No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Problems of Ammonite Nomenclature
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
Extract
While descriptions of new ammonites and of entirely new faunas are constantly being published, and (like progress in other sciences) seem, on the whole, to be rather welcomed, some palaeontologists are beginning to deplore the “smothering” of our science “by the abundance of its own material”. I do not agree that systematic palaeontology is in the chaotic state depicted by these authors; in any case, the description of new ammonites will continue. But the question of how authors deal with their “species” is rather different. It has been suggested that older authors, like Quenstedt, still had a very clear conception as to what constituted a “Formenkreis”, but that their successors have lost this sense. Yet as regards atomization of species I do not think that many of the younger palaeontologists will emulate the veteran A. v. Koenen's notorious example of splitting up into innumerable “species” what is virtually a single form of Platyknticeras. By way of contrast, Ilovaïsky, also at an advanced age, established an extraordinarily large number of varieties in a single species of Pavlovia, but his procedure similarly has not been repeated.
- Type
- Original Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1939
References
page 451 note 1 Beurlen, , Fortschritte der Paläontologie, vol. i, 1937, p. 36.Google Scholar
page 451 note 2 Krejci-Graf, K., “Scientific Nomenclature, etc.”, Spec. Publ. Geol. Survey Kwantung and Kwangsi, Canton, 1932, p. 1.Google Scholar
page 451 note 3 See also Correspondence: Problems of Ammonite Nomenclature, Geol. Mag., LXXVI, 1939, p. 192, and p. 240.Google Scholar
page 452 note 1 “Corrections of Cephalopod Nomenclature,” Naturalist, 1929, 269–271.Google Scholar
page 452 note 2 “The Upper Cretaceous Cephalopoda of Japan, I,” Journ. Shanghai Sci. inst., sect. ii, vol. i, 1935, p. 180.Google Scholar
page 452 note 3 “A Biostratigraphic Study of the Cretaceous Deposits of the Naibuti Valley, South Karahuto,” Proc. Imp. Acad. Tokyo, xiv, 1938, p. 192.Google Scholar
page 453 note 1 “Cretaceous Stratigraphy of the Japanese Islands,” Sci. Rep., Tohoku Imp. Univ., 2nd ser., xi, 1927, pl. ix (vii), figs. 3a, b.Google Scholar
page 453 note 2 “Versteinerungen aus der japanischen Kreide,” Palaeontographica, xxxvi, 1890, p. 177, pl. xix, fig. 1.Google Scholar
page 454 note 1 “Les Phylloceratidés du Paléocrétacé, in Kilian: Contrib. Éitude Céph. paléocrét. S.E. France,” Mém. Expl. Carte géol. France (1920), 1921, p. 93 (table).Google Scholar
page 454 note 2 “Les Céphalopodes néocrétacés,” Wiss. Ergeb. Schwed. Südpol-Exp., 1901–1903, vol. iii, No. 6, 1909, p. 9.Google Scholar
page 454 note 3 Now Desmophyllites, Spath, 1929 (Naturalist, August, p. 270) = Schlülericeras, Collignon, 1938, non Hyatt, 1903.Google Scholar
page 454 note 4 “Cephalopoden der Quiriquina Schichten,” Neues Jahrb. f. Min., etc., Beil. Bd. X, 1895, p. 80, pl. v, fig. 4.Google Scholar
page 454 note 5 To obviate any doubt, we may define N. subramosum Shimizu as follows: Like N. ramosum Meek in dimensions and with a similarly complex suture-line, having lost the typical phylloid aspect of Phylloceras s.s. Fine ribbing very strongly projected on funnel-like umbilical depression, then abruptly bent back on outer whorl-side. Ribs thickened, flat and perfectly straight on periphery, with faint spiral lines in between, as in Liparoceras (Becheiceras) bechei J. Sowerby (see Spath, British Museum Catalogue of the Liparoceratidae, 1938, pl. viii, fig. 2). Inner half of whorl-side in young specimens tending to be smooth.Google Scholar