Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T01:49:46.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The graptolite, conodont and sedimentary record through the late Ludlow Kozlowskii Event (Silurian) in the shale-dominated succession of Bohemia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2011

ŠTĚPÁN MANDA ,
PETR ŠTORCH ,
LADISLAV SLAVÍK ,
JIŘÍ FRÝDA ,
JIŘÍ KŘÍŽ  and
ZUZANA TASÁRYOVÁ
ŠTĚPÁN MANDA*
Affiliation:
Czech Geological Survey, Klárov 3/131, Praha 1, 118 21, Czech Republic
PETR ŠTORCH
Affiliation:
Institute of Geology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Rozvojová 135, Praha 6, 165 00, Czech Republic
LADISLAV SLAVÍK
Affiliation:
Institute of Geology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Rozvojová 135, Praha 6, 165 00, Czech Republic
JIŘÍ FRÝDA
Affiliation:
Czech Geological Survey, Klárov 3/131, Praha 1, 118 21, Czech Republic Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Kamýcká 129, Praha 6, 165 21, Czech Republic
JIŘÍ KŘÍŽ
Affiliation:
Czech Geological Survey, Klárov 3/131, Praha 1, 118 21, Czech Republic
ZUZANA TASÁRYOVÁ
Affiliation:
Czech Geological Survey, Klárov 3/131, Praha 1, 118 21, Czech Republic
*
†Author for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The shale-dominated hemipelagic succession exposed in the southwestern part of the Prague Synform preserves the most complete Ludfordian graptolite record so far encountered from peri-Gondwanan Europe. Four graptolite biozones – the Neocucullograptus inexpectatus, Nc. kozlowskii, Pseudomonoclimacis latilobus–Slovinograptus balticus and Pristiograptus fragmentalis biozones – are recognized in the middle and late Ludfordian, between the Bohemograptus tenuis Biozone and the base of the Pridoli Series. Conodont occurrences are restricted to scattered limestone beds, but enable tentative integration of the graptolite and conodont biozonal schemes. Particular attention was paid to faunal and sedimentary changes and the carbon isotope record across the middle Ludfordian Kozlowskii extinction Event. The Kozlowskii Event caused the almost simultaneous extinction of graptolites with ventrally curved rhabdosomes. The genera Bohemograptus, Polonograptus and Neocucullograptus, along with Pseudomonoclimacis dalejensis, disappeared from the fossil record. The offshore conodont fauna recorded in the section was not strongly affected and similarly the pelagic orthocerids and nektonic Ceratiocaris passed unaffected through the extinction interval. The abundant and widespread pelagic myodocopid ostracod Entomis, however, became extinct. The late Ludfordian graptolite recovery gave origin to a novel fauna of Pridoli type from taxa that emerged or just reappeared above the Kozlowskii crisis. In Všeradice and elsewhere in the Prague Synform, the recovery, manifested by the appearance of Pseudomonoclimacis latilobus and Slovinograptus balticus, closely postdates the end of the isotope excursion but pre-dates the first appearance of the conodont index ‘Ozarkodina’ snajdri. Here the graptolite recovery was delayed relative to the recovery of the benthic fauna. A canalized intraformational limestone conglomerate corresponds with a gap in the sedimentary record above the Kozlowskii extinction and just below the graptolite recovery. The benthic faunas from the conglomerate matrix and pebbles permit correlation with the shallower part of the basin indicating a distinct fall in sea-level. The present data demonstrate the coincidence of the graptolite crisis with benthic faunal change and eustatic fall in sea-level manifested by facies change and the carbon isotope excursion. Polonograptus chlupaci sp. nov., from the Nc. kozlowskii Biozone, is described and several other graptolite taxa are redescribed.

