identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
926387DBFFA3CA3CFF388532FD47121D.text	926387DBFFA3CA3CFF388532FD47121D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lotagnostus	<div><p>Deficiencies of Lotagnostus for defining the base of Cambrian Stage 10</p> <p>Contrary to the claim of Peng et al. (2015, p. 302) that “… Lotagnostus americanus provides the same favorable characteristics as other agnostoids such as Ptychagnostus atavus, Lejopyge laevigata, Glyptagnostus reticulatus, and Agnostotes orientalis … ”, multiple studies on Laurentian occurrences of Lotagnostus, including our own, have established that it lacks several of the indispensable attributes that made those four species suitable for defining the bases of global Cambrian stages. First of all, the taxonomy of Lotagnostus is far more controversial. Secondly, in addition to the strongly divergent opinions among specialists regarding the acceptable range of morphologic variation within L. americanus, which in our view is best restricted to the holotype for the reasons already noted and discussed in greater detail in Systematic Paleontology, Lotagnostus was not as broadly distributed environmentally. Unlike the four agnostoids already in use as indices for global stages, whose environmental tolerances allowed them to occupy shallower waters where they were preserved in association with the endemic taxa of many paleocontinents, Lotagnostus in Laurentia was largely restricted to very deep/cold waters of lower slope and basinal settings (Figure 6). We know not only within which zone the First Appearance Datum (FAD) of those other agnostoid species lie in Laurentia, but where within those zones, often to subzone level. In contrast, neither the fauna from the Hales, nor our rich faunas from the Windfall Formation, contain any taxa that constrain the position of the equivalent horizon in shallow Laurentian successions to less than approximately half a stage Figure 8). This is an unacceptable level of imprecision on one of the major Cambrian paleocontinents for a global stage boundary. Selection of a Lotagnostus - based GSSP for the base of Cambrian Stage 10 despite these shortcomings would be particularly unfortunate given the availability of an alternative horizon that does not suffer from such deficiencies; the FAD of the conodont Eoconodontus notchpeakensis (Landing et al., 2011; Miller et al., 2011, 2015).</p> <p>Systematics</p> <p>Repositories. Types and illustrated specimens collected by J.F. Taylor and Loch are housed in the Carnegie Museum of Natural History (CM), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania or National Collection of Invertebrate and Plant Fossil Types (GSC) in Ottawa, Canada. Re-illustrated specimens from collections of The Natural History Museum, London bear the prefix NHM. Trilobites collected by M.E. Taylor and conodonts illustrated herein are reposited at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (USNM): conodont specimens from collections 5/22/08C and 5/22/08D are assigned USNM locality numbers USGS CO-12121 and USGS CO-12122, respectively.</p> <p>Methods and Terminology. Trilobite specimens were inked and whitened with magnesium oxide in preparation for photography. Abundance data are provided in a cranidia-pygidia-librigenae (C-P-L) format. Measurements used in morphologic comparisons were made digitally on enlarged images, utilizing dimensions acquired with a calibrated microscope ocular. Ratio values are calculated means; minimum and maximum values are presented parenthetically. Morphologic terms used are those recommended by Whittington (1997) with additional reference to Robison (1982) and Shergold et al. (1990) for aspects of agnostoid morphology. Usage of open nomenclature follows that recommended by Bengtson (1988) wherein “cf.” denotes possible but uncertain assignment to the species designated, and “aff.” is used to identify a similar but definitely separate species.</p> <p>In describing the partitioning of the pygidial axis in Lotagnostus, we interpret the furrows that bound the central lobe of the tripartite M1 as forward extensions of the longitudinal furrows that trisect M2, rather than following Westrop &amp; Landing (2016) and Tortello (2018), who suggested that they represent the anterior deflection of F1 to intersect the articulating furrow. We note that Innitagnostus Opik (1967, text-fig. 12, pl. 58, figs 3–4), another member of the Subfamily Agnostinae, exhibits a complete, transaxial F1 furrow while the anterior lobe still appears trisected. Moreover, F1 shallows over the midline in larger pygidia of L. rushtoni (e.g. Plate 12.11).</p> <p>Length ratios for basal glabellar lobes: The utility of the length of basal glabellar lobes for discrimination of species within Lotagnostus has been debated at length. Some (Ludvigsen et al., 1989; Rushton (2009); Westrop et al., 2011) consider it a useful character while others (Peng et al., 2015) dismiss the variation in that feature as primarily taphonomic. In their critique, Peng et al. (2015, fig. 10) utilized a ratio designated the BLL:PGL, calculated by dividing the total length of the basal lobe by the length of the posteroglabella. In the present study, we employed a superior metric referred to herein as the EBL/APL ratio, which compares the lengths of the basal lobe and posteroglabella measured along different lines (Figure 10.1). The Exsagittal Basal lobe Length (EBL) is the distance from the anterior-most point (the tip) of the basal lobe to the posterior margin (back of the basal lobe) measured parallel to the midline. It differs from the Basal Lobe Length (BLL) of Peng et al. (2015, fig. 10) in being measured along an exsagittal line, rather than spanning the total length from the anteriormost to posteriormost points regardless of whether they lie along the same line parallel to the midline. The Axial Posteroglabella Length (APL) is the distance along the midline from the center of F3 to the glabellar culmination. For specimens with a node at the glabellar termination, the measurement was to the base of the node. It differs from the Posteroglabellar Length (PGL) of Peng et al. (2015) in being measured along the midline, rather than exsagittally from the back of the basal lobe to the intersection of F3 with the axial furrow.</p> <p>The EBL/APL ratio (Figure 10.2) is typically higher than the BLL/PGL ratio for the same cephalon because the denominator is greater, due to 1) the anterior convexity of F3, which places its junction with the axial furrow junction farther forward than where it crosses the midline and 2) the most posterior point at the back of the basal lobe commonly lying some distance behind the glabellar culmination. Conversely, the length of the basal lobe measured exsagittally (EBL) is commonly somewhat less than the total length, not constrained to a line parallel to the axis (PGL), but that difference is small compared to the difference between the APL and PGL.</p> <p>The EBL/APL ratio has several advantages over the BLL/PGL ratio. First, it is based on two totally independent lengths of basal lobe and posteroglabella, whereas the length of the posteroglabella in the PGL is commonly in part controlled by the length of the basal lobes. The PGL also can be affected by the position of the basal lobes if they are situated far enough back that their posterior margins lie behind the glabellar culmination. This relationship becomes more problematic when, as is commonly the case, the basal lobes are displaced by compaction and/or tectonic deformation. Such displacement does not distort the EBL/APL ratio. An advantage of the EBL over the BLL is that measurement of the latter is problematic in some agnostoids whose basal lobes merge adaxially with the occipital band behind the axis with no clearly defined boundary between those two elements. Consequently, a specific, posteriormost point on the back of the basal lobe is not determinable.</p> <p>Phylum Arthropoda Siebold &amp; Stannius, 1845</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFFA3CA3CFF388532FD47121D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFFA1CA3DFF38817EFA1C130C.text	926387DBFFA1CA3DFF38817EFA1C130C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Oleninae Burmeister 1843	<div><p>Subfamily Oleninae Burmeister, 1843</p> <p>Discussion. We follow Henningsmoen (1957) and Ludvigsen (1982) in considering the Subfamily Triarthrinae Ulrich in Bridge, 1930 as a junior subjective synonym of the Oleninae Burmeister, 1843.</p> <p>......Plate legend provided on the next page</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFFA1CA3DFF38817EFA1C130C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFFAFCA32FF3885F8FD701146.text	926387DBFFAFCA32FF3885F8FD701146.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bienvillia Clark 1924	<div><p>Bienvillia Clark, 1924</p> <p>Type species. Dikelocephalus? corax Billings, 1865, by original designation, from the Lévis Formation, Quebec, Canada.</p> <p>Emended diagnosis. Olenine with moderately inflated glabella with well impressed S1 and S2 lateral glabellar furrows, S3 and S4 faintly impressed to absent, S3 not reaching axial furrow, and S4 directed anteriorly adaxially; occipital node present; preglabellar field convex and declined from axial furrow, very short anterior border; anterior branch of facial suture convergent anterior to palpebral lobe. Modified from Rasetti (1944), C. Poulsen (in Harrington (1959), and Ludvigsen and Tuffnell (1983).</p> <p>Other species. Bienvillia angelini (Linnarsson, 1869); B. shinetonensis (Lake, 1913); B. rectifrons (Harrington, 1938); B. tetragonalis (Harrington, 1938); B.? australis (Rusconi, 1951a); B. terranovica Rasetti, 1954; B. parchaensis (Harrington &amp; Leanza, 1957); B. stikta Fortey, 1974; B. grandis Robison &amp; Pantoja-Alor, 1968; B. cf. B. corax Ludvigsen et al., 1989; B. eurekensis n. sp.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFFAFCA32FF3885F8FD701146	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFFAFCA31FF3883D0FD9C15C4.text	926387DBFFAFCA31FF3883D0FD9C15C4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bienvillia eurekensis Taylor & Loch & Repetski 2024	<div><p>Bienvillia eurekensis n. sp.</p> <p>(Plate 3)</p> <p>Diagnosis. A species of Bienvillia with a subrectangular glabella with evenly rounded anterolateral corners, a long preglabellar field that is equal in length (sag.) to that of the occipital ring, and S1 lateral glabellar furrows that do not connect across the axis.</p> <p>Etymology. Named after Eureka County, Nevada.</p> <p>Material and occurrence. Holotype CM 41320 is a cranidium from collection 5/22/08B; assigned specimens include 4 cranidia CM 41321-41324, 1 pygidium CM41326, and 1 librigena CM 41325 from collection 5/22/08B; and 3 cranidia USNM 775713–775715, 1 pygidium USNM 775717, and 1 librigena USNM 775716 from USGS collection D3362-CO. Lotagnostus nolani Fauna: collections 5/22/08B (139-1-9) and D3362-CO (12-1-4) from the Windfall Formation at Ninemile Canyon, Nevada.</p> <p>Description. Cranidium subtrapezoidal in outline; of moderate size compared to associated polymeroids, up to 6mm in length; moderate in convexity (sag., tr.). Prominent subrectangular glabella with evenly rounded anterolateral corners, glabellar length exclusive of occipital ring 60% of total cranidial length (59-65%); glabellar length (sag.) 83% (79-89%) of maximum glabellar width (tr.); slightly keeled in some specimens, moderately convex (tr.) to stand in moderate relief above adjacent fixigenae, slightly convex (sag.) to descend gently into preglabellar furrow. Axial furrows moderately impressed, subparallel along glabella, curved adaxially from occipital furrow to posterior margin forming rounded posterolateral extremity to occipital ring. Preglabellar furrow moderately impressed, slightly shallowing and widening across midline. Four pairs of lateral glabellar furrows: S1 well impressed, slightly shallowed abaxially, curved, slightly greater than 33% maximum glabellar width, terminate adaxially in short (tr.), transverse segment; S2 well impressed, slightly shallowed abaxially, curved, approximately 33% maximum glabellar width; S3 absent or very faintly impressed, slightly curved, short (tr.), 10-15% of maximum glabellar width, positioned in front of proximal half of S2; S4 absent or very faintly impressed, nearly straight, short, 15- 20% of maximum glabellar width, directed antero-laterally at approximately 20 degrees from transverse line from intersection with axial furrow opposite proximal end of eye ridge. Occipital furrow tripartite with central, anteriorly convex, slightly shallower and wider (sag.) segment constituting 40% of width (tr.); lateral segments well impressed, directed slightly anteriorly abaxially, nearly reaching the axial furrow. Occipital ring moderate in length (sag.), 18% (16-22%) of cranidial length; low, slightly elongate occipital node of moderate size centered near midlength (sag.). Anterior margin an even curve viewed dorsally, low anterior arch in anterior view. Anterior border a narrow (sag.), upturned rim, less than 5% of cranidial length, very gently tapering abaxially; anterior border furrow faintly to moderately impressed, shallowing across midline. Preglabellar field moderate in length (sag.), 18% (16-19%) of cranidial length; moderately convex dorsally. Preocular area narrow (tr.), slightly convex, moderately declined toward anterolateral corners. Faint radiating genal caecae cover preglabellar field and preocular area. Low eye ridge intersects axial furrow opposite S4 glabellar furrow; merges distally with short, slightly upturned palpebral lobe; length (exsag.) of palpebral lobes 33% of glabellar length exclusive of L0, centered slightly anterior to distal end of S2, end posteriorly near midlength of L2, at approximate mid-length of glabella. Palpebral areas narrow, 25-33% of glabellar width at palpebral lobe midlength, short (exsag.), 25% of cranidial length; slightly declined (tr., exsag.). Posterior area triangular in outline, long (exsag.), approximately 33% cranidial length; slightly convex, moderately declined; bear straight, moderately impressed posterior border furrow. Anterior branch of facial sutures gently curved and slightly convergent from palpebral lobes to anterior border furrow, then sharply turned adaxially. Posterior branch of facial suture divergent from posterior end of palpebral lobes at approximately 45 degrees.