. Biol. 28, 319–326 (2018).
Lewis, P. O. A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. Syst. Biol. 50, 913–925 (2001).
Struck, T. H. et al. The evolution of annelids reveals two adaptive routes to the interstitial realm. Curr. Biol. 25, 1993–1999 (2015).
Andrade, S. C. et al. Articulating “archiannelids”: phylogenomics and annelid relationships, with emphasis on meiofaunal taxa. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 2860–2875 (2015).
Goloboff, P. A., Farris, J. S. & Nixon, K. C. TNT, a free program for phylogenetic analysis. Cladistics 24, 774–786 (2008).
This work was supported by NSFC grant 41861134032 and Yunnan Provincial grants 2015HA021, 2019DG050, 2015HC029 and 2018IA073. L.A.P. was supported by a YIBS Donolley Postdoctoral Fellowship. D.Z. is supported by the Key Research Program of the Institute of Geology & Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IGGCAS-201905). X.M. is supported by a Natural Environment Research Council Independent Research Fellowship (NE/L011751/1). We thank K. Chen and colleagues from the Yuhua subdistrict office in Chenggong for support in field collection, P. Cong, D. Wu, T. Zhao, Y. Zhao and M. Yin for help with fieldwork, X. Yang and H. Mai for SEM–EDX technical support, R. Zhou for micro-computed tomography scanning, D. Eibye-Jacobsen for providing detailed comments on an earlier version of this manuscript and for his continued support and valuable mentorship, and R. Nicholls for the artistic reconstruction of D. tucolus shown in Fig. 4b.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature thanks Conrad Helm, Kate Mortimer, Mark D. Sutton and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data figures and tables
a, Entire specimen YKLP 11382a, including a possible posterior region. b, Possible posterior region from the region shown in a. c, YKLP 11382a, boxes show regions used for details of the head and interpretative drawing and fluoresence microscopy. d, Interpretative drawing of the specimen shown in c. e, YKLP 11382b. Image shows the regions used in SEM–EDX mapping and fluorescence microscopy. f, Magnification of the anterior region, showing the prostomial lobe and palp attachment. g, Interpretative drawing of the region shown in f, showing major anatomical features. The colour scheme is as in Fig. 1f. The palp attachment was inferred with additional information from the counterpart. h, SEM–EDX elemental maps. Element names for each map are shown in the bottom right corner. i, Fluorescence image showing the anterior region of the body in YKLP 11382b, including the gut, palps and putative blood lacuna. j, Fluorescence image of the putative blood lacuna in YKLP 11382a. k, Magnification of the posterior fragment associated with the holotype with parapodial lamellae. bl, blood lacuna.
a, Specimen YKLP 11393b, for which the anterior region, dwelling tube and a partial abdomen are preserved. b, Specimen YKLP 11393a, for which the anterior region, dwelling tubes and a partial abdomen are preserved. c, Specimen YKLP 11393b. Magnification of the anterior region (boxed area shown in a). The white arrowheads indicate the tube margins. d, Interpretative drawing of the region shown in c. e, Magnification of the prostomium and palps shown in c. f, Specimen YKLP 11393a. Magnification of the anterior region (boxed area shown in b). The white arrowheads indicate the tube margins. g, Magnification of the same region as in f, imaged using fluorescence microscopy. h, Interpretative drawing of the region shown in f and g. i, Poorly preserved abdominal region, from the region shown in a, imaged using direct light. j, Same region as in i, imaged using fluorescence microscopy. k, Poorly preserved abdominal region, from the region shown in b, imaged using direct light. l, Same region as in k, imaged using fluorescence microscopy. m, Thoracic chaetiger showing parapodia and chaetae from the region shown in b. n, Thoracic chaetiger showing parapodia and chaetae from the region shown in a.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Additional details of specimen YKLP 11383, preserved inside a dwelling tube parallel to the bedding.