Keywords

graptolitesconodontsSilurianbiostratigraphyKozlowskii Eventextinctionperi-Gondwana
Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 149 , Issue 3 , May 2012 , pp. 507 - 531
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Bickert, T., Pätzold, J., Samtleben, C. & Munnecke, A. 1997. Paleoenvironmental changes in the Silurian, indicated by stable isotopes in brachiopod shells from Gotland (Sweden). Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 61, 2717–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouček, B. 1931. Předběžná zpráva o některých nových druzích graptolitů z českého gothlandienu. Věstník Státního geologického ústavu Československé republiky 7 (3), 1–21.Google Scholar
Bouček, B. 1936. Graptolitová fauna českého spodního ludlowu. Rozpravy České akademie věd a umění, Třída II 46 (16), 1–26.Google Scholar
Bouček, B. 1953. Biostratigraphy, development and correlation of the Želkovice and Motol Beds of the Silurian of Bohemia. Sborník Ústředního Ústavu geologického, Oddíl paleontologický 20, 421–84.Google Scholar
Budil, P., Collette, J. & Manda, Š. 2010. An unusual occurrence of the Laurentian phyllocarid crustacean Ceratiocaris papilio Salter in the lower Ludfordian (Silurian) of Bohemia (peri-Gondwana). Bulletin of Geosciences 85, 551–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branson, E. B. & Mehl, M.G. 1933. Conodont studies. Missouri University Studies 8, 1–1349.Google Scholar
Calner, M. 2008. Silurian global events – at the tipping point of climate change. In Mass Extinctions (ed. Ashraf, M. T.), pp. 21–58. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calner, M. & Eriksson, M. J. 2006. Evidence for rapid environmental changes in low latitudes during the Late Silurian Lau Event: the Burgen-1 drillcore, Gotland, Sweden. Geological Magazine 143, 173–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carls, P., Slavík, L. & Valenzuela-Ríos, J. I. 2007. Revisions of conodont biostratigraphy across the Silurian–Devonian boundary. Bulletin of Geosciences 82, 145–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chlupáč, I. 1987. Ecostratigraphy of Silurian trilobite assemblages of the Barrandian areas, Czechoslovakia. Newsletters on Stratigraphy 17, 169–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chlupáč, I., Havlíček, V., Kříž, J., Kukal, Z. & Štorch, P. 1998. Palaeozoic of the Barrandian (Cambrian to Devonian). Prague: Czech Geological Survey, 183 pp.Google Scholar
Chlupáč, I., Kříž, J. & Schönlaub, H. P. 1980. Silurian and Devonian conodont localities of the Barrandian. Abhandlungen Geologische Bundesanstalt 30, 147–80.Google Scholar
Einsele, G. 2000. Sedimentary Basins. Evolution, facies, and sediment budget, 2nd ed. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong: Springer-Verlag, 792 pp.Google Scholar
Eriksson, M. J. & Calner, M. 2008. A sequence stratigraphical model for the late Ludfordian (Silurian) of Gotland, Sweden – implications for timing between changes in sea-level, palaeoecology, and the global carbon cycle. Facies 54, 253–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, M. J., Nilsson, E. K & Jeppsson, L. 2009. Vertebrate extinctions and reorganizations during the Late Silurian Lau Event. Geology 37, 739–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferretti, A. & Kříž, J. 1995. Cephalopod limestone biofacies in the Silurian of the Prague Basin, Bohemia. Palaios 10, 240–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havlíček, V. & Štorch, P. 1990. Silurian brachiopods and benthic communities in the Prague Basin (Czechoslovakia). Rozpravy Ústředního ústavu geologického 48, 1–275.Google Scholar
Holland, C. H. 1991. What is so very special about the Silurian? Special Papers in Palaeontology 44, 391–7.Google Scholar
Holland, C. H. & Palmer, D. C. 1974. Bohemograptus, the youngest graptoloid known from the British Silurian sequence. Special Papers in Palaeontology 13, 215–36.Google Scholar
