I do not know of any textbook that presents the fossil record in a manner that reflects the exact geological location and position of each one. It is as if, when we find a fossil, we must cram it into a preconceived notion as to where it belongs in terms of complexity; as if it is a given that life began, then gradually increased in complexity.
Don't get me started. People with an evolutionist mindset screw the evidence up into their own story instead of taking pains to document with any precision WHERE the item was found and EXACTLY what it looks like.
Besides that, they have been all too anxious to extrapolate structures based upon what they think happened instead of leaving it the hell alone so future generations can (hopefully) make sense of it. As history runs its course we will learn the evolutionists did more to screw up knowledge than an iceberg did to screw up the Titanic.
Be honest, you just make this stuff up as you go. Or do you have some credible source for this claim?
My guess is that you get your science information from the main-stream media or creationist web sites.
Biologists are still arguing over the number of animal phyla and the best way to organize them. The proposals range from 32 to 36 but this could change next year. Molecular data sometimes results in dramatic reclassification. Cladists are now trying to build trees based on gene appearance, cell types and organ types. Classifying organisms is an ongoing battle. It's not as clean-cut and trivial as you're led to believe.
Also I don't think you could put all that information into one book. It would weigh tons. I agree there could be some reasonable number of samples, though.
I'm going to spend some time with PatrickHenry's link and see how that looks.