</p> <p>Librigenae crescentic in outline with long, slender genal spine approximately the length (exsag.) of the genal field; prominent, adaxially tapering anterior extension of border slightly longer than the length (exsag.) of the eye; lateral margin curved anterior to posterior end of palpebral lobe, continues straight posteriorly. Genal field narrow (tr.), slightly convex dorsally, slightly declined. Lateral border narrow (tr.) increasing slightly in width toward genal angle; posterior border narrows abaxially; lateral and posterior border furrows broad, faintly impressed, slightly deeper where they intersect at approximately 60º angle.</p> <p>Pygidium known only from fragmentary material; transverse, more than three times as wide (tr.) as long. Moderately tapered pygidial axis with articulating half-ring, two axial rings, terminal axial piece; articulating and first inter-ring furrow moderately impressed, second inter-ring furrow very faintly impressed separating poorly defined second ring and terminal axial piece; terminal axial piece with two faint lateral knobs; axis extends to pygidial margin. Pleural fields with moderately impressed anterior pleural furrow, faintly impressed second pleural furrow, both directed slightly posteriorly. Very faint interpleural furrows roughly perpendicular to midline.</p> <p>Discussion. The association of cranidia and librigenae for Bienvillia eurekensis is straightforward given the smooth surfaces on the fixigenae and the genal field of the librigena. The associated pygidium is the only other polymeroid pygidium available from collection 5/22/08B. Several other species assigned to Bienvillia possess pygidial axes with two rings and a terminal axial piece, consistent with the association of sclerites from the Windfall.</p> <p>Taylor (1976, p. 689, pl. 2, figs 10–11) illustrated Bienvillia sp. from the Hales Limestone from the nearby Eureka mining district, Eureka County, Nevada. Bienvillia eurekensis differs from Taylor’s illustrated specimens in exhibiting a glabella with anterolateral corners that are more rounded, larger palpebral lobes which extend posterior to S2, and an S1 that is discontinuous across the axis.</p> <p>Bienvillia eurekensis n. sp. differs from the type species, B. corax (Billings, 1865; see Ludvigsen et al., 1989, p. 15, pl. 4, figs 18–22), in having a subrectangular glabella rather than one that is ovate and which bears S1 and S2 furrows that are incomplete across the axis rather than transglabellar. Furthermore, the preglabellar field in B. eurekensis is long, subequal in length to the occipital ring; the preglabellar field of B. corax is shorter than the occipital ring.</p> <p>Tortello (2014, p. 303, fig. 6.3, 6.4) reillustrated Bienvillia ? australis (Rusconi, 1951a, p. 3, fig. 3a–3c) from the Furongian of Argentina. The cranidium of Bienvillia eurekensis differs from that of B.? australis in having a subrectangular glabella, rather than one that is markedly tapered, a longer preglabellar field, and a S1 furrow that is not continuous across the axis. The pygidia of these species are more distinct: the axis of B.? australis has three axial rings, rather than two, and does not extend to the posterior margin.</p> <p>The remaining species previously assigned to Bienvillia are all Tremadocian or younger in age (Rasetti, 1954; Harrington &amp; Leanza, 1957; Robison &amp; Pantoja-Alor, 1968; Fortey, 1974; Ludvigsen &amp; Tuffnell, 1983). All but one of these younger species display significantly shorter (sag.) preglabellar fields than B. eurekensis. The exception, B. terranovica Rasetti (1954), differs from B. eurekensis in having only faintly impressed glabellar furrows, a much shorter (sag.) occipital ring that tapers rapidly abaxially, weakly developed eye ridges, and broader (tr.) librigenae that lack a distinct border furrow.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFFAFCA31FF3883D0FD9C15C4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFFABCA37FF38800EFEF914EC.text	926387DBFFABCA37FF38800EFEF914EC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Mendoparabolina Rusconi 1951	<div><p>Mendoparabolina Rusconi, 1951a</p> <p>Type species. Mendoparabolina pirquinensis Rusconi, 1951a, by monotypy, from El Relincho Formation, Cerro Pelado, Mendoza, Argentina.</p> <p>Emended diagnosis. The diagnosis of Tortello (2014, 2018) is accepted, with the addition of the sigmoid shape of the S1 and S2 lateral glabellar furrows previously noted by Rusconi (1951a).</p> <p>Other species. Mendoparabolina brevicauda Rusconi, 1955a; M. nyensis (Taylor, 1976).</p> <p>Discussion. Rusconi (1951a) sketched the original cranidium and associated pygidium of Mendoparabolina pirquinensis, the type species. Subsequently, Shergold et al. (1995, p. 246; Jell and Adrain, 2003) suggested that Mendoparabolina is a junior subjective synonym of Bienvillia Clark, 1924. Tortello (2014, p. 301–303, figs 6.1, 6.2, 4.5–4.25) photographically illustrated the type material and additional specimens from the El Relincho Formation, Mendoza, Argentina. Based upon the more complete knowledge of M. pirquiensis, Tortello (2014) resurrected Mendoparabolina.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFFABCA37FF38800EFEF914EC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFFABCA36FF3882F6FE5A1238.text	926387DBFFABCA36FF3882F6FE5A1238.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Plicatolininae Robison & Pantoja-Alor 1968	<div><p>Subfamily PLICATOLININAE Robison &amp; Pantoja-Alor, 1968</p> <p>Discussion. Robison &amp; Pantoja-Alor (1968) erected the Subfamily Plicatolininae to include three genera: Plicatolina Shaw, 1951; Plicatolinella Robison &amp; Pantoja-Alor, 1968; and a third undescribed and unnamed genus from the western United States. Robison &amp; Pantoja-Alor (1968) emphasized low cranidial convexity, a quadrate glabella bearing 4 pairs of lateral glabellar furrows, and short anterior border and preglabellar field as defining characteristics for the new subfamily. The pygidial margin was either entire (Plicatolina) or bilobed (Plicatolinella and the unnamed genus). Mendoparabolina Rusconi, 1951a exhibits these characters and is included in the subfamily. Taylor (1976) transferred the genus Westergaardites Troedsson, 1937 into the subfamily. Benedetto (1977) erected Paraplicatolina, with P. acantha as the designated type species, and included it in the Plicatolininae. Paraplicatolina acantha, however, has a subtrapezoidal glabella and apparently lacks S4 lateral glabellar furrows: the assignment bears further consideration.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFFABCA36FF3882F6FE5A1238	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFFAACA0AFF388736FDDA121C.text	926387DBFFAACA0AFF388736FDDA121C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Mendoparabolina nyensis (Taylor 1976)	<div><p>Mendoparabolina nyensis (Taylor, 1976)</p> <p>(Plate 5; Plate 16.1, 16.10, 16.11)</p> <p>1976 Plicatolina nyensis Taylor, p. 687–688, pl. 3, figs 16–18.</p> <p>Diagnosis. A species of Mendoparabolina with a short, horizontal, caecate preglabellar field; prominent constriction of the glabella where impingement by eye ridge offsets axial furrow inward directly in front of S4; a pronounced axial notch in the front of the glabella, S3 glabellar furrows oriented perpendicular to the midline; and a transverse pygidium with a strongly bilobed posterior margin in larger specimens.</p> <p>Material and occurrence. Lotagnostus nolani Fauna: collection 5/22/08B (136-64-5) and D3362-CO (6-7- 2) from Ninemile Canyon, Nevada; Hedinaspis-Charchaqia Fauna: collections D7129-CO (cephalon and partial thorax), D7130-CO (4-2-0), and D7133-CO (4-0-0) from the Hales Limestone in the Hot Creek section, Nevada.</p> <p>Description. Cranidium large among associated sclerites, up to 1cm in length; subtrapezoidal in outline. Prominent glabella; subrectangular in outline, glabellar length exclusive of occipital ring 60-70% of cranidial length (sag.), glabellar width (tr.) at occipital furrow equals 85-90% of glabellar length exclusive of occipital lobe; moderately convex transversely with weakly developed keel; very weakly convex from posterior margin to S2, moderately convex (sag.) forward of S2 as frontal lobe descends to preglabellar field. Axial furrows moderately impressed, mostly straight, subparallel to slightly divergent, tightly sinuous at intersection with eye ridge; preglabellar furrow moderately impressed, broadly curved to merge evenly with axial furrows, slightly recurved sagittally, slightly lengthening the preglabellar field in front of shallow notch in front of the glabella. Four pairs of lateral glabellar furrows: S1 moderately impressed, deepest near mid-length (tr.); sinuous; distal half gently curved and directed slightly posteriorly adaxially, inner half anteriorly concave, extends 75% of the way from axial furrow toward midline; S2 moderately impressed, slightly curved, anteriorly convex, intersection with axial furrow nearly perpendicular, terminates adaxially at same distance from axial furrow as S1; S3 short (tr.), slightly to moderately impressed, straight to very gently curved, oriented perpendicular to midline, opposite or slightly behind intersection of eye ridge with axial furrow; proximal end in line (exsag.) with adaxial termination of S2, extending abaxially half way to axial furrow; S4 lightly impressed, narrow, and straight, anteriorly directed at 65° angle from intersection with axial furrow at posterior edge of eye ridge; extends half way to midline. Occipital ring subcrescentic in outline; long (sag.), 17-19% of cranidial length, longest medially where occipital furrow recurves; low, slightly elongate occipital node occupies posterior half of ring, very faintly impressed furrow extends from anterior end of node diagonally toward posterolateral corners of ring. Occipital furrow moderately to deeply impressed distally, faintly impressed medially; sinuous, directed slightly posteriorly from intersection with axial furrow, extends 75% of way to midline where it is recurved to cross axial line in anteriorly convex arc; most specimens exhibit bifurcation of furrow at distal ends of the arc to form faintly impressed, posteriorly directed furrows that fail to reach posterior margin or axial furrows. Anterior margin as broad even curve. Anterior border a narrow (sag.), upturned rim that tapers gently abaxially, disappearing in front of preocular area where suture descends into border furrow. Border furrow narrow (sag.) and moderately impressed in smaller specimens, shallower and broader in larger sclerites. Anterior branch of facial suture trends slightly posteriorly from midline, traverses anterior border at oblique angle, and turns inward in tight curve to intersect distal end of eye ridge; posterior branch of facial suture diverges from posterior edge of palpebral lobe at 45° angle, broadly curved to intersect posterior margin at 85°. Preglabellar field short (sag.), 10-20% of cranidial length, longer abaxially although slightly lengthened at midline due to curvature in preglabellar furrow; subhorizontal in orientation. Preocular area subhorizontal, moderate in length (exsag.), wide (tr.), extending beyond palpebral lobes. Radiating genal caecae cover preglabellar field and preocular areas. Eye ridge well developed, directed slightly posteriorly from axial furrow, merging distally with short palpebral lobes that extend from distal end of S4 to slightly behind intersection of S2 with axial furrow. Palpebral areas narrow (tr.), subhorizontal; postocular areas long, extend to approximately cranidial midlength between S1 and S2; slightly convex, subhorizontal adaxially to slightly declined distally; finely granulate prosopon on some specimens; moderately impressed posterior border furrow widens and shallows distally.</p> <p>Librigenae subcrescentic in outline; lateral margin as broad, even curve; long, gently tapering anterior extension; lateral border narrow, smooth, uniform in width (tr.), defined by inflection at distal edge of genal field; genal field traversed by radiating genal caecae that fade posteriorly, narrow genal spine roughly 75% length of genal field (exsag.).</p> <p>Pygidium large in comparison to associated sclerites, up to 5.6mm in length (sag.); transverse with axial pygidial length only 50% of maximum pygidial width; slightly convex (tr.) to moderately convex (sag.); pygidial margin as even curve from anterolateral corner to axial line, interrupted in small specimens by minute, blunt marginal spines at distal tips of two anteriormost pleurae; shallow embayment in posterior margin behind axis in small specimens becomes narrower (tr.), prominent notch in larger specimens, rendering pygidum bilobed with axial length (sag.) approximately 90% of maximum length (exsag.); narrow (tr.) postaxial ridge extends forward from notch, diminishing in height anteriorly, more pronounced in larger specimens; narrow, convex border along posterior half to third of pygidium, increasing in width (sag.) behind axis in larger specimens; border furrow ill defined by distal ends of pleurae. Axis long, 80-90% of pygidial length (sag.) and broad, approximately 33% of maximum pygidial width at anterior end; slightly tapered, width at posteriormost inter-ring furrow 70-75% width at articulating furrow; composed of 3 progressively shorter (sag.) axial rings and lunate terminal piece that bears two lateral nodes separated by faint medial furrow; axial rings with faint transverse ridge on posterior half of ring. Inter-ring furrows straight, weakly impressed, shallowed axially. Axial furrows straight, slightly convergent; moderately impressed opposite anterior two axial rings, faintly impressed opposite third ring, as break in slope around terminal axial piece. Pleural fields tapered posteriorly, slightly convex (tr.), slightly declined (tr.), moderately declined post-axially. Four pairs of pleurae defined by faintly impressed interpleural furrows; anterior pair straight, nearly transverse through proximal two thirds, turned posteriorly through outer third, cross 80% of width of pleural field (tr.) terminating just inside lateral border; second interpleural furrows long, as broad curve, slightly posteriorly directed; remaining furrows shorter, posteriormost furrow strongly directed posteriorly. Anteriormost pleural furrows moderately impressed, anterior side more steeply declined than posterior; more strongly directed posteriorly than adjacent interpleural furrow, turns at two-thirds length to converge on interpleural furrow; remaining pleural furrows as broad curves, progressively shorter and more posteriorly directed.