Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:46:29.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Appraisal of the fossil record of Homarus (nephropid lobster), with description of a new species from the upper Oligocene of Hungary and remarks on the status of Hoploparia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2017

Dale Tshudy ,
Matúš Hyžný ,
Alfréd Dulai  and
John W.M. Jagt
Dale Tshudy
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, Edinboro, PA 16444, U.S.A. 〈[email protected]〉
Matúš Hyžný
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Paleontology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Mlynská dolina, Ilkovičova 6, 842 15 Bratislava, Slovakia; Department of Geology and Paleontology, Natural History Museum, Burgring 7, 1010 Vienna, Austria 〈[email protected]〉
Alfréd Dulai
Affiliation:
Department of Palaeontology and Geology, Hungarian Natural History Museum, Ludovika tér 2, 1083 Budapest, Hungary 〈[email protected]〉
John W.M. Jagt
Affiliation:
Natuurhistorisch Museum Maastricht, 6211 KJ Maastricht, the Netherlands 〈[email protected]〉
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The fossil record of the clawed lobster genus, Homarus, is appraised. The taxonomic history of Homarus and Hoploparia is summarized, and a list of species recognized for each is provided. A tabulation of all fossil species of the family Nephropidae permits assessment of nephropid species diversity through time. A new species of Homarus, H. hungaricus, is recorded from the upper Oligocene (Chattian) Mány Formation at Mány, northern Hungary. The species is known by a single specimen consisting of a partial cephalothorax, a pleon minus telson, and partial chelipeds. Homarus is now known by two extant species (H. americanus and H. gammarus) and six fossil taxa, one of Early Cretaceous (Albian; H. benedeni) and five of Cenozoic age (H. hungaricus n. sp., H. klebsi, H. lehmanni, H. morrisi, and H. percyi). The new fossil Homarus differs from modern congeners in aspects of carapace and pleon ornamentation and, especially, cutter claw shape. This is the fourth Oligocene occurrence of a nephropid species; all are Homarus and all are from Western Europe. Homarus makes its appearance in the fossil record in the Early Cretaceous (Albian) and then is not known again until the Paleogene, despite the fact that nephropid lobsters in general are well known from the Late Cretaceous. Nephropid lobsters are better known from the Cretaceous than from the Cenozoic. Both raw species numbers and numbers corrected (normalized) for epicontinental sea coverage show that shelf-dwelling nephropid lobsters were most diverse during the Late Cretaceous.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 92 , Issue 2 , March 2018 , pp. 170 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © 2017, 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

Aguirre-Urreta, M.B., 1989, The Cretaceous decapod Crustacea of Argentina and the Antarctic Peninsula: Palaeontology, v. 32, p. 499–552.Google Scholar
Aguirre-Urreta, M.B., Olivero, E.B., and Medina, F.A., 1991, A redescription of a Maastrichtian lobster Hoploparia antarctica Wilckens, 1907 (Crustacea: Decapoda), from Chubut, Argentina: Journal of Paleontology, v. 65, p. 795–800.Google Scholar
