Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:14:37.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The genus Swiftopecten Hertlein, 1936, (Bivalvia: Pectinidae) in the Tertiary of southern South America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Claudia J. Del Río
Claudia J. Del Río*
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigaciones en Recursos Geológicos, R. de Velazco 847 (1414), Buenos Aires, Argentina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The presence of Swiftopecten Hertlein, 1936, in Patagonia (Argentina), a region situated in the southeastern extreme of the South American continent, is the oldest and southernmost fossil record of the genus. Furthermore, its occurrence during the Late Eocene in the circum-Antarctic region suggests that its origin was in the Southern Hemisphere; it has been known from Japan and the eastern Pacific, ranging from Miocene to Holocene (Moore, 1984). Swiftopecten iheringii new species, from the Late Eocene-Early Miocene sedimentary sequence of Patagonia, is described and illustrated.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 69 , Issue 6 , November 1995 , pp. 1054 - 1059
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

Adams, A. 1854. Descriptions of new shells, from the Cumingian collection. Zoological Society of London Proceedings, 20:90–92.Google Scholar
Addicott, W. O. 1978. Pectinids as biochronologic indices in the Neogene of the eastern North Pacific. Indonesia Geological Research and Development Centre, Special Publication, 1:11–23.Google Scholar
Addicott, W. O. 1981. Significance of Pectinids in the Tertiary biochronology of the Pacific northwest. Geological Society of America Special Paper, 184:17–37.Google Scholar
Arnold, R. 1909. Paleontology of the Coalinga District. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin, 396:1–173.Google Scholar
Bernardi, M. 1858. Description d'espèces nouvelles. Journal de Conchyliologie, 7:90–94.Google Scholar
Bertels, A. 1970. Sobre el “Piso Patagoniano” y la representación de la época del Oligoceno en Patagonia Austral (República Argentina). Asociación Geológica Argentina Revista, 25:495–501.Google Scholar
Bertels, A. 1975. Bioestratigrafía del Paleógeno en la República Argentina. Revista Española de Micropaleontología, 7:429–450.Google Scholar
Bertels, A. 1977. Estratigrafía y micropaleontología de la Formación San Julián en su area tipo, Provincia de Santa Cruz, República Argentina. Ameghiniana, 14:233–293.Google Scholar
Bertels, A. 1980. Estratigrafia y foraminíferos (Protozoa) bentónicos de la Formación Monte León (Oligoceno) en su área tipo, Provincia de Santa Cruz, República Argentina. II Congreso Argentino de Paleontología y Bioestratigrafía y I Congreso Latinoamericano de Paleontología (Buenos Aires, 1978), Actas 2:213–273.Google Scholar
Camacho, H. H. 1974. Bioestratigrafía de las formaciones marinas del Eoceno y Oligoceno de la Patagonia. Academia Nacional de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales de Buenos Aires, 26:39–57.Google Scholar
Camacho, H. H. 1984. Eocene marine sediments and fauna in Patagonia (Southern Argentina). Abstract 27th International Geological Congress, Moscow, 1:29.Google Scholar
Camacho, H. H. 1994. In Press. La Formación Patagónica (F. Ameghino, 1894): Su actual significación Estratigráfica y Paleontológica. Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Santiago.Google Scholar
Camacho, H. H., and Fernandez, J. A. 1956. La transgresión patagoniense en la costa atlántica entre Comodoro Rivadavia y el curso inferior del río Chubut. Revista de la Asociación Geológica Argentina, 11:23–45.Google Scholar
Cione, A. L. 1978. Aportes paleoictiológicos al conocimiento de la evolución de las paleotemperaturas en el área austral de América del Sur durante el Cenozoico. Aspectos zoogeográficos conexos. Ameghiniana, 15:183–208.Google Scholar
Cione, A. L. 1988. Los peces de las formaciones marinas del Cenozoico de Patagonia. Tesis de Doctorado, Universidad de la Plata, Argentina, 536 p.Google Scholar
Conrad, T. A. 1862. Descriptions of new genera, subgenera, and species of Tertiary and Recent shells. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Proceedings, 14:284–291.Google Scholar
Cossmann, M. 1899. Essais de paléoconchologie comparée, Volume 3, M. Cossmann. Paris, 201 p.Google Scholar
Dall, W. H. 1898. Contribution to the Tertiary fauna of Florida, with special reference to the silex-beds of Florida and the Pliocene beds of Caloosahatchie River. Wagner Free Institute of Science of Philadelphia, 4:571–947.Google Scholar