</p> <p>Discussion. Taylor (1976) described Plicatolina nyensis from the Hales Limestone at Hot Creek Canyon, Nevada, illustrating three cranidia and a partial cephalon and thorax.Among the olenids recovered from the Windfall Formation at Ninemile Canyon, Nevada, is a species that conforms with P. nyensis in the length, orientation, and caecate prosopon of the preglabellar field, in the shape and orientation of the glabellar furrows, the divergent anterior branch of the facial suture, the structure of the occipital ring, and almost every other feature. The cranidia from the Hales illustrated by Taylor (1976) differ from those of the Windfall in only two respects. The S1 furrow in the former appears transglabellar, whereas S1 furrows on Windfall specimens are separated medially. Furthermore, the palpebral lobes on the Windfall specimens are slightly longer (exsag.), extending posteriorly a short distance beyond where those of the Hales terminate opposite the distal end of S2. While examination of borrowed material from the Hales confirmed the minor difference in length of the palpebral lobes, the apparent contrast in form of S1 proved to be a preservational artefact. Material from the Hales is poorly preserved with most sclerites displaying some fracturing from compaction of the enclosing lime mudstone.Additionally, many of the specimens are internal molds that do not reliably replicate the features of the dorsal surface of the sclerites. This is the case with the illustrated holotype of P. nyensis (Taylor, 1976, pl. 3, fig. 16). A latex peel of the counterpart of the holotype, illustrated herein (Pl. 16, fig. 1), more accurately captures the features of the dorsal surface and confirms that S1 is not transglabellar. With the differences in cranidial morphology thereby reduced to a slightly more posterior position for the back of the palpebral lobe, we consider the Windfall specimens conspecific with those of the Hales. Additional support for this conclusion was provided by a pygidium (Pl. 16, fig. 11), virtually identical to those associated with P. nyensis cranidia in the Windfall (e.g., Pl. 5, figs. 12, 15), that was recovered through re-processing of the Hales collection (7130-CO) that provided the holotype.</p> <p>With this recovery, the Plicatolina nyensis cranidia in both the Hales and the Windfall are associated with a transverse pygidium that bears distally curved pleurae and a bilobed posterior margin. This species is confidently transferred from Plicatolina Shaw, 1951 to Mendoparabolina based upon the quadrate glabella; the 4 pairs of glabellar furrows, especially the sinuous S1 and S2 furrows and the S3 that fails to intersect the axial furrows; the short, caecate, horizontal preglabellar field; the divergent anterior facial sutures; and the bilobate posterior pygidial margin in moderate to larger specimens.</p> <p>The Windfall pygidia exhibit two obvious ontogenetic progressions. First, minute spines present opposite the terminal axial piece on the smallest specimens (Plate 5.15) are lost during ontogeny. Further, in the smallest specimens the posterior margin is an even curve, becoming progressively more embayed with a distinct bilobed appearance evident in larger specimens.</p> <p>Mendoparabolina nyensis (Taylor, 1976) compares very closely with M. piriquensis (Rusconi, 1951a; Tortello, 2014) in glabellar shape and proportions, the shape of the S1 and S2 lateral glabellar furrows, and the orientation of the preglabellar field. The cranidia of M. nyensis, however, differ from the latter in the transverse orientation of the S3 glabellar furrow and in a slightly longer preglabellar field relative to the glabellar length, although the preglabellar fields in M. piriquensis may be incomplete or incompletely prepared. The pygidia of the two species are very similar in the composition of the axes, the shape of the pleurae, the rim-like border, and the bilobed margin in the larger specimens. That of M. nyensis, however, is relatively shorter (sag.). With the length measured sagitally and the articulating half-ring excluded, the length of the M. nyensis pygidium is only 43.5% (38-44.6%) of the maximum pygidial width, as opposed to 55% (46.3-64.5%) for M. piriquensis.</p> <p>The pygidium of Mendoparabolina brevicauda (Rusconi, 1955b; Tortello, 2018, fig. 4) is similar to that of Mendoparabolina nyensis in the nature of the axis and the pleurae. The degree of embayment along the posterior margin is more significant in M. nyensis when comparing specimens of similar sizes (Tortello, 2018, fig. 4h). The cranidium of M. brevicauda, however, is markedly different from M. nyensis. The cranidium is more rounded at the anterolateral corners, exhibits an evenly curved preglabellar furrow, has S3 and S4 glabellar furrows that are more faintly impressed, a longer preglabellar field, and the anterior lobe of the glabella, when seen in lateral view, that is less convex. In these characters the cranidium assigned to M. brevicauda conforms more closely to Bienvillia and contrasts with Mendoparabolina: the association of sclerites of M. brevicauda might bear reappraisal.</p> <p>The cranidium of Plicatolina dunbari Ludvigsen &amp; Westrop (in Ludvigsen et al., 1989, p. 15–16, pl. 5, figs 4–6) closely compares to those of Mendoparabolina nyensis in the shape of the glabella and the shape and arrangement of the lateral glabellar furrows. P. dunbari differs, however, in having a longer anterior border, a shorter preglabellar field, and a nearly straight posterior branch of the facial suture. The pygidium of P. dunbari has an evenly curved posterior margin and the distal ends of the pleurae are not as sharply turned.</p> <p>The pygidium of Plicatolinella ocula (Robison &amp; Pantoja-Alor, 1968, p. 794, pl. 103, figs 24–26, pl. 104, figs 1–4) is bilobed as in Mendoparabolina nyensis; however, the posterior end of the axis is less well defined, lacking the post-axial ridge highlighted by Tortello (2018). The cranidium of P. ocula exhibits large, posteriorly placed palpebral lobes at the distal end of long eye ridges that result in long, broad palpebral areas which contrast with the short, narrow palpebral areas of M. nyensis. Furthermore, the S3 furrows in P. ocula intersect the axial furrows, unlike the detached S3 furrows in M. nyensis.</p> <p>The small pygidium of Simuloenus quadrisulcatus Palmer, 1968 (p. 56, pl. 8, figs 1–4) is weakly bilobed and bears pleurae that are curved distally, as seen in Mendoparabolina. The pygidium of S. quadrisulcatus, however, bears only 2 axial rings. The form and details of the cranidium of S. quadrisulcatus closely resemble those of M. nyensis in the presence of the 4 pair of glabellar furrows, small palpebral lobes set close to the glabella, the short preglabellar field, and oblique furrow crossing the occipital ring. However, the axial furrows in S. quadrisulcatus are moderately convergent resulting in a subtrapezoidal glabella, unlike the subrectangular glabella of M. nyensis, and the anterior border is convex, rather than upturned.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFFAACA0AFF388736FDDA121C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF97CA0AFF388092FB581350.text	926387DBFF97CA0AFF388092FB581350.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hedinaspis Troedsson 1951	<div><p>Hedinaspis Troedsson, 1951</p> <p>Type species. Hedinia regalis Troedsson, 1937, by original designation from Xianxiang, China.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF97CA0AFF388092FB581350	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF96CA08FF38826BFE5A16D8.text	926387DBFF96CA08FF38826BFE5A16D8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lotagnostus Whitehouse 1936	<div><p>Lotagnostus Whitehouse, 1936</p> <p>Type species. Agnostus trisectus Salter, 1864a, by original designation from the White-Leaved Oak Shale, Malvern, England.</p> <p>Other species. Lotagnostus americanus (Billings, 1860); L. trisectus (Salter, 1864b); L. ponepunctus (Matthew, 1901); L. germanus (Matthew, 1901); L. asiaticus Troedsson, 1937; L. hedini (Troedsson, 1937); L. peladensis (Rusconi, 1951a); L. verrucosus Rusconi, 1951a; L. obscurus Palmer, 1955; L. atenuatus (Rusconi, 1955a); L. punctatus Lu, 1964; L. ergodes (Shergold, 1971); L. irretitus (Shergold, 1975); L. spectabilis Xiang &amp; Zhang, 1985; L. shergoldi Tortello in Esteban &amp; Tortello, 2007; L. salteri Westrop &amp; Landing, 2016; L. matthewi Westrop &amp; Landing, 2016; L. nolani n. sp.; L. clarki n. sp.; L. rushtoni n. sp.; L. morrisoni n. sp.</p> <p>Discussion. For most species of Lotaganostus only a few specimens have been illustrated from a single bed or thin stratigraphic interval. The resultant lack of information on morphologic variation from such stratigraphically constrained collections has allowed for strongly divergent opinions regarding the range of intraspecific variation within Lotagnostus species, and the number of valid species within the genus. Some (Peng &amp; Babcock, 2005; Peng et al., 2015) contend that many species described in earlier studies constitute a single, widespread, highly variable species for which Lotagnostus americanus (Billings, 1860) is the senior subjective synonym. Others (Rushton, 2009; Landing et al., 2011; Westrop et al., 2011; Westrop &amp; Landing, 2016) have challenged the extensive synonymy resulting from that broad species concept, in part because of the inadequacy of type material for many species. The abundant material from collection 5/22/08B allows for an assessment of the contrasting hypotheses on the variation of Lotagnostus.</p> <p>In a re-evaluation of the species diversity and biostratigraphic distribution of Lotoganostus in North America, Westrop et al. (2011) recommended restriction of the type species, L. trisectus, to its type area in Avalonian Britain, arguing that the loss of critical morphologic information resulting from compaction in shale rendered comparison with less deformed material recovered elsewhere highly problematic. Having discovered in the present study the importance of features such as the steepness and variation in slope of the pleural fields and genae for discrimination of Lotagnostus species, we endorse that recommendation. Although the compacted condition of the holotype of L. punctatus from China could be offered as justification for similar geographic restriction of that species, the availability of non-compacted specimens preserved in limestone from the same area and formation allows for effective comparison and eliminates the need for such limitation.</p> <p>The problem of small sample sizes also lies at the heart of conflicting interpretations regarding the material assigned to Lotagnostus asiaticus (Troeddson, 1937) offered in previous studies. In response to criticism by Landing et al. (2010) regarding lack of evidence of intraspecific variation within individual collections, Peng et al. (2015) cited co-occurrence of weakly and strongly scrobiculate morphs within the collections from which that species was described, as well as from a single bed of the Siyanshan Formation in China sampled by Lu &amp; Lin (1980). However, Westrop &amp; Landing (2016) noted that co-occurrence alone does not confirm that the two morphs are conspecific and, given the absence of evidence of intergradation, argued that they represent separate, sympatric species. The absence of transitional forms between the strongly scrobiculate and largely effaced Lotagnostus specimens in our large collections from the Windfall Formation strongly supports the latter interpretation. Consequently, we follow Westrop &amp; Landing (2016) in considering L. asiaticus a valid, weakly scrobiculate species, and exclude the strongly scrobiculate specimens of the type suite. Those sclerites represent a different species, like L. punctatus, which might ultimately prove to be the appropriate assignment for coarsely scrobiculate material previously assigned to L. trisectus from Australia (Bao &amp; Jago, 2000), Kazakhstan (Ergaliev, 1983), Siberia (Pegel, 2000), and Sweden (Westergard, 1922) as well.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF96CA08FF38826BFE5A16D8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF95CA09FF388567FA0D13A6.text	926387DBFF95CA09FF388567FA0D13A6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lotagnostus americanus (Billings 1860)	<div><p>Lotagnostus americanus (Billings, 1860)</p> <p>(Plate 6, figs 1–3)</p> <p>1860 Agnostus americanus; Billings, p. 303, fig. 1a only [fig. 1b = L. aff. L. clarki].</p> <p>1865 Agnostus americanus Billings, 1860; Billings, p. 395, fig. 372a only [fig. 372b = L. aff. L. clarki].</p> <p>1944 Agnostus americanus Billings, 1860; Rasetti, p. 233, pl. 36, fig. 2 only [fig. 1 = L. aff. L. clarki].</p> <p>1989 Lotagnostus americanus (Billings, 1860); Ludvigsen &amp; Westrop in Ludvigsen et al., p. 12, pl. 1, fig. 15, only [fig. 16 = L. aff. L. clarki, fig. 17 = L. sp. indet.].</p> <p>non 1995 Lotagnostus americanus (Billings, 1860); Westrop, p. 15, pl. 1, figs 17–20 [= L. sp. indet.]</p> <p>2005 Lotagnostus americanus (Billings, 1860); Peng &amp; Babcock, p. 110–113, figs 2.2, 2.4 only [2.3 = L. aff. L. clarki].</p> <p>non 2008 Lotagnostus americanus (Billings, 1860); Lazarenko et al., pl. 23, figs 1, 2, 5, 5a.</p> <p>non 2009 Lotagnostus americanus americanus (Billings, 1860); Rushton, p. 276, fig. 1J–O.</p> <p>2011 Lotagnostus americanus (Billings, 1860); Westrop et al., p. 578–584, fig. 5A–C only [figs. 5D-G, 6 = L. cf. L. clarki]. non 2012 Lotagnostus americanus (Billings, 1860); Ahlberg &amp; Terfelt, fig. 4a–f.</p> <p>2015 Lotagnostus americanus (Billings, 1860); Peng, Babcock, Zhu, Ahlberg, Terfelt, &amp; Dai, fig. 5H–J only [fig. 5G = L. aff. L. clarki].</p> <p>Discussion. Rushton (2009) discussed the selection of Billings’ (1860) pygidium as the holotype. Only eleven specimens identified as L. americanus from the Lévis Formation have been illustrated: the holotype and two other pygidia, six cephala, and one enrolled skeleton. All but three of the eleven specimens came from one boulder, designated Boulder 37 by Rasetti (1944). Unfortunately, those three specimens are the holotype (Plate 6.1-6.3) and two topotype cephala. They came from elsewhere in the Lévis Formation and, in describing the species, Billings (1860) noted that he could not say for certain that the cephala represented the same species as the holotype. What is even more problematic with respect to the type material for L. americanus is that none of the pygidia illustrated from Boulder 37 displays the pitted surface texture on the distal areas of the pleural fields, the short scrobiculae on the proximal areas, or the very steep slope of the pitted distal areas that characterize the holotype. One pygidium (Rushton, 2009; fig. 1M) is nearly the same size as the holotype, making it implausible to attribute those differences to ontogenetic variation. In fact, the steep slope of the pitted distal areas of the pleural field gives the holotype an appearance unlike that of any other pygidium assigned to L. americanus, with the proximal, scrobiculate part of the pleural field appearing wider (tr.) than the pitted distal portion at the level of F 2 in dorsal view. This can be clearly seen in Peng &amp; Babcock (2005, fig. 2) where the holotype is one of sixteen pygidia included in the collage. On all other pygidia attributed to L. americanus in that figure, the pitted distal part of the pleural field appears as wide or wider than the scrobiculate inner part at F2. The uniqueness of the holotype, combined with the uncertainty of association with the topotype cephala or any other sclerites from the Lévis Formation, renders it unsuitable as a standard in our opinion and we here restrict Lotagnostus americanus to the holotype.