Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T09:54:07.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Significance of Punctae and Pustules in Brachiopods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

K. J. Kemežys
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A geometric model is proposed to explain the quincunx pattern of punctae which characterizes most terebratuloids. This model gives the two parameters d and g, which together express the density of punctae. The pattern of punctae in dalmanelloids does not differ in its basic geometry from that of the terebratuloids and can be defined by the same parameters. This also holds for the punctate spiriferoids and the punctate orthotetid genus Streptorhynchus. The pattern of pustules in the taleolate brachiopods differs from that of the model for the quincunx pattern of punctae, but can still be expressed in terms of d and g. In this case d corresponds to the wavelength of the costellae.

Both punctae and pustules are morphologically and numerically related to the marginal setae.

Type
Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 102 , Issue 4 , August 1965 , pp. 315 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

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

REFERENCES

Biernat, G., 1959. Middle Devonian Orthoidea of the Holy Cross Mountains and their ontogeny. Pal. Polonica, 10, 1–77.Google Scholar
Campbell, K. S. W., 1965. Australian Permian Terebratuloids. Bur. Min. Res. Aust. Bull., 68.Google Scholar
Cloud, P. E., 1942. Terebratuloid Brachiopoda of the Silurian and Devonian. Geol. Soc. Amer. Spec. Pap., 38, 1–182.Google Scholar
Cooper, G. A., 1944. “Phylum Brachiopoda” in Shimer, H. W., and R. R. Shrock, Index Fossils of North America. 277–365, New York.Google Scholar
Cvancara, A. M., 1958. Invertebrate fossils from the Lower Carboniferous of New South Wales. J. Pal., 32, 846–888.Google Scholar
Leidhold, C., 1925. Die systematische Bedeutung der Schalenporenweite bei fossilen articulaten Brachiopoden, erläutert an devonischen Orthiden. Zbl. Min. Geol. Pal. (B), 1925, 223–8.Google Scholar
Muir-Wood, H. M., 1955. A history of the classification of the Phylum Brachiopoda. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), 1955.Google Scholar
Raymond, P. E., 1904. The Tropidoleptus fauna at Canadaigua Lake, New York, with the ontogeny of twenty species. Ann. Carneg. Mus. Pittsburg, 3, 79–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudwick, M. J. S., 1962. Notes on the ecology of brachiopods in New Zealand. Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z. (Zool.), 1, 327–335.Google Scholar
Schuchert, C., and Cooper, G. A., 1932. Brachiopod genera of the suborders Orthoidea and Pentameroidea. Mem. Peabody Mus., 4, 1–270.Google Scholar
Spjeldnaes, N., 1957. The Middle Ordovician of the Oslo Region, Norway: 8. Brachiopods of the suborder Strophomenida. Norsk. geol. Tidsskrift, 37, 1–214.Google Scholar
Williams, A., 1956. The calcareous shell of the Brachiopoda and its importance to their classification. Biol. Rev., 31, 243–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A., and Wright, A. D., 1961. The origin of the loop in articulate brachiopods. Palaeontology, 4, 149–176.Google Scholar