Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:52:51.734Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Silurian tarphycerid Discoceras (Cephalopoda, Nautiloidea): systematics, embryonic development and paleoecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2018

Štěpán Manda  and
Vojtěch Turek
Štěpán Manda
Affiliation:
Czech Geological Survey, Klárov 3, 118 21 Praha 1, Czech Republic, 〈[email protected]〉
Vojtěch Turek
Affiliation:
National Museum, Department of Palaeontology, Václavské náměstí 68, 115 79 Praha 1, Czech Republic, 〈[email protected]〉
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tarphycerids were diverse and abundant in Ordovician marine faunas. Beginning at the Late Ordovician extinction, the diversity of tarphycerids declined throughout the Silurian, until their extinction in the latest Silurian. Two genera survived the Late Ordovician extinction: Trocholites Conrad, 1838 (from which Ophioceras Barrande, 1865 probably diverged) and Discoceras Barrande, 1867 (= Graftonoceras Foerste, 1925). Discoceras graftonense (Meek and Worthen, 1870), so far known from the US, China, and Australia, is recorded from the Silurian of Bohemia and Gotland. Discoceras stridsbergi n. sp., D. lindstroemi n. sp., and D. sp. indet. from the Wenlock of Gotland and D. amissus (Barrande, 1865) from the Llandovery of Bohemia are all endemic species probably derived from D. graftonense. The distribution of D. graftonense and the origin of four species of Discoceras in the latest Sheinwoodian and early Homerian represent the last diversification and dispersion of the Tarphycerida. No tarphycerid species originated after the mid-Homerian extinction (Mulde and Lundgreni events). Silurian Discoceras retained the morphology and habitats of their Ordovician ancestors. The hatching time and autecology of juveniles has remained unclear. Evidence from the material studied suggests that juveniles were planktonic in habit, possessing a minute curved shell with few phragmocone chambers. Discoceras lindstroemi n. sp. is exceptional owing to its heteromorphic planispiral shell with coiling that changed during ontogeny, resulting in a changing aperture orientation and decreased maneuverability.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 92 , Issue 3 , May 2018 , pp. 412 - 431
Copyright
Copyright © 2018, 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

Agassiz, L., 1847, An Introduction to the Study of Natural History, in a series of lectures delivered in the Hall of the College of Physicians and Surgeons: New York, Greeley and McElrath, 58 p.Google Scholar
Arnold, J.M., Landman, N.H., and Mutvei, H., 1987, Development of the embryonic shell of Nautilus , in Saunders, W.B., and Landman, N.H., eds., Nautilus: The Biology and Paleobiology of a Living Fossil: New York, Plenum Press, p. 373–400.Google Scholar
Arnold, J.M., Landman, N.H., and Mutvei, H., 2010, Development of the embryonic shell of Nautilus , in Saunders, W.B., and Landman, N.H.E., eds., Nautilus The Biology and Paleobiology of a Living Fossil. Reprint with additions: Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York, Springer Verlag, p. 373–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babin, C., and Gutiérrez-Marco, J.C., 1992, Intérêt paléobiogéographique de la presence du genere Trocholites (Cephalopoda, Nautiloidea) dans le Dobrotivá (Llandeilo) inférieur d’Espagne: Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Monatshefte, v. 9, p. 519–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balashov, Z.G., 1953, Coiled and semi-coiled Ordovician and Silurian nautiloids from Baltic platform, in Balashov, Z.G., and Stumbur X.A., eds., Stratigraphy and fauna of the Ordovician and Silurian of the western Russian platform: Trudy Vsesoyuznogo Neftyanogo Nauchno-issledovatelskogo Geologo-razvedochnogo Instituta, Novaya Seriya, v. 73, p. 217–269. [in Russian]Google Scholar
Barrande, J., 1847, Über die Brachiopoden der silurischen Schichten von Böhmen, II. Teil: Naturwissenchachtliche Abhandlungen (W. Haidinger, Wien), v. 2, 155–256.Google Scholar