</p> <p>The affinities of the remaining Lotagnostus americanus specimens from the Lévis are uncertain.They most closely resemble Lotagnostus clarki n. sp. from the Windfall Formation.While the pygidia are indistinguishable from those of L.clarki, there are noteworthy differences in the shapes and relative proportions of the glabellar lobes in the two species. Therefore,the Lévis specimens are left in open nomenclature here as Lotagnostus aff. L.clarki,which is discussed below.</p> <p>......Plate legend provided on the next page</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF95CA09FF388567FA0D13A6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF93CA0EFF3884FDFB0B13A8.text	926387DBFF93CA0EFF3884FDFB0B13A8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lotagnostus Whitehouse 1936	<div><p>Lotagnostus cf. L. obscurus Palmer, 1955</p> <p>(Plate 7.1–7.3, 7.7–7.9, 7.13–7.15)</p> <p>cf. 1955 Lotagnostus obscurus, Palmer, p. 92, pl. 19, figs 5–7 only [fig. 10 = L. sp. indet].</p> <p>non 2011 Lotagnostus cf. L. obscurus Palmer, 1955; Westrop et al., p. 24, figs 10A-Q.</p> <p>Material and occurrence. Lotagnostus nolani Fauna: collection 5/22/08B (4-3), D3362-CO (2-0) from the Windfall Formation at Ninemile Canyon, Nevada.</p> <p>Discussion. Ludvigsen &amp; Westrop (in Ludvigsen et al., 1989) placed Lotagnostus obscurus in synonymy with Lotagnostus americanus (Billings, 1865), a decision perpetuated in a few subsequent papers (Westrop, 1995; Peng &amp; Babcock, 2005). However, Westrop et al. (2011) restudied and re-illustrated the type specimens of L. obscurus and resurrected L. obscurus as a separate, largely effaced species. Peng et al. (2015) agreed with this decision as do we. However, unlike previous authors, we exclude the second pygidium illustrated by Palmer (1955, pl. 19, fig. 10) from Lotagnostus obscurus. This pygidium has well-impressed furrows, displays evidence of trisection of the pygidial axis, and lacks the conspicuous elevation and strong sagittal convexity at the anterior end displayed by the holotype. It strongly resembles a pygidium of Lotagnostus sp. from the Hales (Plate 16.16), but displays a narrower intranotular axis, narrower border furrow of more constant width, and lacks the constriction of the acrolobe displayed by that species.</p> <p>Two nearly effaced cephala in collection D3362-CO resemble Lotagnostus obscurus in the outline of their acrolobe, very strong transverse convexity, elevated and very strongly convex (sag.) posterior end, and the shape of the anteroglabella. They differ, however, in possessing longer basal lobes and a prominent occipital band that extends posteriorly well behind the glabellar culmination. Additionally, while the structure of the axis in the associated Windfall pygidia appears consistent with Lotagnostus obscurus (Westrop et al., 2011, fig. 7D–F, reillustrated the holotype pygidium) the pygidial outline appears more quadrate, the border widens opposite the posteroaxis as the margin of the pleurae appears to straighten, the convexity is less (although the specimen looks dorsoventrally compressed resulting in the longitudinal fracture), and the posterior margin looks more quadrate than rounded. Given the small number of specimens available to evaluate the significance of these differences, we consider the assignment of our material to that species uncertain.</p> <p>Westrop et al. (2011) similarly reported an effaced species of Lotagnostus from the Windfall Formation in the Cherry Creek Range in eastern Nevada as Lotagnostus cf. L. obscurus. It differs from the species identified by that name herein from the Antelope Range in numerous features of both the cephalon and pygidium. The species from the Cherry Creek Range has smaller basal lobes and a longer (sag.) preglabellar field, which constitutes 26% of the length of the cephalon, as compared with only 20% in the species from the Antelope Range. The former species also has a proportionally shorter posteroaxis that makes up only 50% of the length (sag.) of the pygidial axis, in contrast to that of the Antelope Range species which composes 60%. Consequently, the axial node on the species from the Cherry Creek Range lies very near the midlength of the pygidial axis, rather than well in front of it. It also displays a smoothly rounded anterior margin on the cephalon and posterior margin on the pygidium, whereas those margins on the Antelope Range species are more transverse, and the sclerite shape slightly quadrate.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF93CA0EFF3884FDFB0B13A8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF91CA0DFF3886E7FBE613C8.text	926387DBFF91CA0DFF3886E7FBE613C8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lotagnostus nolani Taylor & Loch & Repetski 2024	<div><p>Lotagnostus nolani n. sp.</p> <p>(Plate 1.1–1.5, 1.11–1.16, Plate 8.1–8.17, Plate 9, Plate 16.1–16.7)</p> <p>1976 Lotagnostus trisectus (Salter, 1864a); Taylor &amp; Cook, text-fig. 29F.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Strongly scrobiculate Lotagnostus with M2 lateral lobes depressed and subdivided, long basal lobes (EBL/APL ratio greater than 0.45; Figure 10.2), and elongate, slightly asymmetrical glabellar node anteriorly positioned on the front half of M2; median preglabellar furrow in larger specimens weakly impressed, shallowing anteriorly, and does not intersect the border furrow; posteroaxis conspicuously trisected with notular axis bounded by faintly to moderately impressed notular furrows that connect deep notulae; pleural field divided into a subcircular, nearly horizontal proximal area with widely spaced, radially oriented short scrobiculae that is surrounded by more downsloping distal areas with densely spaced, irregular pits.</p> <p>Etymology. Named after Thomas B. Nolan in recognition of his accomplishments as former Director of the United States Geological Survey (see Leopold &amp; Baker, 1996).</p> <p>Material and occurrence. Holotype CM 41360 is a cephalon from collection 5/22/08B: assigned specimens include 10 cephala CM 41301–41305, 41361–41365 and 11 pygidia CM 41306–41309, 41366–41372 from collection 5/22/08B; and 2 cephala USNM 775724–775725 and 2 pygidia USNM 775727–775728 from collection D3362-CO. Lotagnostus nolani fauna: collections 5/22/08B (267-255) and D3362-CO (17-15). from the Windfall Formation at Ninemile Canyon, Nevada; Hedinaspis-Charchaqia Fauna: collections D7130-CO (13-13), D7132- CO (0-2) and D7133-CO (6-2) from the Hales Limestone at the Hot Creek section, Nevada.</p> <p>Description. Cephalon semiovate in outline; sagittal length approximately equal to maximum width (93- 105%); moderately convex (sag., tr.). Genae slightly convex (sag., tr.), moderately inclined in anterior view. Axial furrows moderately impressed; nearly straight, moderately convergent from posterior margin to F2, bowed outward slightly along M3, gently convergent along anterior lobe. Glabella long (sag.) 73% of cephalic length (69–79%), approximately one-third of cephalic width at M3 (29-35%); stands in low relief above adjacent genae in larger specimens, more strongly convex (tr.) and stands higher in relief in smaller specimen. Basal lobes subtriangular; long (exsag,), approximately one third (27–37%) of glabellar length; anterior ends lie at or behind posterior end of glabellar node, posterior ends extend slightly beyond glabellar culmination; basal furrow angled to appear concave adaxially. Narrow (sag.) occipital band visible closely behind glabellar termination in dorsal view. F1 a slight expansion of axial furrow or very short, anterolaterally directed notch extending inward from axial furrow just posterior to anterior end of basal lobes. M1 hexagonal on specimens with slot-like F1; glabellar culmination bluntly pointed with small terminal node. M2 trisected; lateral lobes depressed, subdivided into multiple, small, subelliptical lobes separated by faint furrows; elongate, slightly asymmetrical axial node centered on front half of lobe. F2 a short (tr.) and wide (exsag.) notch in side of glabella extending adaxially half way to midline. M3 trisected on larger specimens by faintly impressed, anteriorly convergent, longitudinal furrows extending from F2 to F3; longer (exsag.), lateral lobes subelliptical and slightly inflated. F3 transglabellar, moderately impressed, straight to gently concave anteriorly in smaller specimens, tripartite in larger specimens with transverse central segment and lateral segments in front of lateral lobes of M2 directed anterolaterally abaxially to intersection with axial furrow. Anteroglabella accounts for slightly less than a third (29–34%) of glabellar length (sag.); broad, length equals only 83% (75–93%) of maximum width (tr.); subpentagonal with anterolateral corners rounded; bluntly pointed anteriorly. Median preglabellar furrow faintly impressed, shallowing anteriorly, failing to reach border furrow in some larger specimens; straight in small specimens, more irregular, blending with scrobiculae in larger sclerites. Anterior cephalic margin typically as even curve although several specimens slightly indented medially. Convex border of very gently tapered from midline to posterolateral angle; border furrow well impressed, equal in width to border. Scrobiculae distributed uniformly across genae, well impressed distally in all specimen sizes shallowing adaxially to appear less strongly impressed adjacent to axial furrows, particularly in small specimens.</p> <p>Pygidium semiovate in outline, nearly equant, width at M2 slightly greater (97–107%) than length; moderately convex (sag., tr.); axis stands in low relief above pleural field in posterior view; pleural field separated into a subhorizontal circular area adjacent to axial furrow from F1 to slightly behind posteroaxis marked by widely spaced, short, radially arranged scrobiculae, surrounded by more steeply inclined area with closely spaced, deep, irregular pits; boundary between scrobiculate and pitted areas sharp. Slope of pitted area very steep posterior to F2, more moderately inclined along anteroaxis.Articulating half-ring short, crescentic.Articulating furrow broad (sag.), well-impressed, narrowed distally; curved backward slightly medially. Axis long, 84% (77–92%) of pygidial length exclusive of articulating half-ring; slightly convex (sag., tr.) with exception of axial node, slightly constricted at M2. Axial furrows slightly sinuous, moderately impressed along anteroaxis, slightly shallower around posteroaxis. Anterior axial lobe strongly trisected; M1 lateral lobes slightly inflated, M2 lateral lobes very slightly inflated, slightly shorter than M1; medial lobe confluent from M1 to M2, narrower than lateral lobes, bearing axial node posteriorly. F1 well impressed, slightly curved, directed slightly anteromedially; discontinuous, interrupted medially by confluent central lobes of M1 and M2. Transaxial F2 moderately impressed, nearly straight, transverse; moderately impressed subsidiary furrows extend from F2 to connect with F1 to circumscribe M1-M2 medial lobe. Posteroaxis long (sag.), 57% (52–62%) of axial length, slightly convex, slightly declined (sag.), broadest (tr.) slightly anterior to lobe midlength, maximum width variable, average 105% (94–113%) of posteroaxis length; trisected by faintly impressed notular furrows, very faint along anteriormost 20% of lobe; furrows diverge slightly from F2 to approximately a third of the length of lobe, intranotular axis achieving its maximum width at this point, converge slightly posteriorly; intranotular axis slightly convex, stands in low relief above extranotular areas; well impressed notulae present, best expressed along posteriormost 80% of lobe; terminal node commonly absent. Border short (sag.), convex. Short posterolateral spines level with or behind the terminus of posterior lobe. Border furrow uniformly well impressed, broad, slightly narrower at anterolateral corners; wider and shallower in largest specimens.</p> <p>Discussion. Strongly scrobiculate species with virtually identical pygidia to that of Lotagnostus nolani have been reported, by various species names (e.g. L. punctatus and L. trisectus, among others), from Asia, Australia, South America, and Sweden. L. nolani is set apart from all these species by its higher (&gt;0.45) EBL/APL ratio (Figure 10.2), and more anterior placement of the asymmetrical glabellar node, which is centered on the anterior half of M2 such that the base of its steeper anterior slope lies in line with the posterior ends of the anterolateral lobes of M3. Similarly high EBL/APL ratios have been confirmed only in Lotagnostus trisectus, which is now restricted to Avalonian Britain, and L. aff. L. nolani from the Lotagnostus rushtoni Fauna in the Windfall (discussed below). Although L. trisectus cephala yield comparably high EBL/APL ratios, none of the topotype pygidia of L. trisectus illustrated by Rushton (2009) displays prominent scrobiculae and pits on the pleural fields like those of L. nolani. It is possible that what Rusconi (1951b) described as Goniagnostus verrucosus from Argentina, and Shergold et al. (1995) subsequently re-assigned to L. trisectus has a similarly high EBL/APL ratio, but matrix concealing the posterior margin of the single cephalon on which this species is based makes accurate measurement of the ratio impossible. Moreover, the well-preserved glabellar node is centered at the midlength of M2, rather than on the front half as on L. nolani. Comparison of pygidial morphology between the two species is not possible at present because the pygidium of L. verrucosus is unknown. Until additional material can be described and illustrated, we feel it is best to treat Lotagnostus verrucosus and L. nolani as separate species. Despite some flattening and resultant fractures, the specimens from the Hales Limestone assigned here to Lotagnostus nolani retain the defining features of this species, fortifying correlation of the L. nolani and Hedinaspis-Charchaqia Faunas. The three figured cephala (Pl. 16, figs 1-5) all display the forwardly placed glabellar node, depressed and subdivided lateral lobes of M2, and long basal lobes that yield an EBL/ABL ratio over.45.