Horný, R. 1955. Studie o vrstvách budňanských v západní části Barrandienu. Sborník Ústředního Ústavu geologického, Oddíl geologický 21 (2), 315–447.Google Scholar
Horný, R. 1960. Stratigraphy and tectonics of the western closures of the Silurian–Devonian synclinorium in the Barrandian area. Sborník Ústředního ústavu geologického 26, 495–524.Google Scholar
Jaeger, H. 1978. Entwicklungszüge (Trends) in der Evolution der Graptolithen. Schriftenreihe geologischen Wissenschaften 10, 5–58.Google Scholar
Jaeger, H. 1991. Neue Standard–graptolithenzonenfolge nach der “Grossen Krise” an der Wenlock/Ludlow Grenze (Silur). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie and Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 182 (3), 303–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeppsson, L. 1988. Conodont biostratigraphy of the Silurian-Devonian boundary stratotype at Klonk, Czechoslovakia. Geologica et Palaeontologica 22, 21–31.Google Scholar
Jeppsson, L. 1990. An oceanic model for lithological and faunal changes tested on the Silurian record. Journal of the Geological Society, London 147, 663–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeppsson, L. 1993. Silurian events: the theory and the conodonts. Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, Geology 42, 23–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeppsson, L. 1998. Silurian oceanic events: summary of general characteristic. New York State Museum Bulletin 491, 239–57.Google Scholar
Jeppsson, L. & Aldridge, R. J. 2000. Ludlow (late Silurian) oceanic episodes and events. Journal of the Geological Society, London 157, 1137–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaljo, D., Grytsenko, V., Martma, T. & Mõtus, M. A. 2007. Three global carbon isotope shifts in the Silurian of Podolia (Ukraine): stratigraphical implications. Estonian Journal of Earth Sciences 56, 205–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koren’, T. N. 1983. New Late Silurian monograptids from Kazakhstan. Palaeontology 26, 407–34.Google Scholar
Koren’, T. N. 1986. Class Graptolithina. In The Tokrau Horizon of the Upper Silurian Series: Balkhash segment (eds Nikitin, I. F. & Bandaletov, S. M.), pp. 87–138. Alma Ata: Nauka Kazakhskoi SSR. (in Russian)Google Scholar
Koren’, T. N. 1993. Main event levels in the evolution of the Ludlow graptolites. Geological Correlation 1, 44–52.Google Scholar
Koren’, T. N., Lytochkin, V. L. & Rinenberg, R. E. 1988. The Upper Silurian-Lower Devonian biostratigraphy based on graptolites in central part of the Alai Range. In Graptolites in the Earth History. Abstracts of the 5th Symposium on investigation of graptolites in USSR, pp. 15–18.Vilnjus: Nauka Press.Google Scholar
Koren’, T. N. & Sujarkova, A. A. 1997. Late Ludlow and Pridoli monograptids from the Turkestan–Alai mountains, South Tien Shan. Palaeontographica A 247, 59–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koren’, T. N. & Sujarkova, A. A. 2004. The Ludlow (Late Silurian) neocucullograptid fauna from the southern Tien Shan, Kyrghizstan. Alcheringa 28, 333–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozłowska-Dawidziuk, A., Lenz, A.C. & Štorch, P. 2001. Upper Wenlock and Lower Ludlow (Silurian) graptolites; Všeradice section, Barrandian area, Czech Republic. Journal of Paleontology 75, 147–64.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kříž, J. 1991. The Silurian of the Prague Basin (Bohemia) – tectonic, eustatic and volcanic controls on facies and faunal development. Special Papers in Palaeontology 44, 179–203.Google Scholar
Kříž, J. 1992. Silurian field excursions: Prague Basin (Barrandian), Bohemia. National Museum of Wales, Geological Series 13, 1–111.Google Scholar
