No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
The shell-structure of the Ammonoidea has received very inadequate attention from palæontologists; in most cases authors are content with describing the shell of the recent Nautilus, and saying that that of the Ammonites is exactly the same. Prof. Judd therefore suggested that I should take the subject up, when working as a research student under him. As a result, I have found that the resemblance of the Nautilus- to the Ammonite-shell is literally true; but the structure of the extinct forms throws an altogether new light on that of the recent one, while the usual homology of parts between the two requires, I think, revision.
page 249 note 1 Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Cambridge, iii, 1852.Google Scholar
page 250 note 1 F. von Römer, Jahresber. Schlesisch Gesells., Breslau, 1873.
page 250 note 2 Loc. cit
page 250 note 3 British Fossil Cephalopoda
page 250 note 4 Carpenter, Brit. Assoc. Reports, 1847, p. 46; Sorby, Pres. Address, Geol. Soc., 1879, says the laminæ are pierced by fine needles of aragonite, p. 31.
page 251 note 1 Manuel de Conchyliologie, 1825
page 251 note 2 Rose, Abh. Akad., Berlin, 1858, also Carpenter, loc. cit.
page 252 note 1 Untersuch. ü. crust. Panzer u. Mollusk. schaal., Berlin, 1877. Of course I do not mean here that growth from within can go on to the extent that Méry postulated, Hist: de l'acad. rog. des Sci., Mém., 1710.
page 252 note 2 Loc. cit
page 254 note 1 Inaug. Dissert. Tübingen, Salzburg, 1873.
page 254 note 2 Hyatt, Arietidæ, p. 216; Haug, Neues Jahrb., 1885, pt. iii, p. 593.
page 254 note 3 Vrolik, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., xii, 1843, p. 173.
page 254 note 4 Steinmann, Berich. d. Naturforsch. Gesell., Freiburg, 1889, vol. iv.
page 255 note 1 Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., Cambridge, 1871, vol. iii, p. 91.Google Scholar
page 255 note 2 Verstein. d. Rhein. Schichisyst. in Nassau,1850, p. 58.
page 255 note 3 Petrefaktenkunde Deutschlands, pt. i, 1846.
page 255 note 4 Syst. Silur., vol. ii, p. 23, 1867.Google Scholar
page 255 note 5 Palæontographica, vol. iv, p. 184.Google Scholar
page 255 note 6 Verhandl. d. Naturhist. Vereins. d. preuss. Rheinlande, 1853, vol. x.
page 255 note 7 Keyserling, Reise in das Petschoraland, St. Petersburg, 1846, p. 274.
page 255 note 8 Mojsisovics, Med. Trias Provinz, Abh. geol. Reichsanst., Wien, 1882.
page 255 note 9 Hauer, Trias v. Bosnien, Denksch. Akad., Wien, 1892, vol. lix.
page 255 note 10 Loc. cit. p. 93, fig. 14d.
page 256 note 1 Sandberger, G., Schrift d. oberhess. Gesells. f. Natur u. Heilkunde, No. vii, p. 79, 1859.
page 256 note 2 Sandberger, G., Jahrb. d. Vereins. f. Naturkunde, Wiesbaden, vii, p. 292, 1851.
page 256 note 3 Eck, Zeits. deutsch. geol. Gesells., p. 276, 1879.
page 256 note 4 Wright, Lias Ammonites, Pal. Soc., pl. xxv.
page 256 note 5 Oppel, Die Juraformation, Jahresh. d. Vereins. f. Naturkunde, Stuttgart, vol. xii, 1855.
page 256 note 6 Brooks, Proc. Boston Nat. Hist. Soc., vol. xxiii, p. 380.