Ahyong, S.T., 2006, Phylogeny of the clawed lobsters (Crustacea: Decapoda: Homarida): Zootaxa, v. 1109, p. 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahyong, S.T., Chu, K.H., and Chan, T.-Y., 2007, Description of a new species of Thaumastochelopsis from the Coral Sea (Crustacea: Decapoda: Nephropoidea): Bulletin of Marine Science, v. 80, p. 201–208.Google Scholar
Bachmayer, F., and Mundlos, R., 1968, Die tertiären Krebse von Helmstedt bei Braunschweig, Deutschland: Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, v. 72, p. 649–692.Google Scholar
Báldi, T., 1973, Mollusc fauna of the Hungarian Upper Oligocene (Egerian): Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, 511 p.Google Scholar
Bate, C.S., 1888, Report on the Crustacea Macrura collected by H.M.S. “Challenger” during the years 1873–1876. Reports on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger During the Years 1873–1876 Under the Command of Captain George S. Nares, R.N., F.R.S. and the Late Captain Frank Tourle Thomson, R.N. Zoology: Edinburgh, Neill and Company, v. 24, 942 p.Google Scholar
Beard, T.W., and McGregor, D., 2004, Storage and care of live lobsters. Laboratory Leaflet Number 66 (Revised): Lowestoft, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, 26 p.Google Scholar
Bell, T., 1850, Notes on the Crustacea of the Chalk Formation, in Dixon, F., ed., The Geology and Fossils of the Tertiary and Cretaceous Formations of Sussex: London, Brown, Green & Longmans, p. 344–345.Google Scholar
Bell, T., 1863, A monograph of the fossil malacostracous Crustacea of Great Britain. Part II. Crustacea of the Gault and Greensand: Monographs of the Palaeontographical Society London, 40 p.Google Scholar
Beschin, C., Busulini, A., De Angeli, A., and Tessier, G., 1996, Retroplumoidea (Crustacea, Brachyura) nel Terziario del Vicentino (Italia settentrionale): Lavori—Società Veneziana di Scienze Naturali, v. 21, p. 83–102.Google Scholar
Beurlen, K., 1928, Die Decapoden des Schwäbischen Jura mit Ausnahme der aus den oberjurasischen Plattenkalken stammenden. Beiträge zur Systematik und Stammesgeschichte der Decapoden: Palaeontographica, v. 70, p. 115–278.Google Scholar
Beurlen, K., 1938, Algunos fósiles cretácicos (vermes, equínidos, crustáceos) de la Cordillera: Estudios geológicos y paleontólogicos sobre la Cordillera oriental de Colombia, v. 3, p. 128–136.Google Scholar
Bishop, G.A., 1985, Fossil decapod crustaceans from the Gammon Ferruginous Member, Pierre Shale (Early Campanian), Black Hills, South Dakota: Journal of Paleontology, v. 59, p. 605–624.Google Scholar
Böhm, J., 1891, Die Kreidebildungen des Fürbergs und Sulzbergs bei Siegsdorf in Oberbayern: Palaeontographica, v. 38, p. 1–106.Google Scholar
Borissjak, A., 1904, Ob ostatkakh‘ otlozhenii izh nizhne-melovykh‘ otlozhenii Kryma [Sur les restes de crustacés dans les dépôts du Crétacé inférieur de la Crimée]: Otdel’nyk ottisk‘ izh 23, Izvestii Geologicheskogo Komiteta, Sankt Peterburg, v. 100, p. 411–423.Google Scholar
Bosquet, J., 1854, Les Crustacés fossiles du Terrain Crétacé du Limbourg: Verhandelingen uitgegeven door de Commissie belast met het vervaardigen eener geologische beschrijving en kaart van Nederland, v. 2, p. 1–127. (10–137).Google Scholar
Bruce, A.J., 1988, Thaumastochelopsis wardi, gen. et sp. nov., a new blind deep-sea lobster from the Coral Sea (Crustacea: Decapoda: Nephropidea): Invertebrate Taxonomy, v. 2, p. 903–914.Google Scholar