Kříž, J. 1998. Recurrent Silurian–lowest Devonian cephalopod limestones of Gondwanan Europe and Perunica. New York State Museum Bulletin 491, 183–98.Google Scholar
Kříž, J. 1999 a. Bivalvia dominated communities of Bohemian type from the Silurian and Lower Devonian carbonate facies. In Final Report, Project Ecostratigraphy. Paleocommunities: A case study from the Silurian and Lower Devonian (eds Boucot, A. J. & Lawson, J. D.), pp. 225–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kříž, J. 1999 b. Silurian Bivalvia – evolution, palaeontology, palaeobiography, importance for biostratigraphy and correlation. Abhandlungen der Geologischen Bundesanstalt 54, 377–84.Google Scholar
Kříž, J. 2010 a. Silurian Kenzieana Liljedahl, 1989 (Bivalvia, Spanilidae) from Bohemia, Gotland and Sardinia. Bulletin of Geosciences 85, 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kříž, J. 2010 b. Silurian Spanila Barrande, 1881 (Bivalvia, Spanilidae) from European peri-Gondwana (Bohemia, Germany, France, and Austria). Bulletin of Geosciences 85, 395–416.Google Scholar
Kříž, J., Dufka, P., Jaeger, H. & Schönlaub, H. P. 1993. The Wenlock/Ludlow boundary in the Prague Basin (Bohemia). Jahrbuch der Geologischen Bundesanstalt 136, 809–39.Google Scholar
Kříž, J., Jaeger, H., Paris, F. & Schönlaub, H. P. 1986. Přídolí – the fourth subdivision of the Silurian. Jahrbuch der Geologischen Bundesanstalt 129, 291–360.Google Scholar
Lehnert, O., Eriksson, M. J., Calner, M., Joachimski, M. & Buggisch, W. 2007 a. Concurrent sedimentary and isotopic indications for global climatic cooling in the Late Silurian. Acta Palaeontologica Sinica 46, 249–55.Google Scholar
Lehnert, O., Frýda, J., Buggisch, W. & Manda, S. 2003. A first report of the Ludlovian Lau event from the Prague Basin (Barrandian, Czech Republic). Serie Correlación Geológica 18, 139–44.Google Scholar
Lehnert, O., Frýda, J., Buggisch, W., Munnecke, A., Nützel, A., Křiž, J. & Manda, Š. 2007 b. δ13C record across the Ludlow Lau Event: new data from mid palaeo-latitudes of northern peri-Gondwana (Prague Basin, Czech Republic). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 245, 227–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenz, A. C. & Kozlowska–Dawidziuk, A. 2004. Ludlow and Pridoli (Upper Silurian) Graptolites from the Arctic Islands, Canada. Ottawa: NRC Research Press, 141 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loydell, D. K. 1994. Early Telychian changes in graptoloid diversity and sea level. Geological Journal 29, 355–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loydell, D. K. 2007. Early Silurian positive δ13C excursions and their relationship to glaciations, sea-level changes and extinction events. Geological Journal 42, 531–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loydell, K., Jeppsson, L. & Aldridge, R. J. 2001. Discussion on Ludlow (late Silurian) oceanic episodes and events. Journal of the Geological Society, London 158, 731–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maartma, T., Brazauskas, A., Kaljo, D., Kaminskas, D. & Musteikis, P. 2005. The Wenlock-Ludlow carbon isotope trend in the Vidukle core, Lithuania, and its relations with oceanic events. Geological Quarterly 49, 223–34.Google Scholar
Manda, Š. & Frýda, J. 2010. Silurian-Devonian boundary events and their influence on cephalopod evolution: evolutionary significance of cephalopod egg size during mass extinctions. Bulletin of Geosciences 85, 513–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manda, Š & Kříž, J. 2006. Environmental and biotic changes of the subtropical isolated carbonate platforms during Kozlowskii and Lau events (Prague Basin, Silurian, Ludlow). GFF 128, 161–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melchin, J. M., Koren’, T. N. & Štorch, P. 1998. Global diversity and survivorship patterns of Silurian graptoloids. New York State Museum Bulletin 491, 165–81.Google Scholar