Del Río, C. J. 1985. Primer mención de la Subfamilia Architectonicinae (Mollusca: Gastropoda) en el Mioceno de la provincia del Chubut. Ameghiniana, 22:263–268.Google Scholar
Del Río, C. J. 1988. Bioestratigrafía y Cronoestratigrafía de la Formación Puerto Madryn (Mioceno medio). Provincia del Chubut, Argentina. Academia Nacional de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales de Buenos Aires Anales, 40:231–254.Google Scholar
Del Río, C. J. 1991. Revisión Sistemática de los Bivalvos de la Formación Paraná (Mioceno medio). Provincia de Entre Ríos, Argentina. Academia Nacional de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales de Buenos Aires, Monografia 7, 93 p.Google Scholar
Del Río, C. J. 1992. Middle Miocene Bivalves of the Puerto Madryn Formation, Valdés Peninsule, Chubut Province, Argentina. (Nuculidae-Pectinidae), Part I. Palaeontographica Abteilung A, 225:1–57.Google Scholar
Del Río, C. J. 1994. Middle Miocene Bivalves of the Puerto Madryn Formation, Valdés Peninsule, Chubut Province, Argentina. (Lucinidae-Pholadidae), Part II. Palaeontographica Abteilung A, 231:93–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Férussac, A. E. de. 1822. Tableaux sytématiques des animaux mollusques, Paris, 111 p.Google Scholar
Finlay, H. J. 1927. A further commentary on New Zealand molluscan systematics. New Zealand Institute, 57:320–485.Google Scholar
Finlay, H. J., and Marwick, J. 1937. The Wangaloan and Associated Molluscan Faunas of Kaitangata Green Island Subdivision. New Zealand. Geological Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Survey Branch Paleontological Bulletin, 15, 140 p.Google Scholar
Franchi, M. R., Nullo, F., and Uliana, M. A. 1984. Las sedimentitas terciarias. Relatorio IX Congreso Geológico Argentino. S. C. de Bariloche, 1:215–266.Google Scholar
Grant, U. S., and Gale, H. R. 1931. Catalogue of the marine Pliocene and Pleistocene Mollusca of California and adjacent regions. San Diego Society of Natural History Memoir 1, 1,036 p.Google Scholar
Griffin, M. 1991. Eocene Bivalves from the Río Turbio Formation, Southwestern Patagonia (Argentina). Journal of Paleontology, 65:119–146.Google Scholar
Hatai, K., and Masuda, K. 1953. On the Pecten notoensis Yokoyama. (On the Miocene Pectinidae from the environs of Sendai, Part 2.). Palaeontological Society of Japan Transactions and Proceedings, New Series, 11:75–82.Google Scholar
Hertlein, L. G. 1936. Three new sections and rectifications of some specific names in the Pectinidae. Nautilus, 50:24–27, 54-58.Google Scholar
Hertlein, L. G., and Grant, U.S. 1972. The Geology and Paleontology of the marine Pliocene of San Diego, California (Paleontology, Pelecypoda). San Diego Society of Natural History Memoir 2 (Part 2B):143–409.Google Scholar
Ihering von, H. 1897. Os Molluscos dos terrenos terciarios da Patagonia. Revista do Museo Paulista, 2:217–382.Google Scholar
Ihering von, H. 1907. Les Mollusques fossiles du Tertiaire et du Cretace superieur de l'Argentine. Anales del Museo Nacional de Buenos Aires (Tercera serie), 7:1–611.Google Scholar
Lamy, E. 1928. Les Peignes de la Mer Rouge (d'après les Matériauc recueillis par le Dr. Jousseaume). Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle Bulletin 34:166–172.Google Scholar
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae. Volume 1, Regnum animale, editio decima. Reformata, Laurentii Salvii, Stockholm, 824 p. (Fascimile published by the British Museum of Natural History, London, 1956).Google Scholar
Macneil, F. 1967. Cenozoic Pectinids of Alaska, Iceland and other northern regions. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Papers 553(4), 57 p.Google Scholar
Macneil, F. 1973. Marine fossils from the Unga Conglomerate Member of the Bear Lake Formation, Cape Aliaksin, Alaska Peninsula, Alaska. Science Reports of the Tohoku University, Second Series (Geology), Special Volume 6:117–123.Google Scholar
Masuda, K. 1960. On the Morphogenesis of Nanaochlamys . Science Reports of the Tohoku University, Second Series (Geology), Special Volume 4:371–383.Google Scholar
Masuda, K. 1972. Swiftopecten of the Northern Pacific. Transactions and Proceeedings of the Palaeontological Society of Japan, New Series, 87:395–408.Google Scholar
Masuda, K. 1978. Neogene Pectinidae of the Northern Pacific. The Veliger, 21:197–202.Google Scholar
Masuda, K. 1980. Pliocene Biostratigraphy in Japan, based on Pectinids. Saito Ho-on Kai Museum Research Bulletin 48:9–19.Google Scholar
Masuda, K. 1986. Notes on Origin and Migration of Cenozoic Pentinids in the Northern Pacific. Palaeontological Society of Japan Special Publications, 29:95–110.Google Scholar
