Editing Conodont (section)

== Discovery and understanding of conodonts ==
The teeth-like fossils of the conodont were first discovered by [[Heinz Christian Pander]] and the results published in [[Saint Petersburg, Russia]], in 1856.<ref name="Cooper, Barry J.-2008">{{cite web |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286568271 |title=C.H. Pander's introduction to conodonts, 1856 |date=December 2008 |access-date=3 January 2019 |author1=Sweet, Walter C. |author2=Cooper, Barry J. }}</ref>

It was only in the early 1980s that the first fossil evidence of the rest of the animal was found (see below). In the 1990s exquisite fossils were found in South Africa in which the soft tissue had been converted to clay, preserving even muscle fibres. The presence of muscles for rotating the eyes showed definitively that the animals were primitive vertebrates.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=[[Jan Zalasiewicz]] and [[Sarah Gabbott]] |title=The quick and the dead |journal=New Scientist |date=Jun 5, 1999 |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221895-200-the-quick-and-the-dead/}}</ref>

=== Nomenclature and taxonomic rank ===
Through their history of study, "conodont" is a term which has been applied to both the individual fossils and to the animals to which they belonged. The original German term used by Pander was "conodonten", which was subsequently [[Anglicisation (linguistics)|anglicized]] as "conodonts", though no formal [[Latinisation of names|latinized]] name was provided for several decades. MacFarlane (1923) described them as an [[Order (biology)|order]], Conodontes (a Greek translation), which Huddle (1934) altered to the Latin spelling Conodonta.<ref name="Fåhraeus-1983">{{Cite journal |last=Fåhraeus |first=Lars E. |date=1983 |title=Phylum Conodonta Pander, 1856 and Nomenclatural Priority |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2413175 |journal=Systematic Zoology |volume=32 |issue=4 |pages=455–459 |doi=10.2307/2413175 |jstor=2413175}}</ref> A few years earlier, Eichenberg (1930) established another name for the animals responsible for conodont fossils: Conodontophorida ("conodont bearers").<ref name="Eichenberg-1930">{{cite journal |doi=10.1007/BF03044446 |volume=12 |title=Conodonten aus dem Culm des Harzes |year=1930 |journal=Paläontologische Zeitschrift |pages=177–182 |last1=Eichenberg |first1=W.|issue=3–4 |bibcode=1930PalZ...12..177E |s2cid=129519805 }}</ref> A few other scientific names were rarely and inconsistently applied to conodonts and their proposed close relatives during 20th century, such as Conodontophoridia, Conodontophora, Conodontochordata, Conodontiformes,<ref name="Bengtson-1976">{{Cite journal |last=Bengtson |first=Stefan |date=1976 |title=The structure of some Middle Cambrian conodonts, and the early evolution of conodont structure and function |url=https://www.idunn.no/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1502-3931.1976.tb00966.x |journal=Lethaia |volume=9 |issue=2 |pages=185–206 |doi=10.1111/j.1502-3931.1976.tb00966.x |bibcode=1976Letha...9..185B |issn=0024-1164}}</ref> and Conodontomorpha.

Conodonta and Conodontophorida are by far the most common scientific names used to refer to conodonts, though inconsistencies regarding their [[taxonomic rank]] still persist. Bengtson (1976)'s research on conodont evolution identified three morphological tiers of early conodont-like fossils: [[protoconodont]]s, [[Paraconodontida|paraconodonts]], and "true conodonts" (euconodonts).<ref name="Bengtson-1976" /> Further investigations revealed that protoconodonts were probably more closely related to [[Chaetognatha|chaetognaths]] (arrow worms) rather than true conodonts. On the other hand, paraconodonts are still considered a likely ancestral stock or [[sister group]] to euconodonts.

The 1981 ''[[Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology]]'' volume on the conodonts (Part W revised, supplement 2) lists Conodonta as the name of both a [[phylum]] and a [[Class (biology)|class]], with Conodontophorida as a subordinate order for "true conodonts". All three ranks were attributed to Eichenberg, and Paraconodontida was also included as an order under Conodonta.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Clark |first=David L. |url=https://journals.ku.edu/InvertebratePaleo/issue/view/522 |title=Part W, Miscellanea, Supplement 2: Conodonta |publisher=Geological Society of America; University of Kansas |year=1981 |isbn=0-8137-3028-7 |editor-last=Moore |editor-first=Raymond C. |edition= |series=[[Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology]] |volume= |location=Boulder, Colorado; Lawrence, Kansas |pages=111–180 |chapter=Chapter 3: Systematic Descriptions |display-authors= |editor-last2=Robison |editor-first2=R.A. |chapter-url=https://journals.ku.edu/InvertebratePaleo/article/view/5663/5137}}</ref> This approach was criticized by Fåhraeus (1983), who argued that it overlooked Pander's historical relevance as a founder and primary figure in conodontology. Fåhraeus proposed to retain Conodonta as a phylum (attributed to Pander), with the single class Conodontata (Pander) and the single order Conodontophorida (Eichenberg).<ref name="Fåhraeus-1983" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fåhraeus |first=Lars E. |date=1984 |title=A critical look at the Treatise family-group classification of Conodonta: an exercise in eclecticism |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1502-3931.1984.tb00675.x |journal=Lethaia |volume=17 |issue=4 |pages=293–305 |doi=10.1111/j.1502-3931.1984.tb00675.x |doi-broken-date=11 December 2024 |issn=0024-1164}}</ref> Subsequent authors continued to regard Conodonta as a phylum with an ever-increasing number of subgroups.<ref name="Sweet-1988" />

With increasingly strong evidence that conodonts lie within the phylum Chordata, more recent studies generally refer to "true conodonts" as the class Conodonta, containing multiple smaller orders.<ref name="Donoghue-2000" /><ref name="Sweet-2001">{{Cite journal |doi=10.1666/0022-3360(2001)075<1174:CPPF>2.0.CO;2 |volume=75 |issue=6 |pages=1174–1184 |last=Sweet |first=W. C. |author2=Donoghue, P. C. J. |title=Conodonts: Past, Present, Future |journal=Journal of Paleontology |year=2001 |bibcode=2001JPal...75.1174S |s2cid=53395896 |url=https://donoghue.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/files/2019/08/Sweet_Donoghue_2001.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221030162538/https://cpb-eu-w2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.bristol.ac.uk/dist/3/589/files/2019/08/Sweet_Donoghue_2001.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-30 }}</ref><ref name="Donoghue-2008">{{Cite journal |last1=Donoghue |first1=Philip C. J. |last2=Purnell |first2=Mark A. |last3=Aldridge |first3=Richard J. |last4=Zhang |first4=Shunxin |date=2008-01-01 |title=The interrelationships of 'complex' conodonts (Vertebrata) |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27246517 |journal=Journal of Systematic Palaeontology |language=en |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=119–153 |doi=10.1017/S1477201907002234 |bibcode=2008JSPal...6..119D |issn=1477-2019}}</ref> Paraconodonts are typically excluded from the group, though still regarded as close relatives.<ref name="Donoghue-2000" /><ref name="Sweet-2001" /><ref name="Donoghue-2008" /> In practice, Conodonta, Conodontophorida, and Euconodonta are equivalent terms and are used interchangeably.