Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T17:18:47.473Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recurrences of hypotheses about ammonites and Argonauta

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Roger A. Hewitt  and
Gerd E. G. Westermann
Roger A. Hewitt
Affiliation:
12 Fairfield Road, Eastwood, Leigh on Sea, Essex SS9 5SB, UK
Gerd E. G. Westermann
Affiliation:
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4M4
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Comment and Reply
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 77 , Issue 4 , July 2003 , pp. 792 - 795
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

Arkell, W. J. 1949. Jurassic ammonites in 1949. Science Progress, 147:401–417.Google Scholar
Bandel, K., and Dullo, W.-C. 1984. Zur Schalenstruktur fossiler und rezenter Argonauta-Gehause (Octopoda, Cephalopoda). Natur und Mensch, Jahresmitteilung der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft Nurnberg, 1984:33–38.Google Scholar
Boletzky, S. v. 1992. Evolutionary aspects of development, life style, and reproductive mode in incirrate octopods (Mollusca, Cephalopoda). Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 99:755–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, P. J. 1983. The eclipse of Darwinism. Anti-Darwinian evolution theories in the decades around 1900. John Hopkins University, Baltimore, 291 p.Google Scholar
Buckland, W. 1836. Geology and mineralogy considered with reference to natural theology. William Pickering, London, Volume 1, 599 p., Volume 2, 128 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callomon, J. H. 1963. Sexual dimorphism in Jurassic ammonites. Transactions of the Leicester Literary and Philosophical Society, 57:21–53.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, J. A. 1978. Permeability of the siphuncular tube of Nautilus; its geological and paleoecologic implications. Neues Jahrbuch fur Geologie und Palaontologie Monatshefte, 1978(3):29–142.Google Scholar
Daniel, Th. L., Helmuth, B. S., Saunders, W. B., and Ward, P. D. 1997. Septal complexity in ammonoid cephalopods increased mechanical risk and limited depth. Paleobiology, 23:470–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deeke, W. 1913. Palaontologische Betrachtungen 1. Uber Cephalopoden. Neues Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie Geologie und Palaontologie Beilageband, 35:241–276.Google Scholar
Diener, C. 1912. Lebensweise und Verbreitung der Ammoniten. Neues Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie, Geologie und Palaontologie, 192:67–89.Google Scholar
Doguzhaeva, L. A., and Mutvei, H. 1992. Radula of the Early Cretaceous ammonite Aconeceras (Mollusca: Cephalopoda). Palaeontographica, A, 223:167–177.Google Scholar
Frech, F. 1915a. Loses und geschlossenes Gehause in tetrabranchiaten Cephalopoden. Centralblatt fur Mineralogie Geologie und Palaontologie, 16:593–606.Google Scholar
Frech, F. 1915b. Uber Scaphites II. Centralblatt fur Mineralogie Geologie and Palaontologie, 16:617–621.Google Scholar
Hassan, M. A., Westermann, G. E. G., Hewitt, R. A., and Dokainish, M. A. 2002. Finite-element analysis of simulated ammonoid septa (extinct Cephalopoda): septal and sutural complexities do not reduce strength. Paleobiology, 28:113–126.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haug, E. 1900. Les geosynclinaux et les aires continentales. Contribution a l'etude des transgressions et des regressions marine. Bulletin de la Societe Geologique de France, Ser. 3, 28:617–711.Google Scholar
Henderson, R. A. 1984. A muscular attachment proposal for septal function in Mesozoic ammonites. Palaeontology, 27:461–486.Google Scholar
Hengsbach, R. 1978. Bemerkungen uber das Schwimmvermogen der Ammoniten und die Funktion der Septen. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft der Naturforschungs Freunde Berlin, Neue Folge, 18:105–117.Google Scholar
Hyatt, A. 1900. Cephalopoda, p. 502–592. In Zittel, K. v. (ed.), Textbook of Palaeontology (transl. & ed. Eastman, C. R.). MacMillan, New York, 706 p.Google Scholar
Jacobs, A. 1996. Chambered cephalopod shells buoyancy, structure and decoupling: history and red herrings. Palaios, 11:610–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, D. 1990. Structural patterns and shell stress in Baculites with implications for other cephalopod shell morphologies. Paleobiology, 16:336–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, D. 1992. The support of hydrostatic load in cephalopod shells; adaptive and ontogenetic explanations of shell form and evolution from Hook 1695 to the Present. Evolutionary Biology, 26:287–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnsen, S. J., and Kier, W. M. 1993. Intramuscular crossed connective tissue fibres skeletal support in lateral fins of squid and cuttlefish (Mollusca Cephalopoda). Journal of Zoology London, 231:311–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, A. 1901. Beitrage zur mineralogischen Kenntnis der Kalkausscheidungen im Tierreich. Jenaische Zeitschrift, 35:429–494.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, I. 1971. Internal microstructure of the shell of Argonauta argo . Venus (Japanese Journal of Malacology), 30:103–111. (Japanese with English summary)Google Scholar
