The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals

Rating:
Summary: Five-eyed arthropods.
Review: A reviewer of this book explains that Opabinia could not possibly be related to the arthropods, because it has five eyes. This most erudite person seems to ignore that many present-day arthropods have, in fact, five eyes. They are called insects! Many insects have two composite eyes and three small simple eyes. Now 2+3=5, so many insects, like the cicada, etc. do have five eyes. Since insects are arthropods, five-eyed arthropods are not unheard of, and are in fact very common.

Rating:
Summary: Fossil life according to Cambridge
Review: Conway-Morris sets out an interesting counterpoint to Stephen Jay Gould's 'Wonderful LIfe' - the book responsible for putting the Burgess Shale and Conway-Morris on the map. For Conway-Morris' opinion of what the burgess shale means to early evolution, read Chapter 7 only. I found his arguments weak and flaccid - he does not give any explanation, for example, of how a creature with five eyes (Opabinia) could fit into normal arthropod ancestors - but does it all the same! Presumably to fit his preconception of branching evolution rather than early diversification and then narrowing of body designs. He also takes pot shots at Stephen Jay Gould for no apparent reason - even in the introduction.

A great read for anyone interested in Cambrian life and evolutionary theory. But beware of theories and opinions with no backing reported as fact.

Rating:
Summary: A good book but I would preferred more detail.
Review: In this book Conway-Morris makes an interesting argument on the animals of Burguess Shale. But in order to understand it, a previous reading of 'Wonderful Life' by Stephen J. Gould is useful. Not only because Conway-Morris criticizes the argumnent of Gould, and he deny the importance of 'contingency' or of the 'weird wonders' in order to understand evolution and Burguess Shale. The other reason is that the Gould's book is more detailed and informative in his presentation of the animals of Burguess Shale. The lack of detail in the arguments of Conway-Morris damage his case: For example, when Gould wants to show that Anomalocaris is a weird wonder, he makes a detailed presentation of its anatomy, but Conway-Morris only presents a brief sketch of the reasons of why Anomalocaris can be seen as a special kind of arthropod. This is regrettable because the arguments of Conway-Morris benefit from detailed presentation, as in his discussion of Wiwaxia or his presentation of the concept of disparity.