Trilobite monophyly revisited

Fortey's and Whittington's recent refutation of Lauterbach's hypothesis of a paraphyletic Trilobita is supported. However, much of the character evidence raised by Fortey and Whittington to substantiate the monophyly of the Trilobita (including, inter alia, "Olenellinae”; and Agnostoidea) is ambiguous. Of seven proposed synapomorphies, only one (dorsal cuticle calcification) may be maintained at that node after testing within a cladistic framework. The other six characters are either constrained by calcification or define nodes up or down the cladogram. As positioned by Fortey's and Whittington's characters, Agnostoidea could be regarded either as the most primitive trilobites, or as being outside that clade. Lauterbach's support for an “olenelline"‐chelicerate clade is found to include interdependent characters which are reduced here to two testable derived similarities. Only one of these may conform to general criteria indicative of homology, such as detailed similarity and topology. It is, however, rejected on the basis of parsimony. We emphasize that resolution of the chelicerate‐"olenelline"‐trilobite three‐taxon problem must be based on recognition of homologies among each of these taxa. Nectaspida are excluded from Trilobita as defined by cuticle calcification, but as ingroup “Arachnata”; (sensu Lauterbach) they are important for determining character generality in this clade.