Barrande, J., 1865–1877, Systême silurien du Centre de la Bohéme, I. ère partie: Recherches Paléontologiques, vol. II, Classe de Mollusques, Ordre des Céphalopodes: Prague and Paris, privately published, 1865, ser. 6, pl. 1–107; 1866, ser. 7, pl. 108–244; 1867, ser. 1, 712 p.; 1868, ser. 8, pl. 245–350; 1870, ser. 2, 266 p., ser. 9, pl. 351–460; 1874, ser. 3, 804 p.; 1877, ser. 4, 742 p., ser. 5, 743 p.; Supplement 1, 297 p.; Supplement 2, pl. 461–544.Google Scholar
Barskov, I.S., 1972, Late Ordovician and Silurian Cephalopod Mollusks of Kazakhstan and Middle Asia: Moscow, Nauka Press, 109 p. [in Russian]Google Scholar
Billings, E., 1861, New species of fossils from Lower Silurian rocks of Canada: Canadian Naturalist and Geologist, Proceedings of the Society of Natural History Montreal, v. 5, p. 161–177.Google Scholar
Calner, M., 2008, Silurian global events—at the tipping point of climate change, in Ashraf M.T., ed., Mass Extinctions: Berlin and Heidelberg, Springer Verlag, p. 21–58.Google Scholar
Calner, M., and Jeppsson, L., 2003, Carbonate platform evolution and conodont stratigraphy during the middle Silurian Mulde Event, Gotland, Sweden: Geological Magazine, v. 140, p. 173–203. DOI: 10.1017/S0016756802007070.Google Scholar
Calner, M., Jeppsson, L., and Munnecke, A., 2002, The Silurian of Gotland—Part I: Review of the stratigraphic framework, event stratigraphy, and stable carbon and oxygen isotope development: Erlanger geologische Abhandlungen, Sonderband, v. 5, p. 113–131.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, J.A. Jr., 1976, Flow patterns and drag coefficients of cephalopod shells: Palaeontology, v. 19, p. 539–563.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, J.A. Jr., 1981, Hydrodynamical design of fossil cephalopods, 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: London, New York, Toronto, Sydney, San Francisco, Academic Press, p. 289–336.Google Scholar
Chapman, E.J., 1857, On the occurrence of the genus Cryptoceras in Silurian rocks: Canadian Journal, New series, v. 2, p. 264–268.Google Scholar
Chen, J., Liu, G., and Chen, T., 1981, Silurian nautiloid faunas of central and southwestern China: Memoirs of the Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, v. 13, 104 p. [in Chinese with English summary]Google Scholar
Cocks, L.R.M., and Torsvik, T.H., 2002, Earth Geography from 500 to 400 million years ago: a faunal and palaeomagnetic review: Journal Geological Society London, v. 159, p. 631–644.Google Scholar
Collins, D., and Ward, P., 1987, Adolescent growth and maturity in Nautilus , in Saunders, W.B., and Landman, N.H., eds., Nautilus: The Biology and Paleobiology of a Living Fossil: New York, Plenum Press, p. 421–434.Google Scholar
Conrad, T.A., 1838, Report on the Palaeontological Department of the Survey (New York): New York State Geological Survey, Annual Report, v. 2, p. 107–119.Google Scholar
De Baets, K., Landman, N., and Tanabe, K., 2015, Ammonoid embryonic development, in Klug, C., Korn, D., De Baets, K., Kruta, I., and Mapes, R., eds., Ammonoid Paleobiology: From Anatomy to Ecology: Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London, Springer, p. 113–205.Google Scholar
Dzik, J., 1984, Phylogeny of the Nautiloidea: Paleontologia Polonica, v. 45, 155 p.Google Scholar
EichwaldE., von E., von, 1842, Die Urwelt Russlands. 2. Heft. Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Russischen Reiches: St. Petersburg, K.E. von Baer, 184 p.Google Scholar
Etheridge, R., 1904, On the occurrence of a lituitean in the Upper Silurian rocks of Bowning, New South Wales: Records of the Australian Museum, v. 5, p. 75–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, D.H., Ghobadipour, M., Popov, L.E., and Jahangir, H., 2015, An Early Silurian (Aeronian) cephalopod fauna from Kopet-Dagh, north-eastern Iran: including the earliest records of non-orthocerid cephalopods from the Silurian of Northern Gondwana: Bulletin of Geosciences, v. 90, p. 479–507.Google Scholar
