Basic info Taxonomic history Classification Included Taxa
Morphology Ecology and taphonomy External Literature Search Age range and collections

Palaeobolus liantuoensis

Lingulata - Lingulida - Obolidae

Taxonomy
Palaeobolus liantuoensis was named by Zeng (1987). It is not extant.

Synonymy list
YearName and author
1987Palaeobolus liantuoensis Zeng
2015Palaeobolus liantuoensis Zhang et al. pp. 6-8 fig. 4

Is something missing? Join the Paleobiology Database and enter the data

RankNameAuthor
kingdomAnimalia()
Bilateria
EubilateriaAx 1987
Protostomia
Spiralia
superphylumLophotrochozoa
Lophophorata
PanbrachiopodaCarlson and Cohen 2020
phylumBrachiopodaCuvier 1805
RankNameAuthor
subphylumLinguliformeaWilliams et al. 1996
classLingulataGorjansky and Popov 1985
orderLingulidaWaagen 1885
superfamilyLinguloideaMenke 1828
familyObolidaeKing 1846
subfamilyObolinaeKing 1846
genusPalaeobolus
speciesliantuoensisZeng 1987

If no rank is listed, the taxon is considered an unranked clade in modern classifications. Ranks may be repeated or presented in the wrong order because authors working on different parts of the classification may disagree about how to rank taxa.

show all | hide all
Diagnosis
ReferenceDiagnosis
Z. Zhang et al. 2015The shell valves are biconvex and equivalved, circular in outline. They are relatively large, with a maximum width at mid-valve, about 12.8 mm from the posterior margin. The maximum shell length is approximately 13.6 mm. The pseudointerareais not preserved, most likely due to the strong compression andflattening during preservation. It is apparent that there are some impressions delineated by reddish-grown tints of haematite, probably representing some remains of soft tissues. Just beyond the posteromedian margin of the shell, there is a rope-like structurewith annulations, interpreted as the pedicle (Fig. 4.1, 4.3). The number of annulations is estimated to be 8–10 in the preserved 2.3 mm long proximal pedicle (Fig. 4.3). The pedicle is thin and around 1.1 mm in width, approximately 8.6% of shell width. There is no evidence of a coelomic canal in the preserved pedicle.