Mikhaylova, N. F. 1976. Graptolity postludlova Kazakhstana. In Graptolity i Stratigrafiya (eds Kaljo, D. & Koren’, T. N.), pp. 99–104. Tallinn: Institute of Geology, Academy of Sciences of the Estonian SSR.Google Scholar
Munnecke, A., Samtleben, C & Bickert, T. 2003. The Ireviken Event in the lower Silurian of Gotland, Sweden – relation to similar Palaeozoic and Proterozoic events. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 195, 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, M. A., Valenzuela-Ríos, J. I. & Carls, P. 2004. On Classification of Pridoli (Silurian)–Lochkovian (Devonian) Spathognathodontidae (Conodonts). University of California Riverside Campus Museum Contribution 6, 1–25.Google Scholar
Paškevičius, I. Y. 1974. Graptolity i zonalnoye razchislenie ludlovskikh otlozhenij v Pribaltike. In Graptolity SSSR (ed. Obut, A. M.), pp. 122–133. Novosibirsk: Nauka.Google Scholar
Paškevičius, I. Y. 1979. Biostratigrafia i graptolity silura Litvy, Vilnius: Mosklas, 267 pp.Google Scholar
Piras, S. 2006. Valentinagraptus a new genus of plectograptid graptoloid from the lower Ludlow (Silurian) of Barrandian, Bohemia. Geological Journal 41, 581–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Přibyl, A. 1940. Graptolitová fauna českého středního ludlow (Die Graptolithenfauna des mittleren Ludlows von Bohmen). Zprávy Geologického ústavu pro Čechy a Moravu 16, 63–73.Google Scholar
Přibyl, A. 1943. Revize rodu Pristiograptus ze skupiny P. dubius a P. vulgaris z českého a cizího siluru. Rozpravy České akademie věd a umění, Třída II 53 (4), 1–48.Google Scholar
Přibyl, A. 1983. Graptolite biozones of the Kopanina and Pridoli formations in the Upper Silurian of central Bohemia. Časopis pro Mineralogii a Geologii 28, 149–67.Google Scholar
Rickards, R. B. & Palmer, D. C. 1977. Early Ludlow monograptids with Devonian morphological affinities. Lethaia 10, 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickards, R. B. & Wright, A. J. 1997. Graptolites of the Barnby Hills Shale (Silurian, Ludlow), New South Wales, Australia. Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society 51, 209–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saltzman, M. R. 2001. Silurian δ3C stratigraphy: a view from North America. Geology 29, 671–4.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvador, A. (ed.) 1994. International Stratigraphic Guide, 2nd ed. Boulder: IUGS and Geological Society of America, 214 pp.Google Scholar
Samtleben, Ch., Munnecke, A. & Bickert, T. 2000. Development of facies and C/O-isotopes in transects trough the Ludlow of Gotland: Evidence for global and local influences on a shallow-marine environment. Facies 43, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serpagli, E. & Corradini, C. 1998. New taxa of Kockelella (Conodonta) from Late Wenlock–Ludlow (Silurian) of Sardinia. Giornale di Geologia 60, 79–83.Google Scholar
Serpagli, E. & Corradini, C. 1999. Taxonomy and evolution of Kockelella (Conodonta) from the Silurian of Sardinia (Italy). Bolletino della Societá paleontologica italiana 37, 275–98.Google Scholar
Siveter, D. J., Vannier, J. M. C. & Palmer, D. 1991. Silurian myodocopes: pioneer pelagic ostracodes and the chronology of an ecological shift. Journal of Micropalaeontology 10, 151–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slavík, L., Kříž, J. & Carls, P. 2010. Reflection of the mid-Ludfordian Lau Event in conodont faunas of Bohemia. Bulletin of Geosciences 85, 395–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šnajdr, M. 1985. Bohemian representatives of the subfamily Encrinurinae (Trilobita). Sborník geologickych Věd, Paleontologie 27, 9–46.Google Scholar
Štorch, P. 1994. Graptolite biostratigraphy of the Lower Silurian (Llandovery and Wenlock) of Bohemia. Geological Journal 29, 137–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Štorch, P. 1995 a. Upper Silurian (upper Ludlow) graptolites of the N. inexpectatus and N. kozlowskii biozones from Kosov Quarry near Beroun (Barrandian area, Bohemia). Bulletin of the Czech Geological Survey 70, 65–89.Google Scholar