Flower, R.H., 1950, Order Tarphyceratida, Order Barrandeoceratida, in Flower, R.H., and Kummel, B., A classification of the Nautiloidea: Journal of Paleontology, v. 24, p. 604–616.Google Scholar
Flower, R.H., 1955, Saltations in nautiloid coiling: Evolution, v. 9, p. 244–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flower, R.H., 1957, Nautiloids of the Paleozoic: Memoirs of the Geological Society of America, v. 67, p. 829–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foerste, A.F., 1925, Notes on cephalopod genera; chiefly coiled Silurian forms: Bulletin Denision University, Journal of the Scientific Laboratories, v. 21, p. 1–69.Google Scholar
Frey, R., 1989, Paleoecology of a well-preserved nautiloid assemblage from a Late Ordovician shale unit, southwestern Ohio: Journal of Paleontology, v. 63, p. 604–620.Google Scholar
Frey, R.C., Beresi, M.S., Evans, D.H., King, A.H., and Percival, I.G., 2004, Nautiloid cephalopods, in Webby, B.D., Paris, F., Droser, M.L., and Percival, I.G., eds., The Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event: New York, Columbia University Press, p. 209–213.Google Scholar
Furnish, W.M., and Glenister, B.F., 1964, Nautiloidea—Tarphycerida, in Moore, R.C., ed., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, part K, Mollusca 3: Boulder and Lawrence, Geological Society of America and The University of Kansas Press, p. 343–368.Google Scholar
Hamada, T., Tanabe, K., and Hayasaka, S., 1980, The first capture of a living chambered Nautilus in Japan: Science Paper of the Collegiums General Education, University of Tokyo, v. 30, p. 63–66.Google Scholar
Havlíček, V., and Štorch, P., 1990, Silurian brachiopods and benthic communities in the Prague Basin (Czechoslovakia): Rozpravy Ústředního ústavu geologického, v. 48, p. 1–275.Google Scholar
Hedström, H., 1917, Über die Gattung Phragmoceras in der Obersilurformation Gotlands: Sveriges Geologiska Undersökning, v. 15, p. 1–35.Google Scholar
Hewitt, R.A., and Watkins, R., 1980, Cephalopod ecology across a late Silurian shelf tract: Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen: v. 160, p. 96–117.Google Scholar
Histon, K., 2012, An Alpine immigrant: Phragmoceras Broderip, 1839 from the Silurian of the Carnic Alps (Austria): Geobios, v. 45, p. 41–48.Google Scholar
Holland, C.H., 1985, Form and function in Silurian Cephalopoda: Special Papers in Palaeontology, v. 32, p. 151–164.Google Scholar
Holland, C.H., 2010, Coiled nautiloid cephalopods from the British Silurian: Proceedings of the Geologists´ Association, v. 121, p. 13–23.Google Scholar
Holm, G., 1885, Über die innere Organisation einiger silurischer Cephalopoden: Palaeontologische Abhandlungen, v. 3, p. 1–27.Google Scholar
Hyatt, A., 1894, Phylogeny of an acquired characteristic: Proceedings American Philosophical Society, v. 32, p. 349–647.Google Scholar
Jeppsson, L., and Calner, M., 2003, The Silurian Mulde event and a scenario for secundo–secundo events: Transactions Royal Society of Edinburgh, Earth Sciences, v. 93, p. 135–154.Google Scholar
Jeppsson, L., Viira, V., and Männik, P., 1994, Silurian conodont-based correlations between Gotland (Sweden) and Saaremaa (Estonia): Geological Magazine, v. 131, p. 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kakabadze, M.V., 2016, Speculation on the ethology of some heteromorph ammonites: Swiss Journal of Palaeontology, v. 135, p. 63–68.Google Scholar
Klug, C., Kröger, B., Kiessling, W., Mullins, G.L., Servais, T., Frýda, J., Korn, D., and Turner, S., 2009, The Devonian nekton revolution: Lethaia, v. 43, p. 465–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korn, D., and Klug, C., 2003, Morphological pathways in the evolution of Early and Middle Devonian ammonoids: Paleobiology, v. 29, p. 329–348.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kříž, J., 1998, Silurian, in Chlupáč, I., Havlíček, V., Kříž, J., Kukal, Z., and Štorch, P., Paleozoic of the Barrandian (Cambrian to Devonian): Praha, Český Geologický Ústav, p. 79–101.Google Scholar