Burukovsky, R.N., and Averin, B.S., 1977, A replacement name, Thymopides, proposed for the preoccupied generic name Bellator (Decapoda, Nephropidae): Crustaceana, v. 32, p. 216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charbonnier, S., Garassino, A., and Pasini, G., 2012, Revision of Mesozoic decapod crustaceans from Madagascar: Geodiversitas, v. 34, p. 313–357.Google Scholar
Chong, G., and Förster, R., 1976, Chilenophoberus atacamensis, a new decapod crustacean from the Middle Oxfordian of the Cordillera de Domeyko, northern Chile: Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Monatshefte, v. 3, p. 145–156.Google Scholar
Császár, G., ed., 1997, Basic lithostratigraphic units in Hungary (charts and short descriptions). Magyarország lithosztratigráfiai alapegységei (Táblázatok és rövid leírások): Budapest, Geological Institute of Hungary, 114 p.Google Scholar
Dana, J.D., 1852, Macrura. Conspectus crustaceorum & conspectus of the Crustacea of the Exploring Expedition under Captain C. Wilkes, U.S.N: Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, v. 6, p. 10–28.Google Scholar
De Grave, S., Pentcheff, N.D., Ahyong, S.T., Chan, T.-Y., Crandall, K.A., Dworschak, P.C., Felder, D.L., Feldmann, R.M., Fransen, C.H.J.M., Goulding, L.Y.D., Lemaitre, R., Low, M.E.Y., Martin, J.W., Ng, P.K. L., Schweitzer, C.E., Tan, S.H., Tshudy, D., and Wetzer, R., 2009, A classification of living and fossil genera of decapod crustaceans: The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, no. Supplement No. 21, 109 p.Google Scholar
Delheid, E., 1895, Le Homarus percyi Van Beneden du Rupélien: Annales de la Société géologique de Belgique, v. 30, p. 91–93.Google Scholar
Eichbaum, K.W., 1971, Krebsreste im Geschiebe-Feuerstein: Der Geschiebesammler, v. 17, p. 1–28.Google Scholar
Etheridge, R. Jr., 1917, Description of some Queensland Palaeozoic and Mesozoic fossils, I. Queensland Lower Cretaceous Crustacea: Publications of the Geological Survey of Queensland, v. 260, p. 1–29.Google Scholar
Fabricius, J.C., 1775, Systema entomologiae, sistens insectorum classes, ordines, genera, species, adiectis synonymous, locis, descriptionibus, observationibus: Flensburgi et Lipsiae, Officina Libraria Kortii, 832 p.Google Scholar
Feldmann, R.M., 1974, Hoploparia riddlensis, a new species of lobster (Decapoda: Nephropidae) from the Days Creek Formation (Hauterivian, Lower Cretaceous) of Oregon: Journal of Paleontology, v. 48, p. 586–593.Google Scholar
Feldmann, R.M., and Crame, J.A., 1998, The significance of a new nephropid lobster from the Miocene of Antarctica: Palaeontology, v. 41, p. 807–814.Google Scholar
Feldmann, R.M., and Holland, F.D. Jr., 1971, A new species of lobster from the Cannonball Formation (Paleocene) of North Dakota: Journal of Paleontology, v. 45, p. 838–843.Google Scholar
Feldmann, R.M., Bishop, G.A., and Kammer, T.W., 1977, Macrurous decapods from the Bearpaw Shale (Cretaceous; Campanian) of northeastern Montana: Journal of Paleontology, v. 51, p. 1161–1180.Google Scholar
Feldmann, R.M., Schweitzer, C.E., Redman, C.M., Morris, N.J., and Ward, D.J., 2007, New Late Cretaceous lobsters from the Kyzylkum Desert of Uzbekistan: Journal of Paleontology, v. 81, p. 701–713.Google Scholar
Förster, R., and Mundlos, R., 1982, Krebse aus dem Alttertiär von Helmstedt und Handorf (Niedersachsen): Palaeontographica, v. A179, p. 148–184.Google Scholar
Forir, H., 1887, Contributions à l’étude du système crétacé de la Belgique. II. Études complémentaires sur les crustacés: Annales de la Société géologique de Belgique, v. 14, p. 155–175.Google Scholar