</p> <p>The flattened condition of the holotype of Lotagnostus punctatus (Lu, 1964, pl 5, fig. 5; Peng et al. 2015, fig. 9B) precludes recovery of some critical features, such as shape and position of the glabellar node. However, uncompacted cephala recovered from limestone in the same formation (Peng et al., 2015, figs 9D, 9H) confirm a more posterior placement of the node and lower EBL/APL ratios than in L. nolani. The sclerites from Sweden identified as L. trisectus by Westergård (1922), and used to illustrate that species by Shergold &amp; Laurie (1997), actually compare more closely with L. punctatus in position of the glabellar node and EBL/APL ratio (Fig. 10.2).</p> <p>Two of the four species of Lotagnostus reported by Westrop &amp; Landing (2016) from Avalonian strata in Nova Scotia also strongly resemble L. nolani but are readily distinguished by their lower EBL/APL ratios, less elongate and more posteriorly positioned glabellar node, and several other features. The cephalon of Lotagnostus salteri differs in having the glabellar node situated opposite the anterior tips of the basal lobes, more weakly impressed and usually discontinuous longitudinal furrows on M3, and fewer and shallower scrobiculae on the genal fields than L. nolani. Although the pygidia of the two species are very similar, most L. salteri pygidia display a proportionally shorter posteroaxis and slightly broader (tr.) intranotular axis. Lotagnostus ponepunctus (Matthew, 1901) differs from L. nolani in having fewer and more weakly impressed scrobiculae on the genal fields and a deeper and more continuous median preglabellar furrow that intersects the anterior border furrow. Its pygidium has much shallower scrobiculae and pits on the pleural fields, and a constricted acrolobe in larger specimens.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF91CA0DFF3886E7FBE613C8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF9DCA00FF3886E7FCD41628.text	926387DBFF9DCA00FF3886E7FCD41628.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lotagnostus Whitehouse 1936	<div><p>Lotagnostus aff. L. nolani</p> <p>(Plate 8.18–8.19)</p> <p>Material and occurrence. Lotagnostus rushtoni Fauna: collection D3381-CO (2-1); 5-22-08D (1-1) from the Windfall Formation at Ninemile Canyon, Nevada.</p> <p>Discussion. Strongly scrobiculate Lotagnostus sclerites are rare in collections of the L. rushtoni Fauna, and all but two cephala were too small or fragmentary for meaningful comparison with L. nolani and similar species. However, those cephala differ from those of L. nolani in having a more posteriorly positioned glabellar node situated at the rear of M2, centered in line with or just in front of the anterior tips of basal lobes. The largest and best preserved cephalon also displays a significantly lower ratio (Figure 10.3) between preglabellar field length (PFL) and anteroglabella length (AAL). In L. nolani the PFL/AAL ratio averages 0.81, with the lowest recorded value being 0.63. That of the best L. aff. L. nolani cephalon is 0.62.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF9DCA00FF3886E7FCD41628	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF9DCA04FF3884F7FA0D160C.text	926387DBFF9DCA04FF3884F7FA0D160C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lotagnostus clarki Taylor & Loch & Repetski 2024	<div><p>Lotagnostus clarki n. sp.</p> <p>(Plate 1.6–1.10, 1.17–1.22, Plate 10, Plate 11)</p> <p>Diagnosis. Genae of large cephala covered by weakly to moderately impressed scrobiculae; pygidia and small cephala non-scrobiculate; M2, at maximum width (tr.) behind glabellar node, is significantly wider than M1 and slightly wider than M3; longitudinal furrows that converge and shallow anteriorly trisect M3, defining elliptical lateral lobes in larger specimens; trisection of pygidial posteroaxis absent or very faint, with sides of intranotular axis defined only by minor change in slope rather than furrows or notulae; pleural field widest (tr.) near midlength of anteroaxis, narrowing (sag.) behind axis; pygidial border furrow in larger specimens widens (tr.) posteriorly from anterolateral corners, then narrows behind posteroaxis to midline.</p> <p>Etymology. Named after Dr. Joseph C. Clark, our colleague and mentor (Indiana University of Pennsylvania).</p> <p>Material and occurrence. Holotype CM 41373 is a cephalon from collection 5/22/08B: assigned specimens include 9 cephala CM 41310–41314, 41374–41377 and 10 pygidia CM 41315–41319, 41378–41382 from collection 5/22/08B; and 5 cephala USNM 775729–775733 and 5 pygidia USNM 775734–775738 from collection D3362- CO. Lotagnostus nolani Fauna: collection 5/22/08B (495-383) and 3362-CO (38-46) from the Windfall Formation at Ninemile Canyon, Nevada.</p> <p>Description. Cephalon semiovate in outline with maximum width approximately equal (89–105%) to length (sag.); moderately convex (tr.) and slightly convex (sag.). Glabella long, 75% (72–79%) of cephalic length (sag.), glabellar width at F3 30% (27–31%) of maximum cephalic width (tr.); slightly convex (sag. and tr.) standing in low relief above genae. Axial furrows moderately impressed in smallest specimens, faintly impressed in larger specimens; straight and strongly convergent (20º to midline) along basal lobes, slightly convergent to gently angular anterolateral corners of glabella; widest (tr.) from anterior tip of basal lobes to midlength of M3; meet medially at obtuse angle (approximately 120 º). Basal lobes subtriangular in outline, moderately long, 28% (24–36%) of glabellar length; end anteriorly at or just in front of F1; end posteriorly in line with small terminal glabellar node; moderately impressed basal furrows straight anterior to posterolateral corners of M1, turning sharply inward posteriorly to follow bluntly pointed back of M1 to glabellar culmination. Occipital band short (sag.). F1 absent, or a very faintly impressed, anteromedially directed furrow extending less than a third of the way to the midline. Slight abaxial shift of axial furrow at F1 expands the posterior half of M2, making it as wide (tr.) or slightly wider than M3; constriction of anterior half of M2 produces narrowest (tr.) part of glabella and widest segment of axial furrow; small, nearly circular glabellar node centered on anterior half of M2. M3 trisected in larger specimens by longitudinal furrows that converge and shallow anteriorly, defining slightly elongate (exsag.), subelliptical lateral lobes. F2 faintly to moderately impressed, anteromedially directed, terminating at posterior ends of longitudinal furrows of M3. F3 transglabellar, moderately impressed, straight to gently concave anteriorly in smaller specimens, tripartite in larger specimens with transverse central segment and lateral segments in front of lateral lobes of M2 directed anterolaterally abaxially to intersection with axial furrow. Anteroglabella accounts for 30% (27-33%) of glabellar length (sag.); subpentagonal in outline with gently angular corners and front. Genae moderately convex and moderately declined (tr.); preglabellar field constitutes 20% (13-23% of cephalic length (sag.), slightly less than width (tr.) of genae laterally; genae smooth in small specimens, weakly scrobiculate in specimens longer (sag.) than 4mm. Median preglabellar furrow moderately impressed, of constant depth and width (tr.), intersects axial and border furrows. Border convex, narrow, slightly wider at midline, slightly tapered posteriorly from level of M3. Border furrow well-impressed and narrower than border in small specimens; as wide or slightly wider in large specimens; narrowing posteriorly along posterior third of cephalon; deflected slightly posteriorly at intersection with median preglabellar furrow.</p> <p>Pygidium semi-elliptical in outline, length (sag.) 92% (87–100%) of maximum width (tr.); moderately convex (sag., tr.); in posterior view axis stands in low relief above moderately declined, slightly convex pleurae; in lateral profile axis slightly declined from axial node in even curve continued by post-axial pleural field. Axis long, 80% (69–85%) of pygidial length exclusive of articulating half-ring; slightly convex (sag., tr.) with exception of axial node; constricted at M2. Articulating half-ring short (sag.), crescentic. Articulating furrow straight, well impressed. Axial furrows moderately impressed, convergent posteriorly from anterior margin, convex laterally over M1, M2, and posteroaxis; slightly shallower around posterior lobe in larger specimens, shallowest medially. Anteroaxis strongly trisected by longitudinal furrows that extend from F2 to articulating furrow; confluent medial lobe of M1 and M2 much narrower (tr.) than lateral lobes of M2, slightly narrower than lateral lobes of M1; M1 lateral lobes slightly inflated, M2 lateral lobes very slightly inflated; asymmetrical axial node at posterior end of confluent medial lobe projects posteriorly to overhang F2. F1 moderately impressed, slightly curved, directed slightly anteromedially from axial furrow across 1/3 width of axis, terminating at intersection with longitudinal furrow. Transaxial F2 moderately impressed, tripartite with narrow (tr.) central segment along posterior margin of confluent medial lobe of anteroaxis, and longer, gently curved lateral segments directed anteromedially from axial furrow. Posteroaxis constitutes 59% (56–61%) of axis length (sag.), slightly convex, slightly declined (sag.); broadest (tr.) slightly anterior to lobe midlength; maximum width variable, averaging 95% (82–118%) of posteroaxis length; small terminal node present; very faint intranotular axis on some specimens, sides defined only by change in slope, except for faintly impressed, very short (exsag.) furrows outlining upturned posterior tip of intranotular axis on a few specimens. Pleural fields narrow (tr.), moderately and evenly convex, slightly declined laterally; typically smooth, rarely very faintly scrobiculate in large specimens; much narrower postaxially in large specimens. Border narrow (sag.), convex, widest medially, tapering steadily toward anterolateral corners. Pair of small posterolateral spines directed posterolaterally and positioned posterior to end of posteroaxis in small specimens; directed posteriorly and located slightly in front of posteroaxis in larger specimens. Border furrow on small specimens uniformly well impressed, nearly constant in width, narrower than border; width and variation in width increase with growth; wider than border in large specimens, widest adjacent to posteroaxis, tapering toward anterolateral corners and behind axis.</p> <p>Discussion. Many of the specimens of Lotagnostus peladensis (Rusconi, 1951a) illustrated by Tortello (2014) strongly resemble L. clarki, and some pygidia are nearly identical to those of the latter species. However, large, testate cephala of L. peladensis have much shallower furrows, and lack the scrobiculae that characterize L. clarki cephala of similar size. Exfoliated cephala of L. peladensis, which display more firmly impressed furrows, differ from those of L. clarki in having a longer (sag.) preglabellar field that is equal to or greater in length than the anteroglabella (Figure 10.3). In L. clarki the length of the preglabellar field is shorter, averaging less than 90% of the anteroglabella length. Another species from Argentina, L. atenuatus (Rusconi, 1955b), has weakly scrobiculate genae similar to those of L. clarki, but its lateral lobes on M3 are less elongate and are bowed outward to make M3 significantly wider than M2. The pygidium of L. atenuatus is readily distinguished from that of L. clarki by a prominent intranotular axis bounded by well-impressed notulae.</p> <p>Lotagnostus asiaticus Troedsson (1937) is the species most similar to L. clarki among the species of Lotagnostus reported from Asian successions. Using a narrow concept for L. asiaticus that includes only weakly scrobiculate specimens similar to the holotype, a full exoskeleton re-illustrated by Peng et al. (2015, fig. 4), it is clear that several features that separate these species. Most of the paratypes illustrated by Troedsson as part of the type suite from Xinjiang, China were excluded from the analysis because they are strongly scrobiculate and display very deep furrows, as noted by Westrop &amp; Landing (2016). Aside from the holotype, the specimens we used for comparison with L. clarki include (among others) those assigned to L. asiaticus from eastern China (western Zhejiang) by Lu &amp; Lin (1980, 1989), and similar specimens from the Wa’ergang section in northwest Hunan (Peng et al., 2015, figs 1, 2). The size series illustrated by Peng et al. (2015, fig. 7) was particularly informative regarding the range of variation within L. asiaticus as all specimens derived from a single collection level (GC26a) in the Siyanshan section of Lu &amp; Lin (1980, 1989) in Zhejiang. This size series, along with the holotype and similar specimens from the other areas of China, confirms a similar pattern of ontogenetic change for L. asiaticus and L. clarki in which scrobiculae are absent from the genae and pleural fields of small specimens and become increasingly prominent with increasing size. However, pygidia of L. asiaticus of any size differ from those of L. clarki in having gently to moderately impressed notular furrows. Larger pygidia of L. asiaticus also display, albeit only faintly, the circular proximal area of the pleural field with radially arranged, short scrobiculae adjacent to the posteroaxis and M2 that occurs in several species of Lotagnostus, but not in L. clarki. At least three features distinguish L. asiaticus cephala from those of L. clarki. The former species has a proportionally longer anteroglabella that is more parallel-sided and broadly rounded in front than that of L. clarki, whose convergent sides produce a narrower, more angular anterior. Secondly, M 2 in L. asiaticus is approximately equal in width (tr.) to M1 and significantly narrower than M3. In contrast, M2 is wider than both M1 and M3 on the cephala of L. clarki. Finally, on most cephala of L. clarki, the anterior border widens (sag.) slightly at the midline along with a slight rearward deflection of border furrow where it intersects the median preglabellar furrow; no such widening or deflection is seen on the cephalon of L. asiaticus.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF9DCA04FF3884F7FA0D160C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF99CA04FF31841BFDC61183.text	926387DBFF99CA04FF31841BFDC61183.