Kröger, B., 2003, The size of siphuncle in cephalopod evolution: Senckenbergiana Lethaea, v. 83, p. 39–52.Google Scholar
Kröger, B., 2005, Adaptive evolution in Paleozoic coiled cephalopods: Paleobiology, v. 31, p. 253–268.Google Scholar
Kröger, B., 2013, The cephalopods of the Boda Limestone, Late Ordovician, of Dalarna, Sweden: European Journal of Taxonomy, v. 41, p 1–110.Google Scholar
Kröger, B., and Ebbestad, J.O.R., 2014, Palaeoecology and palaeogeography of Late Ordovician (Katian–Hirnantian) cephalopods of the Boda Limestone, Siljan district, Sweden: Lethaia, v. 47, p. 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kröger, B., and Zhang, Y.B., 2009, Pulsed cephalopod diversification during the Ordovician: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeocecology, v. 273, p. 174–183.Google Scholar
Kröger, B., Servais, T., and Zhang, Y., 2009, The Origin and Initial Rise of Pelagic Cephalopods in the Ordovician: PloS ONE, 4 (9), e7262.Google Scholar
Kröger, B., Ebbestad, J.O.R., Högström, H.E.S.A., and Frisk, M., 2011, Mass concentration of Hirnantian cephalopods from the Siljan District, Sweden; taxonomy, palaeoecology and palaeobiogeographic relationships: Fossil Record, v. 14, 35–53.Google Scholar
Lai, C., 1982, Ordovician cephalopods from Xainza, Xizang (Tibet): Acta Palaeontologica Sinica, v. 21, p. 553–559. [in Chinese]Google Scholar
Lai, C., 1987, Ordovician cephalopods from Mt. Querquerk (Mt. Charchag), Xinjiang: Profesional Papers in Stratigraphy and Palaeontology, v. 17, 227–246. [in Chinese]Google Scholar
Lai, C., and Wang, M., 1986, Ordovician cephalopods from Mt. Altun area N. W. China: Acta Palaeontologica Sinica, v. 25, 248–256. [In Chinese]Google Scholar
Laufeld, S., 1974, Reference localities for palaeontology and geology in the Silurian of Gotland: Sveriges Geologiska Undersokning C, v. 705, 172 p.Google Scholar
Li, W., Rong, J., Dong, D., Yang, D., Su, Y., and Wang, Y., 1983, Silurian and Devonian rocks of Bateaobao area in Darhan Mumingan Joint Banner, Inner Mongolia, in Li, W., Rong, J., and Dong, D., ed., Silurian and Devonian Rocks and Faunas of the Bateaobao Area in Darhan Mumingan Joint Banner, Inner Mongolia: Nanjing, The People´s Publishing House, p. 1–25. [in Chinese]Google Scholar
Lossen, C., 1860, Über einige Lituiten: Zeitschrift der deutschen geologischen Gesellschaft, v. 12, p. 15–28.Google Scholar
Manda, Š., 2008a, Trocholites Conrad, 1838 (Nautiloidea, Tarphycerida) in the Middle Ordovician of the Prague Basin and its palaeobiogeographical significance: Bulletin of Geosciences, v. 83, p. 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manda, Š., 2008b, Palaeoecology and palaeogeographic relations of the Silurian phragmoceratids (Nautiloidea, Cephalopoda) of the Prague Basin (Bohemia): Bulletin of Geosciences, v. 83, p. 39–62.Google Scholar
Manda, Š., and Turek, V., 2011, Late Emsian Rutoceratoidea (Nautiloidea) from the Prague Basin, Czech Republic: morphology, diversity and palaecology: Palaeontology, v. 54, p. 999–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manten, A., 1971, Silurian reefs of Gotland: Developments in Sedimentology, v. 13, Berlin, Springer Verlag, 539 p.Google Scholar
Meek, F.B., 1873, Descriptions of invertebrate fossils of the Silurian and Devonian systems. Geological Survey of Ohio 1, Paleontology: Columbus, Geological Survey of Ohio, 246 p.Google Scholar
Meek, F.B., and Worthen, A.H., 1870, Descriptions of new species and genera of fossils from the Palaeozoic rocks of the western states: Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, v. 22, p. 22–56.Google Scholar
Meek, F.B., and Worthen, A.H., 1875, Descriptions of Invertebrates, in Paleontology of Illinois, Volume 6: Springfield, Geological Survey of Illinois, p. 491–532.Google Scholar
Murchison, R.I., 1839, The Silurian System Founded on Geological Researches in the Counties of Salop, Hereford, Padnor, with Descriptions of the Coal Fields and Overlying Formations: London, John Murray, 768 p.Google Scholar
