Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:17:28.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Aristocystites? subcylindricus var. de bohemicus Barrande, 1887’ is a valid species of Aristocystites (Echinodermata, Diploporita): description and taxonomic consequences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2019

Christopher R.C. Paul
Affiliation:
School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Ronald L. Parsley
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118, USA, and Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560, USA

Abstract

Barrande erected the genus Aristocystites, type A. bohemicus Barrande, in 1887. He listed other questionable species, including “A.? subcylindricus var. de bohemicus.Aristocystites subcylindricus has not been accepted apart from Bather who in 1919 designated a type specimen and made it the type species of the new genus Hippocystis. No specimens available to Barrande or Bather preserved the oral area necessary to characterize Hippocystis or A. subcylindricus. Specimen 436969A, in the United States National Museum of Natural History is a more complete specimen of A. subcylindricus and preserves the oral area. This shows that A. subcylindricus is a valid species, but has two ambulacral facets, a character unique to the genus Aristocystites. Aristocystites subcylindricus has tumid plates with obvious sutures, a rounded thecal base, and a gonopore surrounded by three plates. Aristocystites bohemicus has smooth plates, an obvious attachment scar aborally and a gonopore within a single plate. Both species have occasional horseshoe-shaped diplopores.

UUID: http://zoobank.org/946c28a2-5783-4a6b-9111-416857bf9363

Type
Taxonomic note
Copyright
Copyright © 2019, The Paleontological Society 

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

Barrande, J., 1887, Systême Silurien du Centre de la Bohême, Première Partie, Recherches Paléontologiques, Volume 7, Classe des Echinodermes, Ordre des Cystidées: Prague, W. Waagen, 233 p.Google Scholar
Bather, F.A., 1900, Volume 3, The Echinoderma, in Lankester, E.R., ed., A Treatise on Zoology: London, A & C Black, 344 p.Google Scholar
Bather, F.A., 1919, Notes on Yunnan Cystidea, 3, Sinocystis compared with similar genera, B, Comparison with Megacystis (continued): Geological Magazine, v. 56, p. 255262.Google Scholar
Carpenter, P.H., 1884, Report upon the Crinoidea collected during the voyage of HMS Challenger during the years 1873 − 76, part 1: General morphology with descriptions of the stalked crinoids: Reports of the Scientific Results of the Voyage of HMS Challenger, Zoology, v. 11, p. 1442.Google Scholar
Carpenter, P.H., 1891, On certain points of the morphology of the Cystidea: Journal of the Linnean Society (Zoology), v. 34, p. 152.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Marco, J.C., 2000. Revisión taxonómica de ‘Echinosphaeritesmurchisoni Verneuil y Barrande, 1855 (Echinodermata, Diploporita) del Ordovícico Medio centroibérico (España): Geogaceta, v. 27, p. 8386.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Marco, J.C., , A.A., García-Bellído, D.C., and Rábano, I., 2017, The Bohemo-Iberian chronostratigraphical scale for the Ordovician system and palaeontological correlations within South Gondwana: Lethaia, v. 50, p. 258295.Google Scholar
Jaekel, O., 1899, Stammesgeschichte der Pelmatozoen, 1, Thecoidea und Cystoidea: Berlin, Julius Springer, 442 p.Google Scholar
Kammer, T.W., Sumrall, C.D., Zamora, S., Ausich, W.I., and Deline, B., 2013, Oral region homologies in Paleozoic crinoids and other plesiomorphic pentaradial echinoderms: PLoS One, v. 8, no. 11, p. e77989, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077989.Google Scholar
Kesling, R.V., 1968, Cystoids, in Moore, R.C., ed., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part S, Echinodermata 1: Boulder, Colorado, and Lawrence, Kansas, Geological Society of America (and University of Kansas Press), p. S85S267.Google Scholar
McDermott, P.D., and Paul, C.R.C., 2019, A new Upper Ordovician aristocystitid diploporite genus (Echinodermata) from the Llanddowror district, South Wales: Geological Journal, v. 54, p. 529536, doi:10.1002/gj.3203.Google Scholar
Müller, J.H.J., 1854, Über den Bau der Echinodermen: Königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Abhandlungen, v. 1853, p. 123219.Google Scholar
Neumayr, M., 1889, Die Stämme des Thierreiches, 1, Wirbellose Thiere: Vienna and Prague, Tempsky, 603 pp.Google Scholar
Parsley, R.L., 1990, Aristocystites, a recumbent diploporid (Echinodermata) from the Middle and Late Ordovician of Bohemia, ČSSR: Journal of Paleontology, v. 64, p. 278293.Google Scholar
Paul, C.R.C., 2017, Testing for homologies in the axial skeleton of primitive echinoderms: Journal of Paleontology, v. 91, p. 582603.Google Scholar
Paul, C.R.C., 2018, Prokopius, a new name for ‘Hippocystis sculptus’ Prokop, 1965, and the status of the genus Hippocystis Bather, 1919 (Echinodermata; Diploporita): Bulletin of Geosciences, v. 93, p. 337346, doi:10.3140/bull.geosci.1697.Google Scholar
Prokop, R.J., 1965, [Hippocystis sculptus (Barrande, 1887) in the Bohemian Middle Ordovician (Cystoidea)]: Zvláštní Otisk Věstníku Ústředního Ústavu Geologického, v. 40, p. 303306.Google Scholar