Melchor, R., Casadio, S., and Visconti, G. 1992. Análisis estratigráfico secuencial de los depósitos lacustres Eocenos de la Formación Vaca Mahuída. S. O. de la provincia de la Pampa, Argentina. Actas IV Reunión Argentina de Sedimentología, La Plata, 1.Google Scholar
Monterosato, T. A. 1889. Coquilles marines Marocaines. Journal of Conchyliologie, 47:20–40, 112-121.Google Scholar
Moore, E. J. 1984. Tertiary marine Pelecypods of California and Baja California. Propeamussidae and Pectinidae. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Papers, 1228 B, 112 p.Google Scholar
Morra, G. A. 1985. Revisión de Zygochlamys (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Ameghiniana, 22:300–308.Google Scholar
Morra, G. A., and del Río, C. J. 1987. La Subfamilia Architectonicinae (Mollusca: Gastropoda) en el Patagoniano. Revista de la Asociación Geológica Argentina, 42:82–91.Google Scholar
Müller, O. F. 1776. Zoologiae Danicae Prodromus, seu animalium Daniae et Norvegiae indigenarum characteres, nomina, et synonyma imprimis popularium. Copenhagen, 281 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nañez, C. 1988. Foraminíferos y bioestratigrafia del Terciario medio de Santa Cruz Oriental. Revista de la Asociación Geológica Argentina, 43:493–517.Google Scholar
Olsson, A. A. 1928. Contributions to the Tertiary Paleontology of northern Perú. Part 1, Eocene Mollusca and Brachiopoda. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 14:51–200.Google Scholar
Ortmann, A. 1902. Tertiary invertebrates, p. 45–32. In Scott, W. B. (ed.), Reports of the Princeton University Expedition to Patagonia 1896-1899, Volume 4, Paleontology I, Part 2. J. Pierpoint Mogan Publishing Foundation, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Röding, P. F. 1798. Museum Boltenianum sve catalogus cimeliorum e tribus regnis naturae quae olim collegerat. Joa. Fried. Bolten M.D. p.d. Pars Secunda Contineus conchylis sive testacea univalvia, bivalvia et multivalvia. Hamburg, Typis Jhoan. Christi. Trappi, 199 p.Google Scholar
Slodkewitsch, W. S. 1935. Several new shells of the Family Laternulidae. Annuaire de la Société paléontologique de la Russie, 10:55–58.Google Scholar
Smith, J. T. 1991. Cenozoic Giant Pectinids from California and the Tertiary Caribbean Province: Lyropecten, “Macrochlamys,” Vertipecten and Nodipecten species. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 1391, 155 p.Google Scholar
Smith, J. T., and Zinsmeister, W. 1982. Paleogeographic implications of a tropical eastern Pacific Nodipecten from the Tertiary of Patagonia. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 14(4):235.Google Scholar
Sowerby, R. 1846. Descriptions of the Tertiary fossil shells from South America. In Darwin, C. (ed), Geological Observations on the volcanics Islands and parts of South America visited during the voyage of H. M. S. “Beagle.” Appleton, London, 548 p.Google Scholar
Steinmann, G., and Wilckens, O. 1908. Kreide-und Tertiärfossilien aus den Magellansländern, gesammelt von der Swedischen Expedition 1895-1897. Arkiv för Zoology, 4:1–119.Google Scholar
Stewart, R. B. 1930. Gabb's California Cretaceous and Tertiary type lamellibranchs. Academy of Natural Science of Philadelphia Special Publication, 3, 314 p.Google Scholar
Teppner, W. von. 1922. Lamellibranchiata tertiaria “Anisomyaria”, p. 67–296. In Diener, C. (ed.), Fossillium Catalogus. I. W. Junk, Berlin.Google Scholar
Waller, T. R. 1978. Morphology, morphoclines and a new classification of the Pteriomorphia (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, Series B, 284:345–365.Google Scholar
Waller, T. R. 1991. Evolutionary relationships among commercial scallops (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Pectinidae), p. 1–73. In Shumay, S. E. (ed.), Scallops: Biology, Ecology and Aquaculture. Developments in Aquaculture and Fisheries Science, 21. Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
Waller, T. R. 1993. The evolution of “Chlamys” (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Pectinidae) in the tropical Western Atlantic and Eastern Pacific. American Malacological Bulletin, 10:195–249.Google Scholar
Wilkes, J. 1810. Conchology, p. 14–41. In Encyclopaedia Londinensis, or Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Literature. J. Adlard, London.Google Scholar
Zinsmeister, W. J. 1976. Late Eocene Struthiolariidae (Mollusca: Gastropoda) from the Seymour Island, Antarctic Peninsula and their significance to the Biogeography of Early tertiary shallow-water faunas of the Southern Hemisphere. Journal of Paleontology, 54:1–14.Google Scholar