Kroeger, B. 2001. Comments on Ebel's benthic crawler hypothesis for ammonoids and extinct nautiloids. Palaontologische Zeitschrift, 75:123–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroeger, B. 2002. On the efficiency of the buoyancy apparatus in ammonoids: evidences from sublethal shell injuries. Lethaia, 35:61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulicki, C. 1979. The ammonite shell: its structure, development and biological significance. Palaeontologica Polonica, 39:97–142.Google Scholar
Landman, N. H., Lane, J., Cobban, W. A., Jorgensen, S. D., Kennedy, W. J., and Larson, N. L. 1999. Impression of the attachment of the soft body to the shell in late Cretaceous Pachydiscoid ammonites from the Western Interior of the United States. American Museum Novitates, 3273:1–31.Google Scholar
Lane, F. W. 1974. Kingdom of the Octopus. Sheridan House, New York, 300 p.Google Scholar
Lehmann, U. 1967. Ammoniten mit Kieferapparat und Radula aus Lias-Geschieben. Palaeontologische Zeitschrift, 41:38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewy, Z. 1996. Octopods: nude ammonoids that survived the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary mass extinction. Geology, 7:620–630.Google Scholar
Lewy, Z. 2000. The erroneous distinction between tetrabranchiate and dibranchiate cephalopods. Acta Geologica Polonica, 50:169–174.Google Scholar
Lewy, Z. 2002. The function of the ammonite fluted septal margins. Journal of Paleontology, 76:63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael, R. 1894. Ammoniten-Brut mit Aptychen in der Wohnkammer von Oppelia steraspis Oppel sp. Zeitschrift der Duetschen Geologischen Gesellschaft, 46:697–702.Google Scholar
Naef, A. 1922. Die fossilen Tintenfische. Gustav Fischer, Jena, 322 p.Google Scholar
Neumayr, M. 1890. Erdgeschichte. Verlag des Bibliographisches Instituts, Leipzig und Wien, Erster Band, 653 p; Zweiter Band, 897 p.Google Scholar
Pompeckj, J. F. 1910. Zur Rassenpersistenz der Ammoniten. Jahresbericht des Niedersachischen Geologischen Vereins Hannover, 3:63–83.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M., and Stanley, S. M. 1971. Principles of Paleontology. W. H. Freeman & Company, San Francisco, 388 p.Google Scholar
Reyment, R. A. 1955. Some examples of homeomorphy in Nigerian Cretaceous ammonites. Geologisca Foreningers i Stockholm Forhandlingar, 77:567–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, W. B. 1995. The ammonoid suture problem: relatiomships between shell and septum thickness and suture complexity in Paleozoic ammonoids. Paleobiology, 21:343–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, W. B., and Work, D. M. 1995. Shell morphology and suture complexity in Upper Carboniferous ammonoids. Paleobiology, 22:189–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarzbach, M. 1936. Zur Lebensweise der Ammoniten. Natur und Volk, 66:8–11.Google Scholar
Seeley, H. 1864. On the septa and siphuncles of cephalopod shells. Quarternal Journal of Science, 1:760–762.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1975. Mechanische Simulation and funktionale Evolution des Ammoniten-Septums. Palaontologische Zeitschrift, 49:268–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinmann, G. 1888. Vorlaufige Mittheilung uber die Organisation der Ammoniten. Berichte der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Freiburg im Breisgau, 4:113–129.Google Scholar
Stevens, G. 1988. Giant ammonites: a review, p. 141–166. In Wiedmann, J. and Kullmann, J. (eds.), Cephalopods Present and Past. Schweizerbart'sche, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Suess, E. 1865. Uber Ammoniten. Sitzungsberichte der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Klasse der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften Abteilung 1, 52:71–89.Google Scholar
Tate, R., and Blake, J. F. 1876. The Yorkshire Lias. J. Van Vorst, London, VIII + 475 p.Google Scholar
Trueman, A. E. 1941. The ammonite body-chamber with special reference to the buoyancy and mode of life of the living ammonite. The Quarternal Journal of the Geological Society of London, 46:339–383.Google Scholar
Ward, P. D. 1987. The Natural History of Nautilus . Allen & Unwin, Winchester, Massachusetts, 267 p.Google Scholar
Westermann, G. E. G. 1958. The significance of septa and sutures in Jurassic ammonite systematics. Geological Magazine, 45:441–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westermann, G. E. G. 1971. Form, structure and function of shell and siphuncle in coiled Mesozoic ammonoids. Royal Ontario Museum Life Sciences Contributions, 78:1–39.Google Scholar
Westermann, G. E. G. 1996. Ammonoid life and habitat, p. 607–707. In Landman, N., Tanabe, K. and Davis, R. A. (eds.), Ammonoid Paleobiology. Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zittel, K. v. 1921. Grundzuge der Palaontologie (Palaozoologie), 1. Abteilung: Invertebrata (Fifth edition). R. Oldenbourg, Munchen & Berlin, 710 p.Google Scholar