Štorch, P. 1995 b. Biotic crises and post–crisis recoveries recorded by graptolite faunas of the Barrandian area, Czech Republic. Geolines 3, 59–70.Google Scholar
Štorch, P. 2006. Facies development, depositional settings and sequence stratigraphy across the Ordovician-Silurian boundary: a new perspective from Barrandian area of the Czech Republic. Geological Journal 41, 163–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stricanne, L., Munnecke, A. & Pross, J. 2006. Assessing mechanisms of environmental change: palynological signals across the late Ludlow (Silurian) positive isotope excursion (δ3C, δ8O) on Gotland, Sweden. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 230, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talent, J. A., Mawson, R., Andrew, A. S., Hamilton, P. J. & Whitford, D. J. 1993. Middle Palaeozoic extinction events: faunal and isotopic data. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 104, 139–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, L. 1966. Two new species of Monograptidae from the Upper Ludlowian of Poland. Bulletin de l'Académie Polonaise des Sciences, Cl 2 15, 553–8.Google Scholar
Teller, L. 1969. The Silurian biostratigraphy of Poland based on graptolites. Acta Geologica Polonica 19, 393–501.Google Scholar
Tomczyk, H., Urbanek, A. & Teller, L. 1990. Typ Hemichordata. In Budowa Geologiczna Polski, Tom 3, Atlas skamieniałości przewodnych i charakterystycznych, 1a, Paleozoik starszy (ed. Pachlowa, M.), pp. 378–427. Warszawa: Wydawnicztwa geologiczne.Google Scholar
Tsegelnjuk, P. D. 1976. Pozdnesilurijskie i rannedevonskie monograptidy jugo–zapadnoj okrainy vostocno-evropejskoj platformy. In Paleontologia i stratigrafia verchnego dokembria i nizhnego paleozoja jugo-zapada vostocno-evropejskoj platformy, pp. 91–133. Kiev: Izdatelstvo Naukova Dumka.Google Scholar
Tsegelnjuk, P. D. 1978. K evolyutsii pozdnesilurijskikh Monograptidae Lapworth, 1873 (Graptolity). Geologicheskii zhurnal 38 (4), 88–98.Google Scholar
Tsegelnjuk, P. D. 1981. The Silurian Biochronology of Volhyno–Podolia. Preprint pp. 81–2, 1–55. Kiev: Institut geologicheskikh nauk Akademii Nauk Ukrainy. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Tsegelnjuk, P. D. 1983. The Silurian of Podolia. The Guide to Excursion, Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 122 pp.Google Scholar
Tsegelnjuk, P. D. 1988. Graptolites of the Monograptus ludensis (Murchison, 1839) group in Silurian of Volynia and Podolia. In Graptolites in the Earth History. Abstracts of the 5th Symposium on investigation of graptolites in USSR, pp. 81–3. Vilnjus: Nauka Press.Google Scholar
Urbanek, A. 1970. Neocucullograptinae n. subfam. (Graptolithina) – their evolutionary and stratigraphic bearing. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 15, 163–388.Google Scholar
Urbanek, A. 1993. Biotic crises in the history of upper Silurian graptoloids: a palaeobiological model. Historical Biology 7, 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbanek, A. 1997. Late Ludfordian and early Přidoli monograptids from the Polish Lowland. Palaeontologica Polonica 56, 87–231.Google Scholar
Urbanek, A. & Teller, L. 1997. Graptolites and stratigraphy of the Wenlock and Ludlow series in the East European Platform. Palaeontologia Polonica 56, 23–57.Google Scholar
Walliser, O. H. 1964. Conodonten des Silurs. Abhandlungen des Hessischen Landesamtes für Bodenforschung zu Wiesbaden 41, 1–106.Google Scholar
Zalasiewicz, J. A., Taylor, L., Rushton, W. A., Loydell, D. K., Rickards, R. B. & Williams, M. 2009. Graptolites in British Stratigraphy. Geological Magazine 146, 785–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar