Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:15:35.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IV. Cyrtoctenus gen. nov., a large late Palaeozoic Arthropod with pectinate Appendages*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

Leif Størmer  and
Charles D. Waterston
Leif Størmer
Affiliation:
University of Oslo
Charles D. Waterston
Affiliation:
Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Synopsis

It is confirmed that the type species of the genus Glyptoscorpius Peach 1882 is a subjective synonym of Adelophthalmus Jordan and Meyer 1854. Species which have been referred to Glyptoscorpius are reviewed and their present taxonomic position defined. Cyrtoctenus gen. nov., type species Cyrtoctenus peachi sp. nov., is designated to accommodate forms bearing five pairs of specialised abdominal appendages of which the first is comb-like. Four species of Cyrtoctenus from Devonian and Carboniferous rocks in Scotland, England, Belgium and Czechoslovakia are recognized. The structure and affinities of these forms are discussed with special reference to the comb-like appendages and their ornamentation in relation to these features in other arthropods. In particular the development of filaments and fulcra from different types of scales is discussed. The characters of the new genus are found to be so distinctive as to require the creation of the new order Cyrtoctenida for its accommodation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 68 , Issue 4 , 1968 , pp. 63 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1968

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

References to Literature

Anderson, E. M., 1936. “Catalogue of Types and Figured Specimens of Fossils in the Geological Survey Collections …”, D.S.I.R., London.Google Scholar
Augusta, J. and Pribyl, A., 1951. “On the Find of a Remain of Eurypterid in the Carboniferous of Ostrava”, Mém. Soc. Roy. Sci. Bohème, 10, 1–9.Google Scholar
Bell, W. A., 1922. “A New Genus of Characeae and New Merostomata form the Coal Measures of Nova Scotia”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Can., (IV), 16, 159–167.Google Scholar
Caster, K. E. and Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N., 1964. “Upper Ordovician Eurypterids of Ohio”, Palaeontogr. Am., 4, 301–342.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. M. and Ruedemann, R., 1912. “The Eurypterida of New York”, Mem. N.Y. St. Mus. Nat. Hist., 14, pts. 1 and 2.Google Scholar
Clough, C. T. et al. , 1910. “The Geology of East Lothian”, Mem. Geol. Surv. U.K.Google Scholar
Diener, C., 1924. Fossilium Catalogus I: Pars 25: Eurypterida. Berlin.Google Scholar
Dubinin, W. B., 1959. “On the phylogenesis of the Chelicerata, belonging to Chelicerophora W. Dub. and in the relationship of Chelicerata to Pycnogonides”, Trudy Inst. Morf. Zhivot., 27, 134–150 (In Russian).Google Scholar
Fraipont, J., 1889. “Euryptérides nouveaux du Dévonien supérieur de Belgique (Psammites du Condroz)”, Annls Soc. Géol. Belg., 17, 53–62.Google Scholar
Garwood, E. J., 1931. “The Tuedian Beds of Northern Cumberland and Roxburghshire East of the Liddel Water”, Q. Jl Geol. Soc. Lond., 87, 97–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, T. N., 1958. “Lower Carboniferous Palaeography of the British Isles”, Proc. Yorks. Geol. Soc, 31, 227–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J., 1884. “Eurypteridae form the lower Productive Coal Measures in Beaver County, and the lower Carboniferous Pithole Shale in Venango County”, (Publs) 2nd Penn. Geol. Surv. Rep. Prog., PPP, 23–39.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N., 1948. “The Mazon Creek Eurypterid. A revision of the genus Lepidoderma”, Illinois Sci. Pap., 3, No. 4.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N., 1958. “The Genera, Species and Subspecies of the Family Eurypteridae, Burmeister, 1845”, J. Paleont., 32, 1107–1148.Google Scholar
Kjellesvig-Waering, E. N., 1966. “A Revision of the Families and Genera of the Stylonuracea (Eurypterida)”, Fieldiana, Geol., 14, 169–197.Google Scholar
Lankester, E. R., 1881 a. “Note on the Existence in the King Crab (Limulus polyphemus) of Stigmata corresponding to the Respiratory Stigmata of the Pulmonate Arachnida, and on the Morphological Agreements between Limulus and Scorpio”, Proc. Roy. Soc, 32, 391–399.Google Scholar
Lankester, E. R., 1881 b. “Limulus an Arachnid”, Q. Jl Microsc. Sci., 21, 504–548, 609–649.Google Scholar
Leriche, M., 1931. “Les Poissons Famenniens de la Belgique”, Mém. Acad. Roy. Belg., Sci. 10, 1931, 72 pp.Google Scholar
Lumsden, G. I. et al. , 1967. “The Geology of the Neighbourhood of Langholm”, Mem. Geol. Surv. U.K.Google Scholar
Lumsden, G. I. and Wilson, R. B., 1961. “The stratigraphy of the Archerbeck Borehole, Canonbie, Dumfriesshire”, Bull. Geol. Surv. Gt Br., 18, 1–89.Google Scholar
Miller, H., 1887. “The Geology of the Country around Otterburn and Elsdon”, Mem. Geol. Surv. U.K.Google Scholar
