↓ Skip to main content

The Middle Cambrian fossil Pikaia and the evolution of chordate swimming

Overview of attention for article published in EvoDevo, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
The Middle Cambrian fossil Pikaia and the evolution of chordate swimming
Published in
EvoDevo, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/2041-9139-3-12
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thurston Lacalli

Abstract

Conway Morris and Caron (2012) have recently published an account of virtually all the available information on Pikaia gracilens, a well-known Cambrian fossil and supposed basal chordate, and propose on this basis some new ideas about Pikaia's anatomy and evolutionary significance. Chief among its chordate-like features are the putative myomeres, a regular series of vertical bands that extends the length of the body. These differ from the myomeres of living chordates in that boundaries between them (the myosepta) are gently curved, with minimal overlap, whereas amphioxus and vertebrates have strongly overlapping V- and W-shaped myomeres. The implication, on biomechanical grounds, is that myomeres in Pikaia exerted much less tension on the myosepta, so the animal would have been incapable of swimming as rapidly as living chordates operating in the fast-twitch mode used for escape and attack. Pikaia either lacked the fast-twitch fibers necessary for such speeds, having instead only slow-twitch fibers, or it had an ancestral fiber type with functional capabilities more like modern slow fibers than fast ones. The first option is supported by the sequence of development in zebrafish, where both myoseptum formation and fast fiber deployment show a dependence on slow fibers, which develop first. For Pikaia, the absence of fast fibers has both behavioral and anatomical implications, which are discussed. Among the latter is the possibility that a notochord may not have been needed as a primary stiffening device if other structures (for example, the dorsal organ) could perform that role.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 75 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Bachelor 13 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Student > Master 10 13%
Other 5 6%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 12 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 12%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 15 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2022.
All research outputs
#6,754,661
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from EvoDevo
#158
of 332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,453
of 177,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EvoDevo
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 332 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 177,692 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.