No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
What is Mitrocrinus wetherbyi S. A. Miller and Gurley, 1894?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 July 2015
Extract
Phylogenetic classification is dependent upon confident ordering of character states that can be greatly facilitated if the earliest members of a clade are known and well understood. Unfortunately, one of the oldest known representatives of the camerate crinoid order Monobathrida is the problematic Mitrocrinus wetherbyi S. A. Miller and Gurley, 1894. It is problematic because it is a teratologic specimen with hexamerous symmetry and because its basic constructional design is more typical of middle to late Paleozoic monobathrids than of a Middle Ordovician monobathrid. A more advanced-looking construction does not preclude this crinoid from being the most primitive monobathrid a priori, but these two problems have relegated this taxon to an addendum in most classifications. Bather (1900, p. 203) included Mitrocrinus as an “incorrect or indeterminable name” by stating that it was “based on a six-rayed individual, probably abnormal, and a Periechocrinid or Carpocrinid” and Ubaghs (1978, p. T518) designated it as order, suborder, superfamily, and family uncertain.
- Type
- Paleontological Notes
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Paleontological Society
References
Austin, T.
1848. Observations on the Cystidea of M. von Buch and the Crinoidea generally. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, 4:291–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassler, R. S., and Moodey, M. W.
1943. Bibliographic and faunal index of Paleozoic pelmatozoan echinoderms. Geological Society of America Special Paper, 45, 734 p.Google Scholar
Bather, F. A.
1899. A phylogenetic classification of the Pelmatozoa. British Association for the Advancement of Sciences Report for 1898:916–923.Google Scholar
Bather, F. A.
1900. The Echinodermata. The Pelmatozoa, p. 38–204. In
Lankester, E. R. (ed.), A Treatise of Zoology, 3. Adam and Charles Black, London.Google Scholar
Bronn, H. G.
1848-1849. Index palaeontologicus, unter Mitwirkung der Herren Prof. H. R. Göppert and H. von Meyer. Handbuch einer Geschichte der Natur 5, Abteilung 1, numbers 1, 2, part 3; A–M, p. 1–775; N–Z, p. 776-1381. E. Schweizerart, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Cumberland, G.
1826. Reliquiae conservatae, from the primitive materials of our present globe with popular descriptions of the prominent characters of some remarkable fossil encrinites and their connecting links. J. M. Gutch, Bristol, 45 p.Google Scholar
Goldfuss, G. A.
1839. Beiträge zur Petrefaktenkunde. Nova Acta Academie Leopoldina, 19(l):329–364.Google Scholar
Hemming, F.
1958. Opinion 527, Interpretation under the plenary powers of the nominal species Actinocrinus gilbertsoni Phillips 1836 (Class Crinoidea). Opinion and Declarations, International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature, 19:19, 301-314.Google Scholar
Kammer, T. W., and Ausich, W. I.
In press. Primitive cladid crinoids from the middle Mississippian of the east-central United States. Journal of Paleontology.Google Scholar
Milici, R. C.
1973. The stratigraphy of Knox County, Tennessee, p. 9–24. In
Geology of Knox County, Tennessee. Tennessee Division of Geology Bulletin, 70.Google Scholar
Miller, J. S.
1821. A natural history of the Crinoidea or lily-shaped animals, with observations on the genera Asteria, Euryale, Comatula and Marsupites
. Bryon and Co., Bristol, England, 150 p.Google Scholar
Miller, J. S.
1836. In
Phillips, J., Illustrations of the Geology of Yorkshire. Part II. The Mountain Limestone District, (Crinoids, p. 203–207). John Murray, London.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A.
1891. Paleontology. Advance Sheets from the Indiana Department of Geology and Natural Resources Annual Report 17, 103 p.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A., and Gurley, W. F. E.
1894. New genera and species of Echinodermata. Illinois State Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 5, 53 p.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G.
1978. Camerata, p. T408–T519. In
Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C., (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part T, Echinodermata 2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O.
1911. Revision of the Paleozoic systems. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 22:281–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F.
1885. Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea. Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences Proceedings, Part 3(i):225–364.Google Scholar
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F.
1897. North American Crinoidea Camerata. Museum of Comparative Zoology Harvard Memoirs, 20 and 21, 833 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, G. D.
1973. Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids 1942-1968. Geological Society of America Memoir 137, 341 p.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D.
1986. Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids 1974-1980. Geological Society of America Microform Publication, 16, 405 p.Google Scholar
Wright, J.
1935. New crinoids from Coplow Knoll, Clitheroe, with lists of Carboniferous Limestone crinoid species. Geological Magazine, 72:193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, J.
1943.
Pimlicocrinus gen. nov., and two new species of Amphoracrinus from the Carboniferous Limestone. Geological Magazine, 80:81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, J.
1955. A monograph of the British Carboniferous Crinoidea. Palaeontographical Society Monograph, Volume 2, Part 1, p. 191–254.Google Scholar
Wright, J.
1960. A monograph of the British Carboniferous Crinoidea. Palaeontographical Society Monograph, Volume 2, Part 5, p. 329–347.Google Scholar