Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T00:07:33.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphological and taxonomic clarification of the lower Mississippian (Kinderhookian) ammonoid genus Eoprodromites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

David M. Work  and
Royal H. Mapes
David M. Work
Affiliation:
Geier Collections and Research Center, Cincinnati Museum Center, 1301 Western Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45203
Royal H. Mapes
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, Ohio University, Athens 45701
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Representatives of the Prodromitidae are characterized by relatively large (up to 150 mm diameter) lenticular conchs with acute ventral keels and complex multilobate sutural configurations. The systematic position of the Prodromitidae has been the subject of considerable speculation (see Work et al., 1988 for review). The nominate genus, Prodromites Smith and Weller, 1901 (type species, Goniatites gorbyi Miller, 1891), is not typical and represents the culmination of the lineage, showing characters which have led authors to refer it to both the Gephuroceratina (Ruzhencev, 1960, 1962, 1965; Bogoslovsky, 1969; Ruzhencev and Bogoslovskaya, 1978) and the Prolecanitina (Miller and Collinson, 1951; Weyer, 1972; Furnish and Manger, 1973; Kullmann, 1981; Bartzsch and Weyer, 1988; Kullmann et al., 1991). Discovery of an ancestral prodromitid genus, Eoprodromites Work, Mapes, and Thompson, 1988 (type species, E. kinderhooki), in the Hannibal Shale of northeastern Missouri provided clarification on the derivation of Prodromites and provided a link to yet a third enigmatic genus, Qiannanites Ruan, 1981 (type species, Q. acutus). Work et al. (1988) concluded that the Prodromitidae were prolecanitid offshoots that appeared in the early Tournaisian with Qiannanites, progressed through Eoprodromites, and climaxed with Prodromites early in the late Tournaisian. Although aspects of sutural ontogenesis, conch morphology, and stratigraphic distribution unite these genera, subsequently obtained specimens of Eoprodromites kinderhooki provide additional sutural and morphological details (Figs. 1, 2) that support derivation from the prionoceratacean subfamily Pseudarietitinae Bartzsch and Weyer, 1987, as more recently suggested by Becker (1993a, p. 471).

Type
Paleontological Notes
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 76 , Issue 5 , September 2002 , pp. 910 - 912
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

Arthaber, G. 1911. Die Trias von Albanien. Beiträge zur Paläontologie und Geologie des Österreich-Ungarns und des Orients, 24:169–277.Google Scholar
Bartzsch, K., and Weyer, D. 1987. Die unterkarbonische Ammonoidea-Tribus Pseudarietitini. Abhandlungen und Berichte für Naturkunde und Vorgeschichte, 13:59–68.Google Scholar
Bartzsch, K., and Weyer, D. 1988. Die unterkarbonische Ammonoidea-Subfamilia Karagandoceratinae. Freiberger Forschungshefte, C, 419:130–142.Google Scholar
Becker, R. T. 1993a. Analysis of ammonoid palaeobiogeography in relation to the global Hangenberg (terminal Devonian) and Lower Alum Shale (Middle Tournaisian) events. Annales de la Société Géologique de Belgique, 115:459–473.Google Scholar
Becker, R. T. 1993b. Anoxia, eustatic changes, and upper Devonian to lowermost Carboniferous global ammonoid diversity, p. 115–163. In House, M. R. (ed.), The Ammonoidea: Environment, Ecology, and Evolutionary Change. Systematics Association. Special Volume 47. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Bogoslovskaya, M. F., Kusina, L. F., and Leonova, T. B. 1999. Classification and distribution of Late Paleozoic ammonoids, p. 89–124. In Rozanov, A. Yu. and Shevyrev, A. A. (eds.), Fossil Cephalopods: Recent Advances in Their Study. Paleontological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Bogoslovsky, B. I. 1969. Devonian Ammonoidea, I, Agoniatitida. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, Trudy, 124, 341 p. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Frech, F. 1902. Über devonische Ammoneen. Beiträge zur Paläontologie und Geologie des Österreich-Ungarns und des Orients, 14:27–112.Google Scholar
Furnish, W. M., and Manger, W. L. 1973. Type Kinderhook ammonoids. Iowa Academy of Science Proceedings, 80:15–24.Google Scholar
Hyatt, A. 1884. Genera of fossil cephalopods. Boston Society of Natural History, Proceedings, 22:253–338.Google Scholar
Kullmann, J. 1981. Carboniferous goniatites, p. 137–148. In House, M. R. and Senior, J. R. (eds.), The Ammonoidea: The Evolution, Classification, Mode of Life and Geological Usefulness of a Major Fossil Group. Environment, Ecology, and Evolutionary Change. Systematics Association. Special Volume 18. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Kullmann, J., Korn, D., and Weyer, D. 1991. Ammonoid zonation of the Lower Carboniferous Subsystem. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, 130:127–131.Google Scholar
Kusina, L. F. 2000. Ammonoids from the Tournaisian-Viséan boundary beds of Pai-Khoy and the South Urals. Paleontological Journal, 34(5):486–494.Google Scholar
Miller, A. K., and Collinson, C. W. 1951. Lower Mississippian ammonoids of Missouri. Journal of Paleontology, 25:454–487.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. 1891. Advance sheets of 17th Annual Report of Indiana Department of Geology and Natural Resources (1892), 95 p.Google Scholar
Yiping, Ruan. 1981. Devonian and earliest Carboniferous ammonoids from Guangxi and Guizhou. Nanjing Institute of Geology and Paleontology Memoir, Academia Sinica, 15, 140 p. (In Chinese with English summary)Google Scholar
Ruzhencev, V. E. 1960. Principles of systematics, classification, and phylogeny of the Paleozoic Ammonoidea. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, Trudy, 83, 331 p. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Ruzhencev, V. E. 1962. Superorder Ammonoidea, p. 243–409. In Orlov, Yu. A. (ed.), Fundamentals of Paleontology, volume 5, 438 p. (translated, Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1974).Google Scholar
Ruzhencev, V. E. 1965. Principal ammonoid assemblages of the Carboniferous. International Geology Review, 8:48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruzhencev, V. E., and Bogoslovskaya, M. F. 1978. Namurian time in ammonoid evolution: late Namurian ammonoids. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, Trudy, 167, 339 p. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Smith, J. P., and Weller, S. 1901. Prodromites, a new ammonite genus from the Lower Carboniferous. Journal of Geology, 9:255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinosa, C., Furnish, W. M., and Glenister, B. F. 1975. The Xenodiscidae, Permian ceratitoid ammonoids. Journal of Paleontology, 49:239–283.Google Scholar
Tietze, E. 1871. Über die devonischen Schichten von Ebersdorf unweit Neurode in der Grafschaft Glatz, eine geognostisch-paläontologische Monographie. Palaeontographica, 19:103–158.Google Scholar
Wedekind, R. 1918. Die Genera der Palaeoammonoidea (Goniatiten). Mit Ausschluss der Mimoceratidae, Glyphioceratidae und Prolecanitidae. Palaeontographica, 62:85–184.Google Scholar
Weyer, D. 1972. Trilobiten und Ammonoideen aus der Entogonites nasutus-Zone (Unterkarbon) des Büchenberg-Sattels (Elbingeröder Komplex, Harz), Teil 2. Zur Phylogenie und Systematik der älteren Prolecanitina. Geologie, 21:318–349.Google Scholar
Work, D. M., Mapes, R. H., and Thompson, T. L. 1988. A new prodromitid ammonoid genus from the Hannibal Shale (Lower Mississippian) of Missouri. Journal of Paleontology, 62:772–778.Google Scholar