Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:34:02.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes on Some Early British Graptolites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

C. J. Stubblefield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Fifty years ago Charles Callaway collected some graptolites from the Shineton (Tremadocian) Shales exposed in Mary Dingle (south of the Wrekin, Shropshire); these he recorded as Dendrograptus sp., stating that he was unprepared to assign them “to any known species or to give them a new name”. The fossils were sent to Charles Lapworth who in 1879 (loc. cit.) wrote that they belonged to two different genera, Clonograptus and Bryograptus; the Clonograptus he later identified (loc. cit.) with reserve as C. rigidus Hall, whilst the Bryograptus formed a genosyntype for that then new genus. Bryograptus was defined by Lapworth about this time from two new species—(1) B. callavei, collected by Callaway from the Shineton Shales, and (2) B. kjerulfi, of which Lapworth had only seen the figures (Graptolithus tenuis) which Kjerulf had drawn from specimens found in the Alum Shales of Vaekkerö (near Oslo).

Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 66 , Issue 6 , June 1929 , pp. 268 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1929

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 268 note 1 Callaway, C., Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol. xxxiii, 1877. p. 670.Google Scholar

page 268 note 2 Lapworth, C., Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. v, vol. iv, 1879, p. 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 268 note 3 Lapworth, C., Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. v, vol. v, 1880, p. 274.Google Scholar

page 268 note 4 Lapworth, C., Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. v, vol. v, 1880, pp. 164–5, p1. v, figs. 21a, 21b.Google Scholar

page 269 note 1 Kjerulf, T., 1865, Veiviser Christ., p. 3, figs. 6a and b.Google Scholar

page 269 note 2 Moberg, J. C., and Segerberg, C. O., Medd. Lunds Geol. Fält., Ser. B, No. 2, 1906,Google Scholar Westergård, A. H., Lunds Univ. Årsskr., n.s., pt. ii, vol. v, No. 3, 1909Google Scholar, and Poulsen, C., Danmarks Geol. Undersög, Ser. iv, vol. 1, No. 16, 1922.Google Scholar

page 269 note 3 Stubblefield, C. J. and Bulman, O. M. B., Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol. lxxxiii, 1927, pp. 111 and 118.Google Scholar

page 270 note 1 C. J. Stubblefield and O. M. B. Bulman, op. cit., pp. 110, 111, 116.

page 270 note 2 All text-figures in this paper are camera lucida drawings of specimens found in the Shineton Shales—south of the Wrekin, Shropshire—and have been given to the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) S.W. 7. The convention used in numbering the graptolite structures is such that the immediate descendants of one particular budding individual (e.g. III) carry the same numeral (IV, iv, 4).

page 271 note 1 Bulman, O. M. B., 1925, Geol. Mag., pp. 50–67, text-figs. 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and 1927, A Monograph of British Dendroid Graptolites, pt. i, Palaeont. Soc., London.Google Scholar

page 272 note 1 This would appear, from my drawing, to originate from the apical portion of the sicula about its junction with the apertural, but since the specimen is damaged in this region and the “apical portion” is completely opaque it is impossible to decide where the apertural portion really begins.

page 274 note 1 Kraft, P., “Ontogenetische Entwicklung und Biologie, von Diplograptus u. Monograptus.” Pal. Zeitsch., vol. iii, 1926, p. 223.Google Scholar

page 274x note 2 Graptolites are usually figured with the sicular aperture facing downwards, and since the nema forms the proximal end, the right-hand side of the animal is by this convention drawn to appear on the left. The terminology “right-handed” and “right-hand stipe” adopted in this paper is therefore morphologically incorrect but with the conventional drawing-position, this. usage seems less likely to confuse the reader.

page 278 note 1 There is no doubt of the specific identity between the English and Swedish material.

page 283 note 1 , Lapworth, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. v, vol. v, 1880, p. 165, p1. v, figs. 21a, 21b.Google Scholar

page 283 note 2 In Mon. Brit. Grapt., Palaeont. Soc. London, pt. ii, 1902, pp. 84–5, it was stated that Lapworth described B. callavei from Mary Dingle. It is likely that the specimen came from this locality, but Lapworth's paper reported the species from Cound Brook—the Shineton Shales of Cound Brook yield no graptolites.Google Scholar

page 284 note 1 , Nicholson (Mon. Brit. Grapt., Pal. Soc. London, pt. i, 1872, p. 67) compared. the Dichograptid discus with the “float” of modern Physophoridae, and further quoted Hall's description of Tetragraptus (Craptolithus) alatus in which the discus is prolonged “along the margins of the stipes producing an alation” —a structure homologous with the flange of the Swedish callavei.Google Scholar

page 285 note 1 Holm, G., Geol. Fören. Stockh. Förh., vol. xvii, 1895, pp. 332–4, p1. xi, figs. 1–3Google Scholar, and Geol. Mag., 1895, pp. 440–1, p1. xlii, figs. 1–3.Google Scholar