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lotagnostus Whitehouse 1936	<div><p>Lotagnostus aff. L. clarki</p> <p>(Plate 6.4–6.10)</p> <p>1860 Agnostus americanus Billings; Billings, p. 303, fig. 1b.</p> <p>1865 Agnostus americanus Billings, 1860; Billings, p. 395, fig. 372b.</p> <p>1944 Agnostus americanus Billings, 1860; Rasetti, p. 233, pl. 36, fig. 1.</p> <p>1989 Lotagnostus americanus (Billings, 1860); Ludvigsen &amp; Westrop in Ludvigsen, Westrop, and Kindle, p. 12, pl. 1, fig. 16. 2005 Lotagnostus americanus (Billings, 1860); Peng &amp; Babcock, p. 110–113, fig. 2.3.</p> <p>2009 Lotagnostus americanus americanus (Billings, 1860); Rushton, p. 276, fig. 1J–O.</p> <p>2011 Lotagnostus americanus (Billings, 1860); Westrop, Adrain, &amp; Landing, p. 578–584, figs 5D–G, 6.</p> <p>2015 Lotagnostus americanus (Billings, 1860); Peng, Babcock, Zhu, Ahlberg, Terfelt, &amp; Dai, fig. 5G.</p> <p>Discussion. The restriction of Lotagnostus americanus to the holotype necessitates re-evaluation of the remaining material from the Lévis Formation formerly assigned to that species. Although the pygidia are indistinguishable from those of L. clarki, the cephala differ in the structure of M2, M3, and the anteroglabella. M2 on L. aff. L. clarki is equal in width (tr.) to M1 and narrower than M3, whereas M2 on L. clarki is wider than both M1 and M3. The lateral lobes of M3 on L. aff. L. clarki are nearly circular in shape, whereas those of L. clarki are more elongate and taper posteriorly. In some specimens of L. aff. clarki they display greater inflation with the distal sides bowing more strongly outward. The species from the Lévis also appears to have a proportionally longer anteroglabella. The ratio between the axial length of the anteroglabella (AAL) and that of the posteroglabella (APL) obtained from L. clarki cephala varied from 0.47 to 0.54, with an average of 0.49. Unfortunately, only three of the seven cephala from the Lévis Formation illustrated by Rushton (2009) and Westrop et al. (2011) were preserved well enough for accurate measurement of the AAL/APL ratio. Nonetheless, two of those specimens yielded values (0.56, 0.62) outside the range documented for L. clarki cephala.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF99CA04FF31841BFDC61183	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF99CA1BFF388398FDF115E0.text	926387DBFF99CA1BFF388398FDF115E0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lotagnostus rushtoni Taylor & Loch & Repetski 2024	<div><p>Lotagnostus rushtoni n. sp.</p> <p>(Plate 12)</p> <p>Diagnosis. Non-scrobiculate Lotagnostus with narrow, strongly curved anterior margin; glabella long and ogival; lateral lobes of M3 defined only by inflation with no bounding longitudinal furrows; slightly elongate glabellar node sits high on elliptical elevated platform on anterior half of M2; large, inflated basal lobes with convex lateral margins extend well behind glabellar culmination; pygidium with transaxial F1; axial furrows narrow and moderately impressed; broad (tr.) posteroaxis with intranotular area undefined or extremely faint; acrolobe unconstricted; post-axial pleural field narrow (sag.); border furrow wide, deep, constant in width, with sharp boundaries with pleural field and border.</p> <p>Etymology. Named after A.W.A. Rushton for his meticulous work on Cambrian taxa, among them Lotagnostus.</p> <p>Material and occurrence. Holotype CM 41385 is a pygidium from collection 5/22/08D: assigned specimens include 2 cephala CM 41383–41384 and 1 pygidium CM41386 from collection 5/22/08D; 2 pygidia USNM 775743, 775746 from collection D3381-CO; and 4 cephala USNM 775739–775742 and 2 pygidia USNM 775744–775745 from collection D3383-CO. Lotagnostus rushtoni Fauna: collection 5/22/08C (32-40), 5/22/08D (36-34), D3381- CO (0-3) and D3383-CO (9-18) from the Windfall Formation at Ninemile Canyon, Nevada.</p> <p>Description. Cephalon semiovate in outline with maximum cephalic width equal to cephalic length (97– 105%); slightly convex (sag.) to moderately convex (tr.). Glabella long (sag.), 76% (71–81%) of cephalic length; narrow, accounting for approximately a third of cephalic width at M3; slightly convex (tr.), rising only slightly above genae in anterior and lateral views. Axial furrows moderately impressed; strongly convergent (30º angle to midline) from posterior margin to anterior end of basal lobes, parallel to very slightly convergent to poorly defined anterolateral corners of glabella, strongly convergent (45º) to front of glabella. Basal lobes long, 32% (26–35%) of glabellar length; basal furrow moderately impressed, but slightly narrower than axial furrows. Very short (sag.), gently curved, posteriorly convex occipital band. F1 a very shallow (tr.) indentation in side of glabella near anterior tip of basal lobe. Glabellar culmination very bluntly pointed with very faint terminal node. M2 equal in width (tr.) or slightly narrower than M3, with rounded anterolateral corners; prominent, slightly elongate glabellar node centered on inflated, elliptical area on posterior half of M2; F2 moderately impressed abaxially, faintly impressed medially in small specimens, incomplete across axis in larger specimens, directly slightly anteromedially. M3 divided transversely into a shorter (sag.), anteriorly tapering, medial lobe flanked by slightly inflated, elongate, subelliptical lateral lobes; boundaries between medial and lateral lobes defined by change in slope rather than furrows. Transglabellar F3 moderately impressed, slightly to moderately concave anteriorly in larger specimens. Ogival anteroglabella constitutes 33% (31–36%) of glabellar length (sag.). Width of genal field, equal to glabellar width (tr.) at F2, steadily decreases anteriorly to where preglabellar field constitutes only 16% (12–18%) of cephalic length at midline; slope angle of genal field increases abaxially from near-horizontal adjacent to axial furrow to vertical at border furrow, causing genal field to overhang border at posterolateral corners. Genal and preglabellar fields nonscrobiculate. Border narrow, convex, narrowing slightly posteriorly. Border furrow well impressed, uniform in depth and width, slightly narrower than border.</p> <p>Pygidium semiovate in outline, pygidial length exclusive of articulating half-ring 91% (85–94%) of maximum width (tr.) at F2; moderately convex (sag., tr.). Axis long, 82% (78–85%) of pygidial length; slightly convex (sag., tr.), standing in slight relief above adjacent pleural fields; post-axial pleural field continues gentle posterior slope of posteroaxis in lateral view. Anteroaxis accounts for less than half (42–46%) of length (sag.) of axis. Axial furrows moderately impressed; slightly convergent from anterior margin to F2, bowed outward along M1, less so along M2; bowed outward along sides of ogival posteroaxis. Articulating half ring short (sag.), crescentic; width (tr.) approximately 70% of M1; articulating furrow deep and broad (sag.), narrowing laterally in front of lateral lobes of M1. M1 wider (tr.) than M2 and posteroaxis, trisected by longitudinal furrows into slightly shorter (sag.) and narrower (tr.) medial lobe with gently abaxially convex sides, and inflated lateral lobes with broadly rounded anterolateral corners. F1 transaxial, bowed forward slightly, moderately impressed, shallowing over midline in some specimens. M2 trisected, longitudinal furrows slightly shallower than on M1; medial lobe narrower (tr.) than medial lobe of M1, longer (sag.) and narrower than lateral lobes of M2; large, strongly asymmetrical axial node on posterior half of M2 extends postero-dorsally to overhang F2. Transaxial F2 moderately impressed, transverse to gently anteriorly convex; wider (exsag.) and curved forward slightly at intersection with axial furrows on some specimens, producing rounded posterolateral corners on lateral lobes of M2; shallower and deflected sightly forward over midline at base of axial node. Posteroaxis slightly wider (tr.) than M2; maximum width slightly greater than length (sag.); some specimens display very faint intranotular axis circumscribed by slight change in convexity and flat, terminating in flat, upturned tip. Pleural fields narrow, widest (tr.) at level of slightly constricted M2, narrowing posteriorly to produce short (sag.) post-axial field; moderately convex (tr., sag.); moderately declined post-axially as seen in lateral view; slightly declined from axial furrows increasing to moderately sloping near border furrow. Non-scrobiculate. Border flatly convex, moderate in width, 8% (7–10%) of pygidial length exclusive of articulating half-ring; widest at midline, tapering toward anterolateral corners. Border furrow broad, well impressed with very steep boundaries with pleural field and border; narrows slightly anterior to short posterolateral spines that lie just anterior to end of axis. Shoulder furrow well impressed, narrow (exsag).</p> <p>Discussion. Lotagnostus rushtoni is distinguished from L. morrisoni, with which it co-occurs in the Windfall Formation, by the gentler convexity and abaxial slope of the proximal genal and pleural fields, longer and more pointed anteroglabella, transaxial pygidial F1, relatively longer and narrower posteroaxis (Figure 10.4), and absence of notular furrows. All Lotagnostus clarki cephala differ from those of L. rushtoni in exhibiting a longer preglabellar field, less pointed anteroglabella, and a smaller glabellar node not elevated by inflation of the surrounding area. Larger L. clarki cephala are weakly scrobiculate, whereas those of L. rushtoni are smooth. The transaxial F1 distinguishes all L. rushtoni pygidia from those of L. clarki and larger sclerites of the former display a deeper, more steep-sided border furrow and wider posterior border.</p> <p>The transaxial pygidial F1 sets Lotagnostus rushtoni apart from all other non-scrobiculate species of the genus except L. hedini and L. aff. L. rushtoni. The latter species is discussed in more detail below. The cephalon of L. rushtoni differs from that of L. hedini in possessing longer and more inflated basal lobes that extend posteriorly beyond the glabellar culmination; the posterior ends of the basal lobes of L. hedini lie in line with, or slightly in front of the glabellar culmination. L. rushtoni also has a shorter (sag.) and more tapered glabella. The pygidium differs from that of L. hedini in having a proportionally shorter (Figure 10.4) and more broadly rounded posteroaxis, an unconstricted acrolobe, and a deep, symmetrical, trough-like border furrow that is less variable in width, and is narrower than the border posterior to F2.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF99CA1BFF388398FDF115E0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF86CA1BFF38844FFBDF10A2.text	926387DBFF86CA1BFF38844FFBDF10A2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lotagnostus Whitehouse 1936	<div><p>Lotagnostus aff. L. rushtoni</p> <p>(Plate 6.11–6.18)</p> <p>1989 Lotagnostus hedini (Troedsson, 1937); Ludvigsen &amp; Westrop in Ludvigsen, Westrop, and Kindle, pl. 1, figs 1–8 only.</p> <p>Occurrence. Keithia schucherti Fauna in the Gorge Formation, Vermont, and Green Point Formation, Newfoundland.</p> <p>Discussion. The sclerites assigned to this species are those illustrated from the “Main Zone” of the Gorge Formation as Lotagnostus hedini in Ludvigsen et al. (1989), but subsequently removed from that species by Westrop et al. (2011), as well as three pygidia recovered from a clast in the Bed 19 limestone conglomerate in the Global Stratotype Section for the Cambrian-Ordovician boundary at Green Point, Newfoundland (Cooper et al., 2001). Although conodonts recovered from clasts and matrix confirm a significantly younger, Skullrockian age (Cordylodus intermedius Zone, or younger) depositional age for Bed 19, trilobites from the clast that yielded L. aff. L. rushtoni are all Sunwaptan species characteristic of the Acheilus monile Fauna of Fortey (1983) and equivalent Keithia schucherti Fauna of Ludvigsen et al. (1989). Lotagnostus aff. L. rushtoni closely resembles L. rushtoni but has smaller and less inflated basal lobes, a wider (tr.) and more broadly rounded posteroaxis that is as wide or wider than M1, and is conspicuously bulbous in large specimens. Additionally, the pygidial border furrow is narrower, shallower, and lacks the sharp boundary with the border characteristic of L. rushtoni.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF86CA1BFF38844FFBDF10A2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF86CA19FF38837AFCB513C8.text	926387DBFF86CA19FF38837AFCB513C8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lotagnostus morrisoni Taylor & Loch & Repetski 2024	<div><p>Lotagnostus morrisoni n. sp.</p> <p>(Plate 13)</p> <p>Diagnosis. Non-scrobiculate species with parts of glabella and pygidial axis that lie slightly below dorsally convex proximal areas of acrolobes; anterior end of glabella and posterior end of pygidial posteroaxis particularly lowlying relative to preglabellar field and postaxial pleurae, respectively. Approximately inner third of acrolobe slopes gently toward axial furrow while distal two-thirds descend steeply abaxially to border furrow. Cephalic acrolobe narrows (sag.) only slightly in front of short (sag.), bluntly rounded anteroglabella. A pair of small, elliptical nodes at posterior ends of lateral lobes of M3 discernible on exfoliated cephala. Small, circular glabellar node sits in line with posterior end of very broad (exsag.) F2. Pygidial F1 discontinuous, terminating adaxially at longitudinal furrow that bounds confluent central lobes of M1 and M2. Relatively short (sag.) posteroaxis weakly trisected with intranotular axis bounded only by change in slope along most of its length, but by weakly impressed notular furrows along posterior-most one fourth to one fifth. Pygidial acrolobe constant in width from midlength of posteroaxis to midline behind axis.</p> <p>Etymology. Named after Scott Morrison for invaluable assistance in conducting a thorough review of the relevant literature.</p> <p>Material and occurrence. Holotype CM 41389 is a pygidium from collection 5/22/08D: assigned specimens include 1 cephalon CM 41388 from collection 5/22/08D; 1 cephalon CM 41387 from collection 5/22/08C; and 1 cephalon USNM 775747 and 4 pygidia USNM 775748–775751 from collection D3381-CO. Lotagnostus rushtoni Fauna: collections 5/22/08C (1-2), 5/22/08D (1-2) and D3381-CO (10-15) from Windfall Formation at Ninemile Canyon, Nevada.