Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T02:59:26.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II.—On the Identity of Ellipsolites Compressus, J. Sowerby, with Ammonites Henslowi, J. Sowerby

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

Arthur H. Foord  and
G.C. Crick
Arthur H. Foord
Affiliation:
The Eoyal Dublin Society
G.C. Crick
Affiliation:
Assistant in the Geological Department, British Museum (Nat. Hist.).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ellipsolites Compressus, J. Sowerby (Min. Con. vol. i. p. 84, pi. xxxviii. 1813), has been hitherto usually regarded as a Nautiloid,1 and referred either to Nautilus or to-Discites.

During an examination of the collection of Mr. Joseph Wright, of Belfast, by one of the present writers, a fossil from the same horizon, and almost the same locality as the type-specimens of Ellipsolites compressus of J. Sowerby, was observed, so much resembling Sowerby's species (but exhibiting also the character of the suture-line) that a comparison with, and a re-examination of, Sowerby's types was suggested.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , January 1894 , pp. 11 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1894

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 11 note 1 Nautilus compressus, Fleming, J., Brit. Anim., 1828, p. 231 Google Scholar; id. De la Beche, , Geological Manual, 1831, p. 448 Google Scholar; id. Goldfuss, ,inv. Dechen's Handb. d. Geognosie, 1832, p. 536 Google Scholar; id. Weaver, T., Trans. Geol. Soc. [2], vol. V. 1837, p. 22 Google Scholar; id. Agassiz, L.,inE. Desor's Translation of Sowerby's Min. Con. 1842, p. 27 Google Scholar; id. Griffith, R., Notice respecting the Fossils of the Mountain Limestone of Ireland, as compared with those of Great Britain, and also with the Devonian System, 1842, p. 21 Google Scholar; id. D'Orbigny, A., Prod, de Paléont, vol. i. 1850, p. 110 Google Scholar; id. Giebel, C.G., Fauna der Worwelt, vol. iii. 1852, p. 178 Google Scholar; Nautilus (Discites) compressus, Morris, J., Cat. Brit. Foss., 2nd ed. 1854, p. 308 Google Scholar: Nautilus compressus, de Koninck, L.-G., Faune du Calcaire Carbonifère de la Belgique (Annales du Mus. Roy. d'Hist. nat. de Belgique, vol. ii.), pt. i. 1878, p. 122 Google Scholar; Discites compressus, Etheridge, R., Fossils of the British Islands, vol. i. Palæozoic, 1888, p. 310 Google Scholar; id. Foord, A.H., Cat. Foss. Ceph. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), vol. ii. 1891, pp. 86 and 91 Google Scholar; id. Foord, A.H. and Crick, G.C., GEOL. MAO. Dec.III.Vol.X. 1893, p. 253.Google Scholar

page 13 note 1 Min. Con., vol. iii. p. 111, pl. 262, 04, 1820 Google Scholar. Sowerby figures two specimens; that represented in the upper figure is in the Woodwardian Museum, Cambridge; the whereabouts of the other specimen is unknown to the present writers.

page 13 note 2 Trans. Geol. Soc. [2], vol. V. pl. 54, fig. 18.Google Scholar

page 14 note 1 M'Coy, F., Synopsis of the Characters of the Carboniferous Limestone Fossils of Ireland, 1844, p. 13, pl. ii. fig. 6.Google Scholar

page 15 note 1 Min. Con., vol. iii. 1820, p. 109, pl. 261Google Scholar. The type-specimen is in the Woodwardian Museum, Cambridge.

page 15 note 2 Conchyliologie systématique, 1808, vol. i. p. 86.Google Scholar

page 16 note 1 Min. Con., vol. i. p. 81, pi. xxxii. 1813.Google Scholar

page 16 note 2 Ibid. p. 83, pi. xxxvii. 1813.

page 16 note 3 Ibid. p. 84, pi. xxrriii. 1813.

page 16 note 4 Monog. Ammon. et Goniat., 1825, p. 93.Google Scholar

page 16 note 5 Conchyliologie systématique, 1808, vol. i. p. 78.Google Scholar

page 16 note 6 Introduction to the Study of Fossil Organic Remains, 1822, p. 164.Google Scholar

page 16 note 7 Planul. und Goniat., 1832, p. 30 Google Scholar; Beiträge, Heft i. 1843, p. 23.Google Scholar

page 16 note 8 Min. Con., vol. iii. p. 167, footnote.Google Scholar

page 16 note 9 See footnote, antea, p. 11.Google Scholar

page 17 FOOTNOTE.—While this paper was in the press, Mr. Wright has, through one of the writers, kindly presented the specimen (here described) to the British Museum.

page 17 note 1 Ceratites Henslowi, de Haan, Monog. Aramon. et Goniat., 1825, p. 157.Google Scholar

page 17 note 2 Aganides Henslowi, D';Orbigny, A., Prod, de Paléont., vol. i. p. 115 Google Scholar; id. M'Coy, F., Brit. Pal. Foss., 1855, p. 564.Google Scholar

page 17 note 3 Goniatites Henslowi, Phillips, J., Geol. Yorkshire, pt. 2, 1836, p. 236, pl. xx. fig. 39Google Scholar; id. d'Archiac, and de Verneuil, , Trans. Geol. Soc. [2], vol. vi. 1842, p. 329 Google Scholar; id. Morris, J., Cat. Brit. Foss., 2nd ed. 1854, p. 303 Google Scholar; id. Barrois, C., El marmol amigdaloide de los Pirineos (Boletin de la Comision del Mapa geologico de Espana, vol viii.), 1881, p. 9, pl. C. figs. 3a, 3b, 3c Google Scholar; id. Etheridge, R., Fossils of the British Islands, vol. i. Palæozoic, 1808, p. 311; etc.Google Scholar

page 17 note 4 Conchyliologie systématique, 1808, vol. i. p. 30.Google Scholar

page 17 note 5 See notes on de Montfort's genus by Meek, F.B., Geol. Surv. Territ., vol. ix. 1876, p. 494.Google Scholar

page 17 note 6 Fischer, P. (Manuel de Conchyliologie, 1880–1887, p. 380) states that the species figured by de Montfort is Gouiatites rotatorius, de Koninck. Google Scholar

page 17 note 7 Monog. Ammon. et Goniat., 1825, p. 157.Google Scholar

page 17 note 8 Mojsisovics, E.v., Abhandl. d. k.k. geol. Reichsanst., vol. x. 1882. p. 199.Google Scholar

page 17 note 9 Prolecanites Henslowi, Mojsisovics, E.v., loc. cit. Google Scholar; id. Zittel, K.A.von, Handb.d. Palasont., vol. i. 1884, p. 421 Google Scholar; id. Holzapfel, E., Palæont. Abhandl., Dames, and Eayser, . n.s. vol. i. 1889, p. 42, pl. iii. fig. 14, pi. iv. figs. 2, 4, 7Google Scholar; Goniatites (Prolecanites) Henslowi, Seunes, J., Comptes Rendus, vol. cxv. 1892, p. 631.Google Scholar