Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T10:10:21.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

III.—On Orthoceratites vaginatus, Schlotheim

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

Arthur H. Foord
Arthur H. Foord
Affiliation:
Royal Dublin Society
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I have lately been favoured by Dr. W. Dames with a separate copy of a communication made by him to the Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, etc., dated Berlin, 18th December, 1890, in which he points out that in my Catalogue of Fossil Cephalopoda, British Museum (Nat. Hist.) part i. (1888) I have (following Eichwald) wrongly referred a certain “smooth” species of Endoceras from Reval in Esthonia, to the Orthoceratites vaginatus of v. Schlotheim,—a ribbed species.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 8 , Issue 8 , August 1891 , pp. 355 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1891

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

page 355 note 1 1891, Band i. Zweites Heft. Breifl. Mittheil. ii. p. 210.Google Scholar

page 355 note 2 Leth. Rossica, 1860, vol. i. p. 1243.Google Scholar

page 355 note 3 Silurica, Fragmenta, Angelin and Lindström. 1880, p. 2.Google Scholar

page 355 note 4 The following is a translation of v. Schlotheim's description of “Orthoceratites vaginatus” (Petrefactenkunde, 1820, p. 53Google Scholar):— “Very beautiful and instructive examples from Reval, in Ueberg. Kalkst., some part still in the matrix, some free, and only about five inches long to a diameter of one inch; besides separate pieces of its remarkable siphuncle. Cf. Knorr, pt. iii. suppl. t. ivb. and Breynii opuscula, t. v. f. 2b., where this Orthoceratite, together with its elegant, somewhat cylindrical siphuncle is tolerably well portrayed. The length and thickness attained is, it appears, very considerable, whilst the siphuncle belonging to it is found of considerable stoutness. Its relation to the other part of the Orthoceratite is so important that it almost appears as a part of the shell-wall of the latter. It runs, moreover, close to one side of the shell, which in most of the representations of it is not properly indicated, and its protuberances have somewhat of a screw shape; very ornamental, as if elaborately designed. The shell itself is very distinctly oblique, with sharp, somewhat forwardly projecting lines, striated in the direction of the chambers, which latter are bent inwards somewhat stronger towards the siphuncle.”

page 355 note 5 An island in the Baltic, off the east coast of Sweden.

page 356 note 1 Lethæa Suecica, 1837, p. 28,Google Scholar Tab. ix. fig. 7. The name Orthoceras [Endoceras] trochleare appears to have been originally bestowed by Dalman. See Hisinger's, Auteckningar i Physik och Geognosie, femte häftet, 1831, p. 12,Google Scholar Tab. iv. fig. 3.

page 357 note 1 Schrift. der physikal-ökonom. Gesell. zu Königsberg, Jahrg. xxii. Abth. i. p. 93,Google Scholar Taf. iv. ff. 5, a–d.