Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T21:09:47.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Echinochiton dufoei: A New Spiny Ordovician chiton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

John Pojeta Jr. ,
D. J. Eernisse ,
R. D. Hoare  and
M. D. Henderson
John Pojeta Jr.
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560
D. J. Eernisse
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Fullerton, California 92834
R. D. Hoare
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 43403
M. D. Henderson
Affiliation:
Burpee Museum of Natural History, Rockford, Illinois 61103
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Echinochiton dufoei new genus and species is described from the Ordovician age Forreston Member, Grand Detour Formation (Blackriveran) near Beloit, Wisconsin. For a variety of reasons, we regard E. dufoei as a chiton; the species is known from four articulated or partially articulated specimens, one of which has eight plates and two of which have a mucro on the tail plate. Echinochiton dufoei differs from other chitons in having large hollow spines that project from each of the known plates. In plate shape and position, E. dufoei is much like the Upper Cambrian species Matthevia variabilis Walcott, 1885, and the Lower Ordovician species Chelodes whitehousei Runnegar, Pojeta, Taylor, and Collins (1979).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 77 , Issue 4 , July 2003 , pp. 646 - 654
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

Adrain, J. M. 1992. Machaeridian classification. Alcheringa, 16:15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergenhayn, J. R. M. 1955. Die Fossilen Schwedischen Loricaten nebst einer vorlaufigen Revision des Systems der ganzen Klasse Loricata. Lunds Universitets Årsskrift, n.f., Avd. 2. 51(8), Kungliga Fysiografiska Sallskapets, Handlingar, a.f. Avd2, 66(8):1–41.Google Scholar
Blainville, H. M. D. De. 1816. Prodrome d'une nouvelle distribution systematique du règne animal. Société Philomatique, Paris, Nouveau Bulletin, 51–53:93–97.Google Scholar
Brown, R. W. 1956. Composition of Scientific words. Reese Press, Baltimore, 882 p.Google Scholar
Butterfield, N. J. 1990. A reassessment of the enigmatic Burgess Shale fossil Wiwaxia corrugata (Matthew) and its relationship to the polychaete Canadia spinosa Walcott. Paleobiology, 16:287–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, S. Conway 1985. The Middle Cambrian Metazoan Wiwaxia corrugata (Matthew) from the Burgess Shale and Ogygopsis Shale, British Columbia, Canada. Royal Society of London Philosophical Transactions (B), 307:507–586.Google Scholar
Cuvier, G. 1797. Tableau élémentaire d l'histoire naturelle des animaux. Paris, p. 1–710.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K., and Paul, . 1985. A new possible armoured worm from the Tremadoc of Sheiton, Shropshire. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, 96:87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzik, J. 1986. Turrilepadida and other Machaeridia, p. 116–134. In Hoffman, A. and Nitecki, M. H. (eds.), Problematic Fossil Taxa. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hoare, R. D. 2000. Considerations on Paleozoic Polyplacophora including description of Plasiochiton curiosis n. gen and sp. American Malacological Bulletin, 15:131–137.Google Scholar
Hoare, R. D., and Mapes, R. H. 1995. Relationships of the Devonian Strobilepis and related Pennsylvanian problematica. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 40:111–128.Google Scholar
Högström, A. E. S. and Taylor, W. L. 2001. The machaeridian Lepidocoleus sarlei Clarke, 1896, from the Rochester Shale (Silurian) of New York State, Palaeontology, 44:113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jell, P. A. 1982. Thambetolepis delicata gen. et sp. nov., an enigmatic fossil from the Early Cambrian of South Australia. Alcheringa, 5:85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolata, D. R. 1975. Middle Ordovician Echinoderms from northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin. Journal of Paleontology, 49, Part II, Memoir, 7:74.Google Scholar
Runnegar, B., Pojeta, J. Jr., Taylor, M. E., and Collins, D. 1979. New species of the Cambrian and Ordovician chitons from Wisconsin and Queensland: evidence for the early history of polyplacophoran mollusks. Journal of Paleontology, 53:1374–1394.Google Scholar
Stokstad, E. 2001. New fossil may change idea of first mollusk. Science, 291:2292–2293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutton, M. D., Briggs, D. E. G., Siveter, David J., and Siveter, Derek J. 2001a. An exceptionally preserved vermiform mollusc from the Silurian of England. Nature, 410:461–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, M. D., Holmer, L. E., and Cherns, L. 2001b. Small problematic phosphatic sclerites from the Ordovician of Iapetus. Journal of Paleontology, 75:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walcott, C. D. 1885. Note on some Paleozoic pteropods. American Journal of Science, 30:17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willman, H. B., and Kolata, D. R. 1978. The Platteville and Galena Groups in northern Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey, Circular 502:75.Google Scholar