a, YKLP 11383a midbody fragment preserved inside a dwelling tube, part. b, Interpretative drawing of the specimen shown in a, regions demarcated by black and blue brackets represent decayed and well-preserved regions of the body fossil, respectively. c, YKLP 11383b, midbody fragment preserved inside a dwelling tube, counterpart. d, Interpretative drawing of the specimen shown in c. e, Magnification of a well-preserved region of YKLP 11383a as shown in a, showing 11 chaetigers preserved inside the dwelling tube. f, SEM backscatter image of a similar region to EDX maps shown in Fig. 3f, showing bright grains that are associated with the tube and body fossil. The arrowheads indicate the left tube margin and pyritized tube wall. g, Section of the fossil shown in a photographed under low-angle light to indicate the relief of the dwelling tube. h, Section of the fossil shown in c photographed under low-angle light to indicate the relief of the dwelling tube. i, Magnification of three chaetiger regions of the region shown in e. j, Same region as in i, photographed using fluorescence microscopy. k, Magnification of the individual parapodium shown in j, photographed using fluorescence microscopy.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Specimens YKLP 11385a, YKLP 11387 and YKLP 11401, showing effaced specimens preserved in dwelling tubes.
a, YKLP 11385a, anterior fragment comprising the thorax and abdomen preserved inside dwelling tube. b, YKLP 11387a, anterior fragment preserving the thorax and abdomen. c, YKLP 11387b, anterior fragment preserving the thorax and abdomen. d, Magnification of the abdominal chaetigers in YKLP 11387a, from the region shown in b. The white filled arrows indicate the tube margins. e, Same region as in d imaged using fluorescence microscopy. f, YKLP 11401, effaced specimen preserved in a dwelling tube, including the putative blood lacuna. g, Magnification of the region shown in f, showing the gut and possible blood lacuna. Brackets in a–c and f indicate the position of the thoracic region.
Extended Data Fig. 5 Additional details of specimen YKLP 11389, showing details of parapodia, parapodial lamellae and the posterior region.
a, YKLP 11389b, counterpart, posterior fragment preserving parapodia and chaetae. b, YKLP 11389a, part showing preservation of lateral parapodial lamellae. c, Magnification of five chaetigers from the region shown in a. d, Magnification of chaetiger from the region shown in c. e, Magnification of chaetiger in d. f, Magnification of chaetiger, preserving the parapodial lamellae from the region shown in b. g, Chaetigers preserving the parapodial lamellae from the region shown in b. h, Same region as in g, showing the parapodial lamellae, imaged using fluorescence microscopy. i, Posterior region as shown in a, with putative pygidial cirri. j, Magnification of putative pygidial cirri in i. k, same region as in j, imaged using fluorescence microscopy. plm, parapodial lamella; pyc, pygidial cirri.
a, YKLP 11384a (the part), a whole specimen in a dwelling tube. The white arrowheads indicate the tube margin. b, YKLP 11384b (the counterpart), a whole specimen in a dwelling tube. The white arrowheads indicate the tube margin. c, Details of YKLP 11384b, showing putative blood lacuna and gut. The white and black arrowheads indicate the tube and body margins, respectively. d, Same view as in c, but imaged using fluorescence microscopy. Note the thick appearance of the tube margin. e, Detail of YKLP 11384a, showing the preservation of the tube wall, indicated by white arrowheads.
a, Full results of unconstrained analysis under the mki + gamma model. The topology shows a majority rule consensus tree, the scale bar is in units of expected number of substitutions per site, the numbers at the nodes are posterior probabilities. b, Full results of an analysis with constraints from phylogenomics under the mki + gamma model. The topology shows a majority rule consensus tree, the scale bar is in units of expected number of substitutions per site and the numbers at the nodes are posterior probabilities.
a, Strict consensus tree (length 1,071) of parsimony analysis without topological constraints, numbers at the nodes are support from bootstrapping, jack-knifing and Bremer decay. b, Strict consensus of trees inferred using implied weighting with k = 10 (tree score 46.14190), numbers at the nodes are relative frequencies from symmetric resampling.
This file contains Supplementary Materials – Phylogenetic analyses and data.
Character taxon matrix in NEXUS format. Morphological dataset for annelids and their close relatives including 143 taxa and 364 characters. This file contains character and state name information that is readable by Mesquite.
Morphological dataset including MrBayes commands. Morphological matrix in NEXUS format that is readable by MrBayes. This file contains the necessary commands to run the analyses both with and without topological constraints.
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, H., Parry, L.A., Vinther, J. et al. A Cambrian crown annelid reconciles phylogenomics and the fossil record. Nature 583, 249–252 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2384-8