Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:07:52.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The upper Pennsylvanian (Missourian) ammonoid Pennoceras from the North American Midcontinent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

David M. Work ,
Darwin R. Boardman  and
Royal H. Mapes
David M. Work
Affiliation:
Maine State Museum, 83 State House Station, Augusta 04333-0083,
Darwin R. Boardman
Affiliation:
School of Geology, 105 Noble Research Center, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater 74078,
Royal H. Mapes
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, 316 Clippinger Laboratories, Ohio University, Athens 45701,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Until recently considered a rare Appalachian Basin endemic, Pennoceras Miller and Unklesbay, 1942 has emerged as one of the most widespread and locally abundant ammonoids in the lower Missourian of the Midcontinent (Boardman et al., 1994). Here we document the first Midcontinent record of the type species of Pennoceras, P. seamani Miller and Unklesbay, 1942, from the Hushpuckney Shale equivalent in southeastern Kansas. Additional, previously undescribed species of Pennoceras from the Exline Limestone and Mound City Shale equivalents in Oklahoma and southeastern Kansas are described as Pennoceras bennisoni new species and Pennoceras heckeli new species. Discovery of these ancestral species provides clarification on the derivation and early history of Pennoceras and provides a possible link to the Desmoinesian Wiedeyoceratidae.

Type
Paleontological Notes
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 81 , Issue 3 , May 2007 , pp. 591 - 596
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Barrick, J. E., and Heckel, P. H. 2000. A provisional conodont zonation for Late Pennsylvanian (late Late Carboniferous) strata in Midcontinent region of North America. Newsletter on Carboniferous Stratigraphy, 18:15–22.Google Scholar
Barrick, J. E., Lambert, L. L., Heckel, P. H., and Boardman, D. R. 2004. Pennsylvanian conodont zonation for Midcontinent North America. Revista Española de Micropaleontología, 36:231–250.Google Scholar
Boardman, D. R., Work, D. M., Mapes, R. H., and Barrick, J. E. 1994. Biostratigraphy of Middle and Late Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian-Virgilian) ammonoids. Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin, 232, 121 p.Google Scholar
Boardman, D. R., Heckel, P. H., Barrick, J. E., Nestell, M., and Peppers, R. A. 1991. Middle–Upper Pennsylvanian chronostratigraphic boundary in the Midcontinent region of North America, p. 319–337. In Brenckle, P. L. and Manger, W. L. (eds.), Intercontinental Correlation and Division of the Carboniferous System. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, 130. (Imprinted 1990)Google Scholar
Cronoble, W. R., and Mankin, C. J. 1965. Petrology of the Hogshooter Formation (Missourian), Washington and Nowata Counties, Oklahoma. Oklahoma Geological Survey Bulletin, 107, 148 p.Google Scholar
Ellison, S. P. 1941. Revision of the Pennsylvanian conodonts. Journal of Paleontology, 15:107–143.Google Scholar
Gunnell, F. 1933. Conodont and fish remains from the Cherokee, Kansas City, and Wabaunsee Groups of Missouri and Kansas. Journal of Paleontology, 7:261–297.Google Scholar
Heckel, P. H. 1994. Evaluation of evidence for glacio-eustatic control over marine Pennsylvanian cyclothems in North America and consideration of possible tectonic effects, p. 65–87. In Dennison, J. M. and Ettensohn, F. R. (eds.), Tectonic and Eustatic Controls on Sedimentary Cycles. SEPM Concepts in Sedimentology and Paleontology, 4.Google Scholar
Heckel, PH., and Watney, W. L. 2002. Revision of stratigraphic nomenclature and classification of the Pleasanton, Kansas City, Lansing, and lower part of the Douglas Groups (lower Upper Pennsylvanian, Missourian) in Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin, 246, 69 p.Google Scholar
Heckel, P. H., Boardman, D. R., and Barrick, J. E. 2002. Desmoinesian–Missourian regional stage boundary reference position for North America, p. 710–724. In Hills, L. V., Henderson, C. M., and Bamber, E. W. (eds.), Carboniferous and Permian of the World. Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Memoir, 19.Google Scholar
Hyatt, A. 1884. Genera of fossil cephalopods. Boston Society of Natural History Proceedings, 22:253–338.Google Scholar
Mapes, R. H., Windle, D. L., Sturgeon, M. T., and Hoare, R. D. 1997. Pennsylvanian cephalopods of Ohio, Pt. 2, Ammonoid cephalopods. Ohio Division of Geological Survey Bulletin, 71:195–251.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K., and Furnish, W. M. 1957. Permian ammonoids from southern Arabia. Journal of Paleontology, 31:1043–1051.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K., and Owen, J. B. 1937. A new Pennsylvanian cephalopod fauna from Oklahoma. Journal of Paleontology, 11:402–422.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K., and Unklesbay, A. G. 1942. The cephalopod fauna of the Conemaugh Series in western Pennsylvania. Annals of the Carnegie Museum, 29:127–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, A. K., and Unklesbay, A. G. 1947. The cephalopod fauna of the Conemaugh Series in western Pennsylvania: Supplement. Annals of the Carnegie Museum, 30:319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, A. K., Furnish, W. M., and Schindewolf, O. H. 1957. Paleozoic Ammonoidea, p. 11–79. In Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. L, Mollusca 4. Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A., and Gurley, W. F. 1896. New species of Paleozoic invertebrates from Illinois and other states. Illinois State Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 11, 50 p.Google Scholar
Raymond, P. E. 1910. A preliminary list of the fauna of the Allegheny and Conemaugh Series in western Pennsylvania. Annals of the Carnegie Museum, 7:144–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, P. E. 1911. A preliminary list of the fauna of the Allegheny and Conemaugh Series in western Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Report for 1908-1910, p. 81–98.Google Scholar
Ruzhencev, V. E. 1936. Paleontological notes on Carboniferous and Permian ammonoids. Problemy Sovetskoi Geologii, 12:1072–1088. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Ruzhencev, V. E. 1950. Upper Carboniferous ammonoids of the Urals. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, Trudy, 33,188 p. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Ruzhencev, V. E. 1952. A new genus Eoschistoceras of the family Schistoceratidae. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Doklady, 83:913–916. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Ruzhencev, V. E. 1960. Principles of systematics, classification, and phylogeny of the Paleozoic Ammonoidea. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, Trudy, 83, 331 p. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Ruzhencev, V. E. 1962. Superorder Ammonoidea, p. 243–409. In Orlov, Yu. A. (ed.), Fundamentals of Paleontology, Volume 5, (438 p. English translation, Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1974)Google Scholar
Ruzhencev, V. E., and Bogoslovskaya, M. F. 1978. Namurian time in ammonoid evolution: Late Namurian ammonoids. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, Trudy, 167, 336 p. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Saunders, W. B., and Work, D. M. 1996. Shell morphology and suture complexity in Upper Carboniferous ammonoids. Paleobiology, 22:189–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturgeon, M. T., and Miller, A. K. 1948. Some additional cephalopods from the Pennsylvanian of Ohio. Journal of Paleontology, 22:75–80.Google Scholar