@article {83,
	title = {Opinion 1152. <i>Ophiura</i> Lamarck, 1801 and <i>Ophioderma</i> M{\"u}ller \& Troschel, 1840 (Ophiuroidea): ruling on application of these names},
	journal = {Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature},
	volume = {37},
	number = {2},
	year = {1980},
	pages = {78{\textendash}80},
	author = {Melville, R.V.}
}
@article {57,
	title = {A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucelotide sequences},
	journal = {Journal of Molecular Evolution},
	volume = {16},
	year = {1980},
	pages = {111{\textendash}120},
	author = {Kimura, M.}
}
@article {51,
	title = {The early growth stage of a Devonian ophiuroid and its bearing on echinoderm phylogeny},
	journal = {Journal of Natural History},
	volume = {14},
	number = {1},
	year = {1980},
	pages = {91 {\textendash} 96},
	abstract = {A central point in arguments for a crinoid ancestry of asteroids and ophiuroids is the similarity and presumed homology of the fully developed apical systems of asteroids and ophiuroids with the calyx of crinoids. A major obstacle to this view has been the lack of supporting evidence from Palaeozoic ophiuroids. Hamling{\textquoteright}s ophiuroid, Protasteridae sp. juv., is the early growth stage of an Upper Devonian oegophiurid from North Devon, England. The largest plates on the aboral disc form a primary rosette comparable to that seen in the ontogeny of the living ophiuroid orders Ophiurida and Phrynophiurida. It is now no longer possible to consider the ophiuroid primary rosette a late evolutionary development without phylogenetic significance. The concept of a crinoid ancestry for the Asterozoa, previously rejected for lack of this palaeontological datum, is reinstated as a useful working hypothesis.},
	isbn = {0022-2933},
	url = {http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/00222938000770101 },
	author = {Hotchkiss, Frederick H. C.}
}