</p> <p>Description. Cephalon semiovate with maximum cephalic width equal to cephalic length (97–105%); strongly convex (sag.) posterior to glabellar node, gently convex from node to anterior margin; moderately to strongly convex (tr.). Glabella moderately long (sag.), accounts for 77% (71–84%) of cephalic length, and a third of cephalic width (tr.) at M3; slightly convex (tr.), barely rises above adjacent pleural fields in anterior and lateral views. Axial furrows broad, moderately impressed; strongly convergent (30º angle to midline) from posterior margin to anterior end of basal lobes, continuing nearly straight until slightly angular turn at anterolateral corners of glabella, converge strongly (60-65º angle to midline) to intersection with median preglabellar furrow.Basal lobes long, 33% (27–35%) of glabellar length; basal furrow moderately impressed, but slightly fainter than axial furrows. Border rim-like, of even width. Border furrow moderately impressed, uniform in depth. Acrolobe semi-circular, maximum width opposite of F2 furrow; moderately convex in lateral and anterior views. Median preglabellar furrow moderately impressed. F1 as slight widening of axial furrows at anterior end of basal lobes; M2 equal in width (tr.) to M1, with small, circular glabellar node centered on anterior half; F2 moderately impressed abaxially, wide (exsag.) and short (tr.), extending only halfway to midline. M3 weakly trisected by very faint longitudinal furrows or change in convexity into wider (tr), anteriorly tapering medial lobe between very slightly inflated, elliptical lateral lobes; smaller, elliptical lobes discernible at posterior ends of lateral lobes on exfoliated specimens. F3 transglabellar, moderately impressed, weakly anteriorly concave. Anteroglabella subpentagonal in outline with rounded anterolateral corners and bluntly pointed front; accounts for 33% (31–36%) of glabellar length. Genae widest (tr.) at F2, narrowing very slightly anteriorly to where preglabellar field accounts for 20% of cephalic length at midline; genae moderately to strongly convex with adaxial third inclined toward axial furrow and distal two thirds descending steeply to border furrow. Adaxial slope of proximal third results in parts of the glabella lying below highest areas of adjacent genal field, imparting a depressed or “sunken” appearance to the anterior third to half of the glabella.</p> <p>Pygidium semiovate in outline, maximum width (tr.) slightly less (87–100%) than pygidial length exclusive of articulating half-ring; moderately convex (sag., tr.). Axis moderate in length, 70% (67–76%) of pygidial length; slightly convex (sag., tr.), margins lie slightly below height of elevated adjacent pleural fields; widest at M1, slightly constricted at M2, with broadly rounded posteroaxis nearly as wide (tr.) as M3. Axial furrows moderately impressed, slightly shallower along M1, subparallel along M2, abaxially convex along slightly inflated lateral lobes of M1 and posteroaxis. Anteroaxis short (sag.), less than half (42-46%) of length of axis, trisected by moderately impressed longitudinal furrows that create confluent, medial lobe of M1 and M2. F1 and F2 moderately impressed; F1discontinuous, straight, directed slightly anteromedially from axial furrow, terminating at intersection with longitudinal furrows; F2 transaxial, slightly concave forward along posterior margins of M2 lateral lobes, transverse and shallower along base of posteriorly projecting axial node positioned at posterior end of confluent medial lobe. Posteroaxis relatively short (sag.), length only 91% (81-95%) of maximum width; trisected with faint intranotular axis, more clearly defined in smaller specimens; notular furrows restricted to posterior, and in a few specimens anterior, ends of intranotular axis, with remainder delineated only by changes in convexity; faint terminal node present on some specimens. Pleural fields moderately to strongly convex (tr., sag.); moderately declined post-axially in lateral view; in posterior view genae rise from axial furrows before declining steeply to border furrow; proximal third anterior to F2 subhorizontal; width of pleural field constant from midline anteriorly to maximum width of posterior lobe, increasing along anteroaxis. Smooth, non-scrobiculate. Border convex; maximum width at midline 8% (7–10%) of pygidial length (sag.) exclusive of articulating half-ring; tapering anteriorly. One pair of small, posterolaterally directed posterolateral spines positioned slightly posterior to end of axis on holotype (Pl. 13.11-14). Border furrow moderately impressed, asymmetrical with sharp boundary with pleural field and more gradual transition to border; as wide or wider than border anterior to posterolateral spines, narrowing behind axis to be narrower than border.</p> <p>Discussion. Lotagnostus morrisoni n. sp. appears unique among non-scrobiculate species of Lotagnostus in the depressed appearance of the axial structures imparted by inflated genal and pleural fields that rise above the axial furrows. The lack of similarly depressed appearance of the axis in specimens of L. rushtoni in the same collections confirms that it is a primary character of the species rather than a taphonomic effect. Cephala from the Frederick Valley of Maryland identified as Lotagnostus sp. by Rasetti (1959) and reillustrated by Westrop &amp; Landing (2016, fig. 12) display a similar position of the axis relative to the genae and pleural fields, but are easily distinguished by well-developed scrobiculae and strongly depressed lateral lobes of M2. Lotagnostus morrisoni also differs from the contemporaneous species L. rushtoni n. sp. in the presence of the slight nodes in the posterolateral corners of glabellar M3 and the relative proportions of the pygidium.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF86CA19FF38837AFCB513C8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF83CA1EFF3883F3FBE8128C.text	926387DBFF83CA1EFF3883F3FBE8128C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Homagnostus Howell 1935	<div><p>Homagnostus ? sp.</p> <p>(Plate 7.10–7.12, 7.16, 7.21–7.22)</p> <p>Material and occurrence. Lotagnostus nolani Fauna: collection 5/22/08B (2-4) from the Windfall Formation at Ninemile Canyon, Nevada.</p> <p>Discussion. The features supporting tentative assignment of this rare species in the Windfall to Homagnostus, following the generic diagnosis of Shergold &amp; Laurie (1997), include the presence of a median preglabellar furrow, and a strongly convex pygidium with a laterally constricted M2 and inflated posteroaxis.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF83CA1EFF3883F3FBE8128C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF83CA1EFF3882BFFB3F1124.text	926387DBFF83CA1EFF3882BFFB3F1124.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Homagnostus Howell 1935	<div><p>Homagnostus Howell, 1935b</p> <p>Type species. Agnostus pisiformis var. obesus Belt, 1867 by original designation from Wales.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF83CA1EFF3882BFFB3F1124	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF83CA1EFF388517FC171068.text	926387DBFF83CA1EFF388517FC171068.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Micragnostus Howell 1935	<div><p>Micragnostus cf. M. intermedius</p> <p>(Plate 7.17–7.18)</p> <p>Discussion. This single pygidium in collection 5/22/08B from Ninemile Canyon strongly resembles the holotype of Micragnostus intermedius (Palmer, 1968) in its transverse F2, parallel trend of the axial furrows from F1 to slightly posterior to F2 posteroaxis, wide and deep border furrow and narrow border. It does, however, display a slightly less inflated, nearly semi-circular posteroaxis. Whether that difference is merely intraspecific variation is undeterminable with the limited material available for comparison.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF83CA1EFF388517FC171068	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF83CA1EFF38878FFA8A1700.text	926387DBFF83CA1EFF38878FFA8A1700.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Micragnostus Howell 1935	<div><p>Micragnostus Howell, 1935a</p> <p>Type species. Agnostus calvus Lake, 1906, by original designation, from Wales.</p> <p>Discussion. Several specimens in collection 5/22/08B represent one or more genera of a problematic group of similar agnostoids with rather generalized cephala and strongly convex pygidial axes that includes, among others, Homagnostus, Micragnostus, Oncagnostus and Trilobagnostus. The amount of material from the Windfall is too limited to add anything to recent efforts to identify diagnostic apomorphic traits that will improve the consistency of assignment of species to these closely related genera (e.g., Choi et al., 2004; Westrop &amp; Eoff, 2012).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF83CA1EFF38878FFA8A1700	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF83CA1EFF38810BFBEF13C8.text	926387DBFF83CA1EFF38810BFBEF13C8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudagnostus Jaekel 1909	<div><p>Pseudagnostus Jaekel, 1909</p> <p>Type species. Agnostus cyclopyge Tullberg, 1880, by original designation, from Sweden.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF83CA1EFF38810BFBEF13C8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF82CA1FFF388213FE8112F4.text	926387DBFF82CA1FFF388213FE8112F4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neoagnostus Kobayashi 1955	<div><p>Neoagnostus Kobayashi, 1955</p> <p>Type species. Neoagnostus aspidoides Kobayashi, 1955, by original designation, from the McKay Group, British Columbia, Canada.</p> <p>Diagnosis. The diagnosis of Naimark (2016, p. 61–62) that features a “V-shaped” F3 and chevron-shaped F2 glabellar furrows and pygidial axial furrows which fail to surround the posteroaxis, and a pair of inflated nodes located posterior to F2 is accepted.</p> <p>Other species. N. bilobus (Shaw, 1951); N. longicolis Kobayashi, 1966; N. eckardti Jell, 1985; N. hangulensis Lu &amp; Zhou, in Lu et al., 1981; N. shiziluensis Lu and Zhou, 1990; N. tarjensis (Gilberto, 2010); N. parki n. sp.</p> <p>Discussion. Shergold(1975, 1977) considered Neoagnostus a subjective junior synonym of Pseudorhaptagnostus Lermontova, 1951, which he treated sensu lato. He described a “spectaculate” morphology in which the glabellar node lies posterior to the F2 glabellar furrow which he subdivided into multiple species groups. Among these “spectaculate” forms he included a “ Bilobus group ” that he acknowledged may have represented a genus-level grouping and which included Neoagnostus aspidoides, the type species of Neoagnostus. Shergold (1980) then provisionally recognized Neoagnostus as a valid genus. Shergold et al. (1990; Shergold &amp; Laurie, 1997) sought to establish subgenera for Neoagnostus, a practice followed by some authors (Nielson, 1997). Naimark (2016) briefly discussed the nomenclatorial history of Pseudorhaptagnostus and revived the generic status of Neoagnostus without subgenera.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF82CA1FFF388213FE8112F4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF82CA1FFF3886E7FBA915B8.text	926387DBFF82CA1FFF3886E7FBA915B8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudagnostus Jaekel 1909	<div><p>Pseudagnostus ? spp.</p> <p>(Plate 16.8, 16.9)</p> <p>Discussion. The poor state of preservation and largely effaced condition of these two articulated specimens from the Hedinaspis-Charchaqia Fauna in the Hot Creek section of the Hales renders assignment even to genus difficult. The posterior placement of the glabellar node on one specimen (Plate 16.9) and suggestion of a broadly expanded posteroaxis on the other (Plate 16.8) is consistent with a spectaculate agnostine, justifying tentative assignment to Pseudagnostus. It is possible, however, that the two specimens are not conspecific.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF82CA1FFF3886E7FBA915B8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF82CA1FFF3884C3FC151004.text	926387DBFF82CA1FFF3884C3FC151004.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhaptagnostus Whitehouse 1936	<div><p>Rhaptagnostus cf. R. convergens (Palmer, 1955)</p> <p>(Plate 7.4–7.6)</p> <p>Discussion. One largely effaced, subelliptical cephalon in collection 5/22/08B displays the forward placement of the glabellar node between the anterolateral lobes of M3 (the papillionate condition), thereby conforming to the diagnosis of Rhaptagnostus (Shergold &amp; Laurie, 1997). In most respects it resembles R. convergens (Palmer, 1955), but is more elongate and the median preglabellar furrow is less uniformly impressed, deepest in front of the glabella, shallowing anteriorly and does not reach the border furrow. It also closely resembles R. papilio (Shergold, 1971), but that species has much smaller basal glabellar lobes. Given these differences, and lack of an associated pygidium in the collection, the Windfall species is left in open nomenclature.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF82CA1FFF3884C3FC151004	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF82CA1FFF38878FFCF41674.text	926387DBFF82CA1FFF38878FFCF41674.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhaptagnostus Whitehouse 1936	<div><p>Rhaptagnostus Whitehouse, 1936</p> <p>Type species. Agnostus cyclopygeformis Sun, 1924 from China.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF82CA1FFF38878FFCF41674	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF82CA13FF388143FCFF15C4.text	926387DBFF82CA13FF388143FCFF15C4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neoagnostus parki Taylor & Loch & Repetski 2024	<div><p>Neoagnostus parki n. sp.</p> <p>(Plates 14, 15)</p> <p>Diagnosis. Neoagnostus with a relatively long (sag.) preglabellar field. Median preglabellar furrow very weakly impressed to absent, shallowing anteriorly and not reaching the border furrow. F3 indistinct, expressed only as shallow notches in side of glabella anterior to moderately impressed, chevron-shaped, transglabellar F2. Narrow (tr.), angular glabellar culmination extending as blunt spine to posterior end of large basal glabellar lobes. Pygidium exhibits faintly impressed F1 furrows, moderately impressed F2 furrows and moderately impressed axial furrows that diverge posteriorly from F2, terminating a short distance posterior to pair of slightly inflated bosses.</p> <p>Etymology. Named in honor of our undergraduate mentor and colleague at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Frederick R. Park.</p> <p>Material and occurrence. Holotype CM 41394 is a cephalon from collection 5/22/08B: assigned specimens include 4 cephala CM 41390–41393 and 5 pygidia CM 41352, 41354, 41355 from collection 5/22/08B and 1 cranidium USNM 775752 and 1 pygidium USNM 775753 from USGS collection D3362-CO. Lotagnostus nolani Fauna: collections 5/22/08B (62-48) and D3362-CO (4-6) from the Windfall Formation at Ninemile Canyon, Nevada.