Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:28:38.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpretation of the Middle Jurassic ammonite genus Spiroceras

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

M. K. Howarth  and
R. V. Melville
M. K. Howarth
Affiliation:
Department of Palaeontology, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD
R. V. Melville
Affiliation:
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The taxonomy of the Middle Jurassic ammonite genus Spiroceras Quenstedt, 1856, is critically assessed. It is found that the genus was originally proposed conditionally without any included species, and the type species is Spiroceras bifurcatum Hyatt, 1900, by subsequent monotypy. A neotype is now designated for that species, because Hyatt's figured holotype is lost.

Type
Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 121 , Issue 2 , March 1984 , pp. 131 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

Arkell, W. J. 1957. In Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology part L, Mollusca 4, Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea (ed. Moore, R. C.). Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Basse, E. 1952. Céphalopodes, Nautiloidea, Ammonoidea. In Traité de Paléontologie (Piveteau, J.), vol. 2, pp. 522–688. Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
Baugier, A. & Sauzé, M. 1843. Notice sur quelques coquilles de la famille des ammonidées recueilles dans le terrain jurassique des Deux-Sévres. Mémoires de la Société de statistique, sciences, belles-lettres et arts du département des Deux-Sèvres, Niort 7, 127–48, pls. 1–4.Google Scholar
Buckman, S. S. 1924. Type Ammonites, vol. 5, part 48. London: Wheldon & Wesley.Google Scholar
Deshayes, M. G. P. 1831. Description de coquilles caractéristiques des terrains. 264 pp., 14 pls. Paris: Levrault.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietl, G. 1978. Die heteromorphen Ammoniten des Dogger. Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde (B) 33, 1–97, pls. 1–11.Google Scholar
Hyatt, A. 1900. Cephalopoda. In Textbook of Palaeontology (Zittel, K. A.), 1st English ed. (transl. Eastman, C. R.), pp. 502–92, figs. 1049–1235. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mascke, E. 1907. Die Stephanoceras-Verwandten in den Coronatenschichten von Norddeutschland. Inaugural-Dissertation der Universität Göttingen, 38 pp.Google Scholar
Potonié, R. 1929. Die ammonitischen Nebenformen des Dogger (Apsorroceras, Spiroceras, Parapatoceras). Jahrbuch der Preussischen Geologischen Landesansalt und Bergakademie 50, 217–61, pls. 17–19.Google Scholar
Quenstedt, F. A. 1845–1849. Petrefactenkunde Deutschlands. I. Cephalopoden. vi+580 pp., 36 pls. Tübingen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quenstedt, F. A. 1856–1858. Der Jura. vi+842 pp., 100 pls. Tübingen.Google Scholar
Quenstedt, F. A. 1886–1887. Die Ammoniten des Schwäbischen Jura. 2. Der Braune Jura. pp. 441–815, pls. 55–90. Stuttgart.Google Scholar