Kirengellida
order of molluscs
The Kirengellids are a group of problematic Cambrian fossil shells of marine organisms. The shells bear a number of paired muscle scars on the inner surface of the valve.
These fossils have conventionally been regarded as monoplacophoran molluscs, and possibly ancestral to gastropods or cephalopods. They were presumed to be exogastric on the presumption that their larger muscle scars were anterior, but it may be dangerous to compare these scars with molluscan musculature. In any case, they coiled in the opposite direction to Romaniella. However, their calcitic shells, the position of the muscle scars, and putative association with secondary shell elements, make a brachiopod affinity possible, by analogy with the mobergellans: a group of phosphatic shells from the same time period, with a similar set of muscle scars. There is also strong similarity to the contemporary brachiopod group, the Craniopsids. In the case of this diagnosis, a simple lophophore apparatus is postulated to sit between the muscle scars and the edges of the shell. On the other hand, Vendrasco (2012) reaffirmed the interpretation of the kirengellids as molluscs, noting that the Kirengella muscle scar pattern is also similar to what occurs in monoplacophorans. Bouchet et al.
“Kirengellida” enters the record as order of molluscs. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Kirengellida, order and molluscs can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Kirengellida” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Kirengellida, order and molluscs provides the most credible route into that argument.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Mar 12, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q138648830. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2012.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Kirengellida”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Kirengellida primary sources, Kirengellida archive and Kirengellida research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Kirengellida”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Kirengellida” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.