</p> <p>Description. Cephalon subquadrate, cephalic length (sag.) equaling 91% (88–94%) of maximum width (tr.); width at posterior margin 80% (77–91%) of maximum width; moderately (sag.) and strongly (tr.) convex. Glabella long (sag.), 66% length of cephalon, narrow, width (tr.) 31% (27-35%) of cephalic width at cephalon midlength; slightly convex (sag., tr.) standing in low relief above genae. Axial furrows moderately impressed; strongly convergent (30º to midline) along basal lobes; wider (tr.), slightly convergent, and very slightly laterally concave from basal furrow to maximum width of M3; slightly convergent to anterolateral corner, then nearly transverse to midline in specimens with anteriorly truncate glabellas; continue from M3 to midline in even curve on specimens with narrowly rounded front. Confluent M1 and M2 form long composite lobe, 61% (53–69%) of glabellar length (sag.), hexagonal in outline; glabellar culmination angular, extending in most specimens as narrow point that reaches posterior end of basal lobes. Basal furrows moderately impressed, narrow, nearly straight, converging to almost meet, resulting in narrow (tr.) occipital band; basal lobes large but short (exsag.), 20% of glabellar length, triangular in outline. F1 as very shallow indentations in side of glabella at anterior tip of basal lobes or absent; F2 transglabellar, chevon-like, moderately impressed near axial furrow, narrower (sag.) and faintly impressed across middle half to two thirds of glabella. Weakly inflated glabellar node located at glabellar midlength, just posterior to medial peak of F2. Transglabellar F3 V-shaped, very faintly impressed, usually incomplete, fading medially, isolating most of M3 as long (exsag.), elliptical, slightly inflated lateral lobes. Anteroglabella short (sag.), approximately 16% (14-17%) of cephalic length; front narrowly rounded in some specimens, more truncate in others; descends evenly to axial furrow in lateral view. Acrolobe very slightly constricted in large specimens; quadrate in small specimens, semi-elliptical in larger cephala, widest (tr.) at midlength (sag.) of confluent M1 and M2, narrowing slightly anteriorly to end of glabella, curving inward to midline sharply in small specimens, in even curve in large cephala. Genae slightly convex, gently declined adaxially; moderately convex, steeply declined laterally; gently declined anteriorly from distal end of basal furrow to preglabellar furrow, moderately declined to anterior border furrow. Preglabellar field increases in length (sag.) with size; 20% of cephalic length in smallest specimen, 28% in largest cephalon; gently convex dorsally, moderately declined to border furrow. Border strongly convex, accounts for 7% of cephalic length (sag.) at midline; constant in width anteriorly, tapering rapidly posterior to F2. Border furrow well impressed; broad, widest at anterolateral corners, where it is twice width of border, narrows anteriorly and posteriorly.</p> <p>Pygidium subquadrate in outline, length (sag.) 83% (74–91%) of maximum width at midlength opposite F2; nearly flat (sag.), very gently convex (tr.). Acrolobe quadrate in small specimens becoming subpentagonal and constricted with increased size. Articulating half ring with gently anteriorly convex margin, posterior margin deeply embayed laterally creating posteriorly projecting medial prong; articulating furrow well impressed, broad (sag.), bowed backward medially, deepest anterolaterally in embayments behind very narrow (exsag.) lateral thirds of half ring. Axial furrows moderately impressed, converge from anterior margin to F2 furrow with slight indentation at position of F1, diverge slightly and shallow, terminating approximately 45% of way to posterior margin. M1 undivided; M2 trisected by faintly impressed longitudinal furrows that outline elongate axial node that widens (tr.) slightly posteriorly, deflecting and slightly overhanging F2; crest of node declines anteriorly from posterior end, terminating at level of F1. F2 transglabellar, straight and directed posteromedially to longitudinal furrows, shallowing as curve around posterior end of axial node. Two slightly inflated lateral bosses and depressed central area at anterior end of posteroaxis; axial furrows posterior to paired bosses very faint to absent; small terminal node on midline at posterior margin of acrolobe confirms that posteroaxis extends to border furrow; very faint notular furrows present on a few exfoliated specimens. Pleural fields broad (tr.), nonscrobiculate, slightly convex, gently declined laterally and posteriorly. Border convex, bears one pair of long (exsag.), slender posterolateral spines directed posteriorly and slightly laterally from margin; border widest anterior to base of posterolateral spines, tapering anteriorly, even in width (sag., exsag.) posteriorly. Border furrow well impressed, broadest anterior to posterolateral spines, narrowing anteriorly, even in width (sag., exsag.) posteriorly.</p> <p>Discussion. Naimark (2016) retained 6 species within Neoagnostus based upon her emended generic diagnosis. All display F3 and median preglabellar furrows that are more continuous and firmly impressed than those of Neoagnostus parki n. sp. The hexagonal shape of the posterior half of the glabella, between the chevron-shaped F2 and pointed glabellar culmination, also sets N. parki apart from all other species of the genus. Although N. bilobus (Shaw, 1951) possesses a nearly hexagonal confluent lobe similar to that of N. parki, its glabellar culmination is more broadly rounded. Comparison with other species must be done between sclerites of similar size, owing to significant ontogenetic variation arising from allometric growth. The cephalic acrolobe of N. parki is subrectangular in small specimens but increases in length (sag.), becoming semielliptical with gently curved and anteriorly convergent margins and a rounded front in larger specimens. Despite the elongation of the acrolobe, and an increase in relative length (sag.) of the frontal area, concomitant broadening of the border furrow and rounding of the anterolateral corners of the cephalon during growth modified the cephalic outline from subrectangular to semiovate.The pygidium of N. parki experienced similar elongation of the acrolobe, broadening of the border furrows, and transformation of marginal shape from subrectangular to semiovate during growth (Plate 15).</p> <p>Neoagnostus parki also differs from the type, N. aspidoides Kobayashi, 1955 (p. 473–474, pl. 7, figs 4–5, pl. 9, fig. 5; Shergold, 1977, pl. 16, fig. 16; Shergold et al., 1990, fig. 16, 1a) in having a less tapered glabella, longer preglabellar field, more rounded anterior margin, and narrower anteroglabella. Pygidial comparison is difficult due to the poor quality of the original illustration for the N. aspidoides pygidium. Additional features that distinguish N. bilobus (Shaw, 1951, p. 112–113, pl. 24, figs 17–22, not pl. 22, fig. 10 =? Plicatolina kindlei; Shergold, 1977, pl. 16, figs 7–8; Shergold, et al., 1990, fig. 16, 1b–1c) from N. parki include smaller basal glabellar lobes and a narrower and more strongly inflated pygidial acrolobe. The paired bosses on the front of the posteroaxis that inspired the name of N. bilobus are more inflated and surrounded by deep furrows. The pygidial axial node of N. bilobus is longer than that of N. parki, extending posteriorly past the mid-length of the paired bosses. Deeply incised furrows, a much broader (tr.) glabella, shorter frontal area, a nearly transverse F2, and very small basal lobes distinguish the cephalon of N. eckardti Jell, 1985 (p. 58–59, pl. 19, figs 1–5) from that of N. parki. While the pygidia of N. parki and N. eckardti are similar, the post-axial bosses on N. eckardti are more prominent and the axial furrows do not diverge posterior to the F2 furrow as they do in N. parki. Although comparison with N. longicollis Kobayashi, (1966, p. 283, fig. 7) is difficult due to the quality of the original illustrations, the holotype is clearly more quadrate than N. parki cephala of similar size and displays a more continuous median preglabellar furrow, a firmly impressed F3, and more transverse F2. The pygidium of N. longicollis exhibits a broader border and the axial furrows posterior to F2 are more strongly divergent. Although most of the illustrated sclerites of N. tarijensis (Gilberto, 2010, p. 123, fig. 1.1–1.6) are deformed, they confirm that the cephalon has smaller basal glabellar lobes, a more continuous, V-shaped F3, and more transverse F2 than N. parki. Neoagnostus hangulensis (Lu et al., 1981, pl. 2, fig. 1) has a less constricted cephalic acrolobe, narrower border furrows, a continuous median preglabellar furrow that reaches the border furrow, and more inflated bosses at the front of the posteroaxis. The cephalon designated as holotype for Neoagnostus shiziluensis by Lu &amp; Zhou, (1990, p. 14, pl. 1, fig.7) more closely resembles that of N. parki with respect to shape of the acrolobe, width of border furrow, and cephalic outline. It differs, however, in having a narrower glabella, smaller basal lobes, and a blunt rather than pointed glabellar culmination. Moreover, none of the three pygidia illustrated for that species compares favorably with that of N. parki. The semi-circular and inflated acrolobes of the two small pygidia (figs 9–10) are quite different from the weakly convex, subrectangular acrolobes of N. parki pygidia of comparable size. The larger, rectangular pygidium (fig. 11), which is wider than long and has a narrow border furrow of constant width, bears no resemblance to the large pygidia of N. parki. It is questionable as to whether that larger pygidium is conspecific with the cephalon and smaller pygidia, one of which came from the same horizon as the holotype. Although Naimark (2016, p. 62) suggested N. shiziluensis is a junior synonym of N. eckardti, we consider the differences in cephalic outline, glabellar proportions, frontal area length, and depth of furrows sufficient to retain separate species status for the former.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF82CA13FF388143FCFF15C4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF8ECA13FF3885DEFAD91380.text	926387DBFF8ECA13FF3885DEFAD91380.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Machairagnostus Harrington & Leanza 1957	<div><p>Machairagnostus cf. M. corrugatus (Suárez-Soruco, 1975)</p> <p>(Plate 7.20)</p> <p>Discussion. A single exfoliated pygidium from collection 5/22/08B conforms to the diagnosis of Naimark (2016) for Machairagnostus by exhibiting a clearly defined intranotular axis (=lanceolate field) bounded by well-impressed notular furrows, and a terminal node just inside the border furrow.Although a few exfoliated pygidia of Neoagnostus parki from the same collection display very faint notular furrows (e.g. Pl. 15, fig. 10), none compare in depth of incision or are associated with scrobiculae on the pleural fields like those on the specimen here assigned to Machairagnostus. Moreover, this specimen is proportionally narrower (tr.) than N. parki pygidia of similar size. Given these differences, we consider it unlikely that this unique pygidium is a variant of N. parki.</p> <p>The Windfall specimen differs from all pygidia illustrated for the seven species of Machairagnostus listed by Naimark (2016) in displaying a broader, flat border and much longer marginal spines that diverge posteriorly, rather than being subparallel. The pygidia of the type species, M. tmetus (Harrington &amp; Leanza, 1957), and the species identified as M. sp. by Lazarenko et al. (2008, pl. 20, fig. 14, pl. 21, fig. 12) also differ in lacking scrobiculae on the pleural fields and having the sides of the posteroaxis more clearly defined by faintly impressed axial furrows. The pygidium of M. ornatus (Lisogor, 1977, pl. 31, fig. 1) is less quadrate, more coarsely scobiculate, and lacks clear definition of the intranotular axis. The poor preservation of the illustrated pygidia of M. kentauensis (Ergaliev, 1983, p. 43–44, pl. 3, figs 3–4) makes comparisons difficult. However, the Khazakhstanian specimens clearly display a much broader border furrow and narrower border of less variable width than the Windfall pygidium. Machairagnostus houchengensis (Zhang, 1981, pl. 55, fig. 12) has a poorly defined intranotular axis, more strongly constricted acrolobe, and much smaller and more anteriorly positioned posterolateral spines than the Nevada pygidium. The axial features of the Windfall pygidium most closely resemble those displayed by the three pygidia of M. corrugatus (Suárez-Soruco, 1975) illustrated by Tortello &amp; Esteban (2003, figs 4.CC–EE). Indeed, the similarity is so strong that the Windfall pygidium might represent that species, with the wider border and longer, more posteriorly positioned spines attributable to intraspecific (ontogenetic) variation. Whether the Windfall pygidium is an ontogenetic variant of M. corrugatus or a new, closely related species cannot be determined at present owing to the poor preservation of the border and marginal spines in the smallest pygidium illustrated by Tortello &amp; Esteban (2003, fig. 4.DD), which is similar in size to the Windfall specimen, and the lack of an associated cephalon in the Nevada collection.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF8ECA13FF3885DEFAD91380	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
926387DBFF8ECA13FF388452FE2E1748.text	926387DBFF8ECA13FF388452FE2E1748.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Machairagnostus Harrington & Leanza 1957	<div><p>Machairagnostus Harrington &amp; Leanza, 1957</p> <p>Type species. Machairagnostus tmetus Harrington &amp; Leanza, 1957, by original designation, from Argentina.</p> <p>Diagnosis. The diagnosis and synonymy of Naimark (2016, p. 63) is accepted.</p> <p>Other species. M. corrugatus (Suárez-Soruco, 1975);? M. ornatus Lisogor, 1977; M. houchengensis (Zhang, 1981; M. latus (Ergaliev, 1983); M. kentauensis (Ergaliev, 1983); Machairagnostus sp., (Lazarenko et al., 2008).</p> <p>Discussion. Naimark (2016) discussed the nomenclatorial history of Pseudorhaptagnostus and revived the generic status of Machairagnostus rather than considering it a subgenus of Neoagnostus (Shergold et al., 1990: Shergold &amp; Laurie, 1997).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/926387DBFF8ECA13FF388452FE2E1748	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, John F.;Loch, James D.;Repetski, John E.	Taylor, John F., Loch, James D., Repetski, John E. (2024): Taxonomy and stratigraphic distribution of Lotagnostus (Agnostida: Agnostidae) and associated trilobites and conodonts in the Upper Cambrian (Furongian) of Laurentia. Zootaxa 5422 (1): 1-66, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5422.1.1