Fraas, O., 1878, Geologisches aus dem Libanon: Jahreshefte des Vereins für vaterländische Naturkunde in Württemberg, v. 34, p. 257–391.Google Scholar
Freess, W.B., 1992, Crustaceen aus den mitteloligozänen Meeressanden bei Leipzig: Der Aufschluss, v. 43, p. 361–375.Google Scholar
Fritsch, A., and Kafka, J., 1887, Malacostraca—Ordnung Decapoda, in Fritsch, A., and Kafka, J., eds., Die Crustaceen der Böhmischen Kreideformation: Praha, Selbstverlag (in commission von F. Řivnáč), p. 20–53.Google Scholar
Garassino, A., Artal, P., and Pasini, G., 2009, New report of decapod macrurans from the Eocene of Catalonia and Aragón (Spain): Atti della Società Italiana de Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano, v. 150, p. 207–214.Google Scholar
Geys, J.F., and Marquet, R., 1983, Veldatlas voor Cenozoische fossielen van België: Publicatie van de Belgische Vereniging voor Paleontologie, v. 3, 203 p.Google Scholar
Glaessner, M.F., 1929, Crustacea Decapoda, in Pompeckj, F.J., ed., Fossilium Catalogus I: Animalia, no. Pt. 41: Berlin, W. Junk, 464 p.Google Scholar
Glaessner, M.F., 1932, Zwei ungenügend bekannte mezozoische Dekapodenkrebse Pemphis sueuri (Desm.) und Palaeophoberussuevicus (Quenstedt): Paläontologische Zeitschrift, v. 14, p. 108–121.Google Scholar
Glaessner, M.F., 1969, Decapoda, in Moore, R.C., ed., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part R, Arthropoda 4: Boulder, Colorado and Lawrence, Kansas, Geological Society of America and The University of Kansas Press, p. R399–R651.Google Scholar
Gyalog, L., and Budai, T., eds., 2004, Javaslatok Magyarország földtani képzödményeinek litosztratigráfiai tagolására (Proposal for new lithostratigraphic units of Hungary): Annual Report of the Geological Institute of Hungary, 2002, p. 195–232.Google Scholar
Haas, H., 1889, Ueber Podocrates und Homarus aus dem Mitteloligozän von Itzehoe: Mitteilungen aus dem Mineralogischen Institut der Universität Kiel, v. 1, p. 88–97.Google Scholar
Harbort, E., 1905, Die Fauna der Schaumburg-Lippe’schen Kreidemulde: Abhandlungen der preussischen geologischen Landesanstalt, neue Folge, v. 45, p. 1–112.Google Scholar
Hauge, M., 2010, Unique lobster “hybrid.” Retrieved from Norwegian Institute of Marine Research: http://www.imr.no/nyhetsarkiv/2010/mai/sensasjonell_hybrid_i_hummarverda/en (published 18.05.2010; updated 26.05.2010).Google Scholar
Holthuis, L.B., 1974, The lobsters of the Superfamily Nephropidea of the Atlantic Ocean (Crustacea: Decapoda): Bulletin of Marine Science, v. 24, p. 723–884.Google Scholar
Hyžný, M., and Müller, P.M., 2010, Loerenthopluma Beschin, Busulini, De Angeli and Tessier, 1996 (Decapoda: Brachyura: Retroplumidae) from the Oligocene of Hungary: Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano, v. 151, p. 129–140.Google Scholar
Ilyin, I.V., 2005, Melovye i paleogenovye desiatinogie rakoobraznye (Crustaceomorpha, Decapoda) zapadnoii chasti Severnoi Evrazii (Cretaceous and Paleogene decapod crustaceans of the western part of northern Eurasia): Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta, Moscow, 295 p.Google Scholar
Jagt, J.W.M., Fraaije, R.H.B., and van Bakel, B.W.M., 2014, Decapod crustacean ‘odds and ends’ from the Maastrichtian type area (southeast Netherlands, northeast Belgium), in Fraaije, R.H.B., Hyžný, M., Jagt, J.W.M., Krobicki,M., and van Bakel B.W.M., eds., Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Mesozoic and Cenozoic decapod crustaceans, Kraków, Poland, 2013. A tribute to Pál Mihály Müller: Scripta Geologica, v. 147, p. 95–115.Google Scholar
