Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:41:01.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IV.—Notes on Ammonites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

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

Extract

As an illustration of the difficulties encountered in basing the classification on some peculiarity of the Ammonoid suture-line the case of the two families Macroscaphitinæ and Crioceratinæ may again be referred to, the former of lytoceratid, the latter of hoplitid origin. Distinction between these two families was based on the bifid or trifid characters of the first lateral lobe. Hamulina nitida, v. Koenen, which shows very nearly equal-sized suture elements, has the trifid first lateral lobe of the type-species of Hamulina, namely S. dissimilis, d'Orbigny, but the plain shell of the lytoceratid Anahamulina. Hyatt put the latter into his family Macroscaphitidæ, but the former, and also the clearly lytoceratid Pictetia, into Ancyloceratidæ, i.e. even into a different sub-order. But Anahamulina subcylindrica, d'Orbigny, sp., i.e. the type-species itself, has a nearly trifid first lateral lobe, though it is connected through A. Lorioli, Uhlig, sp. (with a sub-bifid first lateral lobe), with typically lytoceratid forms. In ornament and coiling also Hamulina resembles certain lytoceratid forms (compare e.g. the various forms of Macroscaphitinæ figured by Uhlig).

Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 6 , Issue 5 , May 1919 , pp. 220 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1919

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 220 note 1 Op. cit., p. 396, pl. lii, figs. 3–5.

page 220 note 2 In Zittel-Eastman, , Textbook of Palœontology, vol. i, pp. 371, 588Google Scholar.

page 220 note 3 The inclusion in Macroscaphitinæ again of Hamulina, withdrawal of Anahamulina, the inclusion of Spiroceras in Crioceratinæ, and many other alterations introduced by Professor J. P. Smith in the chapter on Ammonoidea in the second edition of Zittel-Eastman's Textbook of Palœontology (1913), and evidently not based on additional research, cannot be considered improvements on Hyatt's classification.

page 220 note 4 “Cephalop.-Fauna d. Wirnsdorfer Schichten”: Denkschr. d. Math.-Naturw. Cl. d. k. Akad. d. Wiss., vol. xlvi, Vienna, 1883.

page 220 note 5 “Etude Monogr. d. Ammon. du Crét. Infér. de Chatel-Saint-Denis,” pt. ii: Mém. Soc. Pal. Suisse, vol. xxix, p. 154, 1902Google Scholar.

page 221 note 1 “The Development of Tragophylloceras Loscombi”: Q.J.G.S., vol. lxx, 1914Google Scholar.

page 221 note 2 The family Pleuracanthitidæ, Hyatt em. Diener, provisionally accepted in the paper mentioned above, cannot be upheld.

page 221 note 3 Op. cit. (Geol. Mag., 1917), p. 445, Fig. 10.

page 221 note 4 Loc. cit., p. 447, Fig. 13.

page 222 note 1 Certain aberrant forms, occurring e.g. in the marmorea and margaritatus zones, and resembling the globosus-lœvigatus group superficially, cannot be included in the genus Cymbites, which is confined to the Birchi-obtusus zones.

page 222 note 2 In Zittel-Eastman, , vol. i, pp. 576–7, 1900Google Scholar.

page 222 note 3 “On the Grouping of some Divisions of so-called ‘Jurassic’ Time”: Q.J.G.S., vol. liv, pp. 442–62Google Scholar; also in A Monograph of the Ammonites of the “Inferior Oolite Series”, Supplement, Pal. Soc., vols. 1898–1907, p. cxcviiiGoogle Scholar.

page 222 note 4 Traité de Paléontologie, vol. ii, p. 673Google Scholar.

page 223 note 1 “The Geology of the Charmouth Cliffs, Beach, and Fore-shore”: Proc. Geol. Assoc., vol. xxv, p. 321, 1914Google Scholar.

page 223 note 2 Proc. Geol. Assoc., vol. xxvi, p. 267, 1915Google Scholar.

page 223 note 3 “Certain Jurassic [Lias–Oolitic] Strata of South Dorset, and their Correlation”: Q.J.G.S., vol. lxvi, p. 53, 1910Google Scholar.

page 223 note 4 “The Evolution and Classification of the Cephalopoda, an Account of Recent Advances”: Proc. Geol. Assoc., vol. xii, p. 278, 1892Google Scholar.

page 223 note 5 History of Geology and Palœontology, London, 1901, p. 380Google Scholar.

page 224 note 1 “Les Ammonites du Permien et du Trias”: Bull. Soc. Géol. France, ser. iii, vol. xxii, p. 386Google Scholar.

page 224 note 2 Traité de Géologie, vol. ii, fasc. 1, 2, Paris, 1908–1911Google Scholar.

page 224 note 3 Op. cit., 1914, p. 353.

page 224 note 4 Op. cit., vol. ii, fasc. 1, pp. 754–5.

page 224 note 5 Beitr. z. Geol. u. Palaeont. v. Oesterr.-Ung., etc., vol. xxiv, 1911.

page 224 note 6 Triassic Faunœ of Kashmir (Mem. Geol. Surv. India), n.s., vol. v, i, p. 3, 1913Google Scholar.

page 225 note “Beitr. z. Entwicklungsgeschichte der Fossilen Cephalopoden”: Palæontographica, vol. xxvi, pts. i, ii, 1879Google Scholar.

page 225 note 2 Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. [3], i, 1898.

page 225 note 3 “Die Ammoniten der Unt. Wolga-Stufe”: Mém. du Comité Géol. St. Pétersbourg, vol. viii, No. 2.

page 225 note 4 In Pavlow, & Lamplugh, , Argiles de Speeton, etc., Moscow, 1892, p. 114Google Scholar.