Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:53:19.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Problems of Ammonite Nomenclature. 6. The Genus Pachydiscus Zittel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

L. F. Spath
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This well-known genus presents a nomenclatorial problem apparently even simpler than that of Mortoniceras, dealt with in the first article of the present series, yet I can foresee considerable opposition to the views here put forward. It is, of course, agreed that “names now current are not to be discarded unless the reasons for change show a clear-cut necessity” (Opinion 93); but since “priority of actual date” is quoted as an example of such necessity, I consider that we shall have to change our present interpretation of Pachydiscus, however irksome the change may be to some.1

Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 76 , Issue 7 , July 1939 , pp. 293 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1939

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 293 note 1 An author may appreciate the value of the International Rules without being a “priority fanatic” (Stromer, Kritische. Betrachtungen, 2, Zentralbl. f. Min., etc., B, 1939, p. 198). If an original type is such an indeterminable fragment that it never ought to have been given a binary name it should not be so difficult to ask the Commission for an appropriate ruling.

page 293 note 2 Handbuch der Palaeontologie, i, Abt. ii, Lief, iii, 466.

page 294 note 1 “Leg Ammonites de la Craie supérieure,” Mém. Carte géol. France, p. 176.Google Scholar

page 294 note 2 “Paléontologie tunisienne. I. Céphalopodes des Terrains secondaires,” Carte géol. Tunisie, p. 171.Google Scholar

page 294 note 3 In Zittel's Text-Book of Palaeontology, 1st Eng. ed., p. 570.

page 294 note 4 “Note on Two Ammonites from the Gin Gin Chalk,” Journ. Roy. Soc. West Australia, xii, 55.Google Scholar

page 294 note 5 Fossilium Catalogus, I. Animalia, pars 29: Ammonoidea neocretaeea, 1925, p. 104.Google Scholar

page 294 note 6 “Les Céphalopodes néocrétacés,” Wiss. Ergeb. Schwed. Südpol-Exp., 1901–1903, iii, no. 6, 1909, 41.Google Scholar

page 295 note 1 “Sur l'Ammonites peramplus et quelques autres fosailes turoniens,” Bull. Soc. géol. France (3), xxvii, 1899, 328.Google Scholar Also “Description des Ammonitidés du Crétacé supérieur du Limbourg belge et hollandais et du Hainaut,” Mém. Mus. Roy. Hist. Nat. Belgique, iv (1908), 1911, 23, etc.Google Scholar

page 295 note 2 Compare Article 30, IIg, of the present Rules.Google Scholar

page 295 note 3 “Paléontologie de Madagascar. III. Céphalopodes crétacés des environs de Diego-Suarez,” Ann. de Pal., ii, 1907, 2.Google Scholar

page 296 note 1 See also Spath, “New Ammonites from the English Chalk,” Geol. Mag., LXIII, 1926, 82.Google Scholar

page 296 note 2 “On the Senonian Ammonite Fauna of Pondoland,” Trans. Roy. Soc. S. Afr., x, pt. 3, 1922, 120Google Scholar; and “Monograph of the Ammonoidea of the Gault,” Pal. Soc., pt. 1, 1923, 39.Google Scholar

page 296 note 3 “A Study of the Genus Pampachydiscus Hyatt.,” Proc. Imp. Acad. (2), 1926, No. 4, pp. 172–3.Google Scholar

page 296 note 4 Eupachydiscus probably includes Mesopachydiscus Yabe (1924), and Pseudopachydiscus Yabe and Shimizu is apparently synonymous with my Canadoceras.Google Scholar