Jenkins, M.F., 1972, Metanephrops, a new genus of Late Pliocene to Recent lobsters (Decapoda, Nephropidae): Crustaceana, v. 22, p. 161–177.Google Scholar
Karasawa, H., 1998, Two new species of Decapoda (Crustacea) from the Upper Cretaceous Izumi Group, Japan: Paleontological Research, v. 2, p. 217–223.Google Scholar
Karasawa, H., and Hayakawa, H., 2000, Additions to Cretaceous decapod crustaceans from Hokkaido, Japan—Part 1. Nephropidae, Micheleidae and Galatheidae: Paleontological Research, v. 4, p. 139–145.Google Scholar
Karasawa, H., Ohara, M., and Kato, H., 2008, New records for Crustacea from the Arida Formation (Lower Cretaceous, Barremian) of Japan: Boletín de la Sociedad Geológico Mexicana, v. 60, p. 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karasawa, H., Schweitzer, C.E., and Feldmann, R.M., 2013, Phylogeny and systematics of extant and extinct lobsters: Journal of Crustacean Biology, v. 33, p. 78–123.Google Scholar
Kato, H., and Karasawa, H., 2006, New nephropid and glypheid lobsters from the Mesozoic of Japan: Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geológicas, v. 23, p. 338–343.Google Scholar
Kornfield, I., Williams, A.B., and Steneck, R.S., 1995, Assignment of Homarus capensis (Herbst, 1792), the Cape lobster of South Africa, to the new genus Homarinus (Decapoda: Nephropidae): Fishery Bulletin, v. 93, p. 97–102.Google Scholar
Latreille, P.A., 1802–1803, Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière des Crustacés et des Insectes. Ouvrage faisant suite à l’histoire naturelle générale et particulière, composée par Leclerc de Buffon, et rédigée par C.S. Sonnini, membre de plusieurs sociétés savantes. Familles naturelles des genres: Paris, F. DuFart, v. 3, 467 p.Google Scholar
Linnaeus, C., 1758, Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae: Secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum Characteribus, Differentiis, Synonymis, Locis, 10th ed., Stockholm, Laurentius Salvius, 824 p.Google Scholar
Lörenthey, E., and Beurlen, K., 1929, Die fossilen Dekapoden der Länder der Ungarischen Krone: Geologica Hungarica, Series Palaeontologica, v. 3, 420 p.Google Scholar
Manning, R.M., 1969, A new genus and species of lobster (Decapoda, Nephropidae) from the Caribbean Sea: Crustaceana, v. 17, p. 303–309.Google Scholar
M’Coy, F., 1849, On the classification of some British fossil Crustacea with notices of new forms in the university collection at Cambridge: Annals and Magazine of Natural History, v. 4, p. 161–179. 330–335.Google Scholar
M’Coy, F., 1854, Contributions to British Palaeontology: Cambridge, MacMillan & Co., 272 p.Google Scholar
Mertin, H., 1941, Decapode Krebse aus dem Subhercynen und Braunschweiger Emscher und Untersenon sowie Bemerkungen über einige verwandte Formen in der Oberkreide: Nova Acta Leopoldina, v. 10, p. 1–264.Google Scholar
Milne Edwards, H., 1837, Histoire naturelle des Crustacés; comprenant l’anatomie, la physiologie et la classification de ces animaux, 2: Paris, Roret, 532 p.Google Scholar
Moths, H., and Braasch, R., 2005, Eine Schere des Hummers Homarus klebsi (Noetling, 1885) in einem oberoligozänen Geschiebe vom Typ “Sternberger Gestein” aus der Kiesgrube Pinnow, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern: Der Geschiebesammler, v. 38, p. 67–74.Google Scholar
Noetling, F., 1885, Die Fauna des samländischen Tertiärs. Lieferung II. Crustacea und Vermes: Abhandlungen zur Geologischen Specialkarte von Preussen und den Thüringischen Staaten, v. 6, p. 112–172.Google Scholar