Moore, L. R., 1963. “On some micro-organisms associated with the Scorpion Gigantoscorpio willsi Størmer”, Skr. Norske Vidensk-Akad., Mat.-naturv. Kl., 9.Google Scholar
Mourlon, M., 1902. “Levés et tracés de la feuille no. 157: Modave-Clavier Famennien”, Carte géologique de la Belgique, dressée par ordre du Gouvernement.Google Scholar
Moy-Thomas, J. A., 1938. “Carboniferous Palaeoniscids from Northumberland and Berwickshire”, Geol. Mag., 75, 308–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connell, M., 1916. “The Habitat of the Eurypterida”, Bull. Buffalo Soc. Nat. Sci., 11, 1–277.Google Scholar
Peach, B. N., 1882. “Further Researches among the Crustacea and Arachnida of the Carboniferous Rocks of the Scottish Border”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb., 30, 511–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peach, B. N., 1887 a. In H. Miller 1887 q.v.Google Scholar
Peach, B. N., 1887 b. “Note on a Specimen of ‘Glyptoscorpius’ from the Coal Measures of Airdrie, the property of Robert Dunlop, of Baillieston”, Trans. Geol. Soc. Glasg., 13, 1–3Google Scholar
Peach, B. N., 1888. “On a New Eurypterid from the Upper Coal Measures of Radstock, Somersetshire”, Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc. Edinb., 9, 438–445.Google Scholar
Peach, B. N. and Horne, J., 1903. “The Canonbie Coalfield: its Geological Structure and Relations to the Carboniferous Rocks of the North of England and Central Scotland”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb., 40, 835–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter, R., 1931. “Tierwelt und Umwelt im Hunsrtückschiefer, zur Entstehung eines schwarzen Schlammsteins”, Senckenbergiana, 13, 299–342.Google Scholar
Salter, J. W., 1863. In Geikie, A. “Geology of Eastern Berwickshire”, Mem. Geol. Surv. U.K.Google Scholar
Salter, J. W., 1866. In Howell, H. H., Geikie, A. and Young, J. “The Geology of East Lothian”, Mem. Geol. Surv. U.K.Google Scholar
Stockmans, F., 1948. “Végétaux du Dévonien Supérieur de la Belgique”, Mém. Mus. Roy. Hist. Nat. Belg., 110.Google Scholar
Størmer, L., 1934 a. “Merostomata from the Downtonian Sandstone of Ringerike Norway”, Skr. Norske Vidensk-Akad., Mat.-naturv. KL, 1933, 10. 125pp.Google Scholar
Størmer, L., 1934 b. “Downtonian Merostomata from Spitsbergen, with Remarks on the Suborder Synziphosura” Skr. Norske Vidensk-Akad., Mat.-naturv. Kl, 1934, 3, 26 pp.Google Scholar
Størmer, L., 1936. “Eurypteriden aus dem rheinischen Unterdevon”, Abh. Preuss. Geol. Landesanst., 175, 74 pp.Google Scholar
Størmer, L., 1939. ‘Studies in Trilobite Morphology I, The Thoracic Appendages and their Phylogenetic Significance’, Norsk Geol. Tidsskr., 19, 143–273.Google Scholar
Størmer, L., 1944. “On the Relationships and Phylogeny of Fossil and Recent Arachnomorpha”, Skr. Norske Vidensk-Akad., Mat.-naturv. Kl, 1944, 5, 158 pp.Google Scholar
Størmer, L., 1955. “Chelicerata”, Treat. Invert. Paleont., P, Arthropoda 2.Google Scholar
Størmer, L., 1966. “Gigantoscorpio willsi a New Scorpion from the Lower Carboniferous of Scotland and its associated Preying Micro-organisms”, Skr. Norske Vidensk-Akad., Nat.-naturv Kl, 8, 171 pp.Google Scholar
Trotter, F. M. and Hollingworth, S. E., 1932. “The geology of the Brampton district”, Mem. Geol. Surv. UK.Google Scholar
Waterston, C. D., 1957. “The Scottish Carboniferous Eurypterida”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb., 63, 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterston, C. D., 1964. “Observations on Pterygotid Eurypterids”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb., 66, 9–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterston, C. D., 1968. “Further Observations on the Scottish Carboniferous Eurypterids”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb., 68, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. M. S., Westoll, T. S., White, E. I. and Toombs, H. A., 1948. “Guide to Excursion C 16”, 18th Sess. Int. Geol. Congr. Lond.Google Scholar
White, E. I., 1927. “The Fish Fauna of the Cementstones of Foulden, Berwickshire”, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb., 55, 255–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wills, L. J., 1959. “The External Anatomy of some Carboniferous ‘Scorpions’ Part I”, Palaeontology, 1, 261–282.Google Scholar
Wills, L. J., 1960. “The External Anatomy of some Carboniferous ‘Scorpions’ Part II,”, Palaeontology, 3, 276–332.Google Scholar
Wills, L. J., 1965. “A supplement to Gerhard Holm's “Uber die Organisation des Eurypterus Fischeri Rom.” with special reference to the organs of sight, respiration and reproduction”, Ark. Zool, 18, 93–145.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. H., 1952. “The Cove Marine Bands in East Lothian and their Relation to the Ironstone Shale and Limestone of Redesdale, Northumberland”, Geol. Mag., 89, 305–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar