Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tpknm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T19:18:13.265Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Callocystites brevis, a new Silurian rhombiferan cystoid from Indiana

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

T. Frest  and
C. R. C. Paul
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A new rhombiferan cystoid, Callocystites brevis, is described from the top 45 cm of the Laurel Limestone at Sandusky, Decatur County, Indiana. The species is known from a single crushed theca and many isolated plates. C. brevis is characterized by short, unbranched ambulacra. The subfamily Callocystitinae and the genus Callocystites are redefined.

Type
Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 108 , Issue 5 , September 1971 , pp. 425 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bassler, R. S. & Moodey, M. W. 1943. Bibliographic and faunal index of Palaeozoic pelmatozoan echinoderms. Spec. Pap. geol. Soc. Am. 45, vi + 733 pp.Google Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1899. A phylogenetic classification of the Pelmatozoa. Rep. Br. Ass. Advmt Sci. 68, 916–23, 1 fig.Google Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1900. The echinoderms. In Lankester, E. R. A Treatise on Zoology. 3, vi + 344 pp. London.Google Scholar
Bernard, F. 1895. Eléments de Paleontologie. viii + 1168 pp., 612 figs. Paris.Google Scholar
Carpenter, P. H. 1891. On certain points in the morphology of the Cystidea. J. Linn. Soc. (Zool.) 24, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabau, A. W. 1901. Guide to the Geology and Palaeontology of Niagara Falls and Vicinity. Bull. N.Y. St. Mus. 45. 284 pp., 18 pls., 190 figs.Google Scholar
Grabau, A. W. & Shimer, H. W. 1910. North American index fossils. Invertebrates. II Conularida–Echinoidea, appendices. xiv + 909 pp., figs. 1211–1937. New York.Google Scholar
Haeckel, E. 1896. Amphorideen und Cystoideen. Beiträge zur Morphologie und Phylogenie. in Festschrift zum Siebenzigsten geburtstage von Carl Gegenbauer am 21 August 1896. 1, 1–180, pl. 1–5, 25 figs. Jena.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1852. Natural History of New York. 6. Palaeontology of New York. 2. Containing descriptions of the organic remains of the Lower middle division of the New York System. viii + 362 pp., 83 + unnumbered plates. New York, Boston and Albany.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 1859. Natural History of New York. 6. Palaeontology of New York 3. Containing descriptions and figures of the organic remains of the Lower Helderberg Group and the Oriskany Sandstone. (Part 1, text). xii + 532 pp., New York, Boston and Albany.Google Scholar
Huxley, T. H. (Translator) 1854. On the structure of the echinoderms by Prof. J. Müller. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 2nd ser. 13, 1–24, 112–23, 241–56.Google Scholar
Jaekel, O. 1899. Stammesgeschichte der Pelmatozoen 1. Thecoidea und Cystoidea. x + 442 pp. Berlin.Google Scholar
Kesling, R. V. 1963. Key for the classification of cystoids. Contr. Mus. Paleont. Univ. Mich. 18, 101–16.Google Scholar
Kesling, R. V. 1967. Cystoids. In Moore, R. C. (Ed.). Treatise on invertebrate Paleontology. S. Echinodermata 1. (I): S85–S267.Google Scholar
Müller, J. 1854.Über den Bau der Echinodermen. Abh. preuss. Akad. Wiss. (1854): 123–219. (Trans. by Huxley, T. H., above).Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1967. Hallicystis attenuata, a new callocystitid cystoid from the Racine Dolomite of Wisconsin. Contr. Mus. Paleont. Univ. Mich. 21, 231–53, 4 pls., 8 figs.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1968. The morphology function of dichoporite pore-structures in cystoids. Palaeontology 11: 697–730, pls. 134–40, 37 figs.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1971a. Revision of the Holocystites fauna (Diploporita) of North America. Fieldiana: Geology 24: 166 pp. 70 figs.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1971b. Morphology and function of exothecal pore-structures in cystoids. Palaeontology (in press).Google Scholar
Pinsak, A. P. and Shaver, R. H. 1964. The Silurian formations of northern Indiana. Bull. Indiana Dept. Conserv. geol. Surv. 32, 87 pp.Google Scholar
Price, J. A. 1899. A report on the Waldron Shale and its horizon. Rep. Indiana Dept. Geol. nat. Resour. 24, 81–143.Google Scholar
Schuchert, C. 1904. On Siluric and Devonic Cystidea and Camarocrinus. Smithson. misc. Collns 47, 201–272.Google Scholar
Shimer, H. W. and Shrock, R. R. 1944. Index fossils of North America. ix+837. New York and London.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1913. Cystoidea. Eastman, C. R. (Ed.): Textbook of Palaeontology I, 145-61, figs. London.Google Scholar
Springer, F. 1926. American Silurian Crinoids. iv+239 pp. Baltimore.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zittel, K. K. von 1879. Handbuch der Palaeontologie I, Protozoa, Coelenterata, Echinodermata und Molluscoidea. viii+765 pp. München & Leipzig.Google Scholar