Oppel, A., 1861, Die Arten der Gattungen Eryma, Pseudastacus, Magila und Etallonia : Jahreshefte des Vereins für vaterländische Naturkunde in Württemberg, v. 17, p. 355–361.Google Scholar
Pelseneer, P., 1886, Notice sur un Crustacé des Sables verts de Grandpré: Bulletin du Musée royal d’Histoire naturelle de Belgique, v. 4, p. 47–59.Google Scholar
Pilsbry, H., 1901, Crustacea of the Cretaceous formation of New Jersey: Proceedings of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences, v. 53, p. 111–118.Google Scholar
Polkowsky, S., 2004, Decapode Krebse aus dem oberoligozänem Sternberger Gestein von Kobrow (Mecklenburg): Schwerin, privately published, 126 p.Google Scholar
Quayle, W.J., 1987, English Eocene Crustacea (lobsters and stomatopod): Palaeontology, v. 30, p. 581–612.Google Scholar
Rathbun, M.J., 1926, The fossil stalk-eyed Crustacea of the Pacific Slope of North America: United States National Museum Bulletin 138, 155 p.Google Scholar
Rathbun, M.J., 1929, New species of fossil decapod crustaceans from California: Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, v. 19, p. 469–472.Google Scholar
Rathbun, M.J., 1935, Fossil Crustacea of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain: Geological Society of America, Special Papers, v. 2, 160 p.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M., 1976a, Species diversity in the Phanerozoic: a tabulation: Paleobiology, v. 2, p. 279–288.Google Scholar
Raup, D.M., 1976b, Species diversity in the Phanerozoic: an interpretation: Paleobiology, v. 2, p. 289–297.Google Scholar
Ravn, J.P.J., 1903, The Tertiary fauna at Kap Dalton (Grönland): Meddelelser om Grønland, v. 29, p. 93–140.Google Scholar
Robineau-Desvoidy, J.B., 1849, Mémoire sur les crustacés du terrain néocomien de Saint-Sauveur-en-Puisage (Yonne): Annales de la Société entomologique de France, v. 7, p. 95–141.Google Scholar
Roemer, F.A., 1840–1841, Die Versteinerungen des norddeutschen Kreidegebirges: Hannover, Hahn’sche Hofbuchhandlung, 145 p.Google Scholar
Schlüter, C., 1862, Die macruren Decapoden der Senon- und Cenoman-Bildungen Westphalens: Zeitschrift der deutschen geologischen Gesellschaft, v. 14, p. 703–749.Google Scholar
Schlüter, C., 1874, I. Fossile Krebse des Libanon. II. Die Krebse des schwedischen Saltholmkalkes: Verhandlungen des Naturhistorischen Vereins des preussischen Rheinlandes und Westfalen, v. 31, p. 41–55.Google Scholar
Schlüter, C., 1879, Neue und weniger gekannte Kreide- und Tertiär-Krebse des nördlichen Deutschlands: Zeitschrift der deutschen geologischen Gesellschaft, v. 31, p. 586–615.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, C.E., and Feldmann, R.M., 2001, New Cretaceous and Tertiary decapod crustaceans from western North America: Bulletin of the Mizunami Fossil Museum, v. 28, p. 173–210.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, C.E., and Feldmann, R.M., 2014, Lobster (Decapoda) diversity and evolutionary patterns through time: Journal of Crustacean Biology, v. 34, p. 820–847.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, C.E., and Feldmann, R.M., 2015, Faunal turnover and niche stability in marine Decapoda in the Phanerozoic: Journal of Crustacean Biology, v. 35, p. 633–649.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, C.E., Feldmann, R.M., Fam, J.M., Hessin, W.A., Hetrick, S.W., Nyborg, T.G., and Ross, R.L.M., 2003, Cretaceous and Eocene decapod crustaceans from southern Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada: Ottawa, Ontario, NRC Research Press, 66 p.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, C.E., Feldmann, R.M., Garassino, A., Karasawa, H., and Schweigert, G., 2010, Systematic list of fossil decapod crustacean species: Crustaceana Monographs, v. 10, 222 p.Google Scholar
Secrétan, S., 1964, Les crustacés décapodes du Jurassique supérieur et du Crétacé de Madagascar: Mémoires du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle Paris, Nouvelle série, v. C14, p. 1–223.Google Scholar
Signor, P.W., 1985, Real and apparent trends in species richness through time, in Valentine, J., ed., Phanerozoic Diversity Patterns: Profiles in Macroevolution: Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, p. 129–150.Google Scholar
Smith, S.I., 1885, Description of a new Crustacean allied to Homarus and Nephrops : Proceedings of the United States National Museum, v. 8, p. 167–170.Google Scholar
Sowerby, G.B., 1826, Description of a new species of Astacus, found in a fossil state at Lyme Regis: Zoological Journal, v. 2, p. 493–494.Google Scholar
Stenzel, H.B., 1945, Decapod crustaceans from the Cretaceous of Texas: University of Texas Contributions to Geology, v. 4401, p. 400–477.Google Scholar
Sztanó, O., Magyary, Á., and Nagymarosy, A., 1998, Az Esztergomi-medence oligocén képzödményeinek integrált sztratigráfiai vizsgálata: II. Oligocén szekvenciák és értelmezésük. (High-resolution stratigraphy in the Esztergom Basin, northeastern Transdanubia, Hungary: II. Oligocene sequences and their interpretation.): Földtani Közlöny, v. 128, p. 455–486.Google Scholar
Tribolet, M., de, 1874, Description des crustacés du térrain néocomien du Jura neuchâtelois et vaudois: Bulletin de la Société géologique de France, v. 2, p. 350–365.Google Scholar
Tribolet, M., de, 1876, Description de quelques espèces de crustacés décapodes du Valanginien, Néocomien et Urgonien de la Haute-Marne, du Jura et des Alpes: Bulletin de la Société des Sciences naturelles de Neuchâtel, v. 10, (for 1874), p. 294–303.Google Scholar
Tshudy, D., 1993, Taxonomy and evolution of the clawed lobster families Chilenophoberidae and Nephropidae [PhD dissertation]: Kent, Ohio, Kent State University, 472 p.Google Scholar
Tshudy, D., 2003, Clawed lobster (Nephropidae) diversity through time: Journal of Crustacean Biology, v. 23, p. 178–186.Google Scholar
Tshudy, D., and Babcock, L.E., 1997, Morphology-based phylogenetic analysis of the clawed lobsters (family Nephropidae and the new family Chilenophoberidae): Journal of Crustacean Biology, v. 17, p. 253–263.Google Scholar
Tshudy, D., and Sorhannus, U., 2000, Jagtia kunradensis, a new genus and species of clawed lobster (Decapoda: Nephropidae) from the Upper Cretaceous (Upper Maastrichtian) Maastricht Formation, the Netherlands: Journal of Paleontology, v. 74, p. 224–229.Google Scholar
Tshudy, D., and Sorhannus, U., 2003, Hoploparia, the best known fossil clawed lobster (Family Nephropidae), is a “wastebasket” genus: Journal of Crustacean Biology, v. 23, p. 700–711.Google Scholar
Tshudy, D., Donaldson, W.S., Collom, C., Feldmann, R.M., and Schweitzer, C., 2005, Hoploparia albertaensis, a new species of clawed lobster (Nephropidae) from the Late Coniacian, shallow-marine Bad Heart Formation of northwestern Alberta, Canada: Journal of Paleontology, v. 79, p. 961–968.Google Scholar
Tshudy, D., Robles, R., Chan, T.-Y., Ho, K.C., Chu, K.H., Ahyong, S.T., and Felder, D.L., 2009, Phylogeny of marine clawed lobster families Nephropidae Dana 1852 and Thaumastochelidae Bate 1888 based on mitochondrial genes, in Martin, J.W., Crandall, K.A., and Felder, D.L., eds., Decapod crustacean phylogenetics (Crustacean Issues 18): Boca Raton, London, New York, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, p. 357–368.Google Scholar
Vail, P.R., Mitchum, R.M. Jr., and Thompson, S. III, 1978, Seismic stratigraphy and global changes in sea level, part 4: global cycles of relative changes in sea level, in Payton, C.E., ed., Seismic Stratigraphy: Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir, v. 26, p. 35–54.Google Scholar
Van Beneden, P.J., 1872, Sur la découverte d’un homard fossile dans l’argile de Rupelmonde: Bulletin de l’Académie royale de Belgique, v. 33, p. 316–321.Google Scholar
Van Straelen, V., 1920, Note sur Homarus percyi Van Beneden de l’argile de Boom (Rupélien supérieur): Bulletin de la Société belge de Géologie, de Paléontologie et d’Hydrologie, v. 30, p. 26–30.Google Scholar
Van Straelen, V., 1921, Hoploparia corneti Crustacé décapode nouveau de l’Yprésien supérieur de Cuesmes: Bulletin de la Société belge de Géologie, de Paléontologie et d’Hydrologie, v. 30, p. 136–138.Google Scholar
Van Straelen, V., 1925, Contribution à l’étude des Crustacés décapodes de la période Jurassique: Mémoires de la Classe des Sciences de l’Académie royale de Belgique, v. 7, p. 1–462.Google Scholar
Van Straelen, V., 1936, Sur des crustacés décapodes de l’Auversien des Alpes de Schwyz: Bulletin du Musée royal d’Histoire naturelle de Belgique, v. 12, p. 1–5.Google Scholar
Van Straelen, V., 1949, Crustacés, in Collignon, M., ed., Recherches sur les faunes albiennes de Madagascar, l’Albien d’Ambarimaninga: Annales de la Service Géologique et des Mines de Madagascar, v. 16, p. 99–108.Google Scholar
Verheyden, T., 2002, Decapods from the Boom Clay (Rupelian, Oligocene) in Belgium: Bulletin de l’Institut royal des Sciences naturelles de Belgique, Sciences de la Terre, v. 72, p. 171–191.Google Scholar
Wade, B., 1926, The fauna of the Ripley Formation on Coon Creek, Tennessee: United States Geological Survey, Professional Paper 137, p. 1–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, F., 1795, Nomenclator entomologicus secundum entomologiam systematicum ill. Fabricii adjectis speciebus recens detectis et varietatibus: Chilonii and Hamburgi, C. E. Bohn, 171 p.Google Scholar
Weller, S., 1903, The Stokes Collection of Antarctic fossils: Journal of Geology, v. 11, p. 413–419.Google Scholar
Wilckens, O., 1907, Die Lamellibranchiaten, Gastropoden etc. der Oberen Kreide Südpatagoniens: Berichte der naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Freiburg im Breisgau, v. 15, p. 97–166.Google Scholar
Woods, H., 1925–1931, A monograph of the fossil macrurous Crustacea of England: Monographs of the Palaeontographical Society, London, v. 76, (1925), p. 1–16; v. 77 (1925), p. 17–40; v. 78 (1926), p. 41–48; v. 79 (1927), p. 49–64; v. 80 (1928), p. 65–72; v. 82 (1930), p. 73–88; v. 83 (1931), p. 89–122.Google Scholar
Wood-Mason, J., 1874, Blind Crustacea: Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, p. 180–181.Google Scholar
Woodward, H., 1900, Further notes on podophthalmous crustaceans from the Upper Cretaceous formation of British Columbia, etc.: Geological Magazine, new series, v. 7, p. 433–435.Google Scholar