Naglik, C., Tajika, A., Chamberlain, J., and Klug, C., 2015, Ammonoid locomotion, in Klug, C., Korn, D., De Baets, K., Kruta, I., and Mapes, R.H., eds., The Ammonoid Paleobiology: From Anatomy to Ecology, Topics in Geobiology, Heidelberg, New York, London, Springer, v. 43, p. 649–688.Google Scholar
Naef, A., 1921–1923, Die Cephalopoden: Fauna e Flora del Golfo di Napoli: Stazione Zoologica Napoli Monograph, v. 35, 821 p.Google Scholar
Newell, F.H., 1888, Niagara Cephalopods from Northern Indiana: Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, v. 23, p. 466–486.Google Scholar
Quenstedt, F.A., 1845, Petrefactenkunde Deutschlands, 1. Abteilung, 1. Band Cephalopoden: Tübingen, Fues Verlag, 580 p.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, J.A., and Surlyk, F., 2012, Rare finds of the coiled cephalopod Discoceras from the Upper Ordovician of Bornholm, Denmark: Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark, v. 60, p. 15–22.Google Scholar
Remelé, A., 1890, Untersuchungen über die versteinerungsführenden Diluvialgeschiebe des norddeutschen Flachlandes, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Mark Brandenburg: Berlin, Springer Verlag, 108 p.Google Scholar
Roemer, C.F., 1861, Die fossile Fauna der silurischen Diluvial-Geschiebe von Sadewitz bei Oels in Niederschlesien—Eine palaeontologische Monographie: Breslau, Druck Robert Nischkowsky, 79 p.Google Scholar
Ruedemann, R., 1906, Cephalopoda of the Beekmantown and Chazy formations of the Champlain Basin: Bulletin New York State Museum, v. 90, 605 p.Google Scholar
Salter, J.W., 1863, On Peltocaris, a new genus of Silurian Crustacea: Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 19, 87–92.Google Scholar
Schindewolf, O.H., 1934, Zur Stammesgeschichte der Cephalopoden: Jahrbuch der Preussischen Geologischen Landesanstalt, v. 55, p. 258–283.Google Scholar
Shaver, R.H., 1991, A history of study of Silurian reefs in the Michigan Basin environs: Geological Society of America Special Paper, v. 256, p. 101–138.Google Scholar
Shimansky, V.N., and Zhuravleva, F.A., 1961, Fundamental questions of the systematics of the nautiloids and the relationship of this group: Trudy Paleontologitscheskogo Instituta Akademii Nauk, v. 90, 175 p. [in Russian]Google Scholar
Shimer, H.W., and Shrock, R.R., 1944, Index Fossils of North America: New York, John Wiley and Sons, 837 p.Google Scholar
Sowerby, J., 1812–18, The mineral conchology of the Great Britain; or coloured figures and descriptions of those remains of testaceous animals or shells which have been preserved at various times and depths in the Earth, v. Vol. 2: London, B. Meredith, 251 p.Google Scholar
Stenzel, H.B., 1964, Living Nautilus , in Moore, R.C., ed., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, part K, Mollusca 3: Boulder, Colorado and Lawrence, Kansas, Geological Society of America and The University of Kansas Press, p. K59–K93.Google Scholar
Štorch, P., 1994, Graptolite biostratigraphy of the Lower Silurian (Llandovery and Wenlock) of Bohemia: Geological Journal, v. 29, p. 137–165.Google Scholar
Štorch, P., 2006, Facies development, depositional settings and sequence stratigraphy across the Ordovician-Silurian boundary: a new perspective from Barrandian area of the Czech Republic: Geological Journal, v. 41, p. 163–192.Google Scholar
Strand, T., 1934, The Upper Ordovician Cephalopods of the Oslo Area: Norsk geologic Tidsskrift, v. 14, p. 1–117.Google Scholar
Stridsberg, S., 1985, Silurian oncocerid cephalopods from Gotland: Fossils and Strata, v. 18, 65 p.Google Scholar
Stridsberg, S., 1988a, A Silurian cephalopod genus a reinforced frilled shell: Palaeontology, v. 31, p. 651–663.Google Scholar
Stridsberg, S., 1988b, A stray cephalopod in the late Silurian of Sardinia: Bollettino della Societá Paleontologica Italiana, v. 27, p. 83–85.Google Scholar
Stridsberg, S., and Turek, V., 1997, A revision of the Silurian nautiloid genus Ophioceras Barrande: GFF, v. 19, p. 21–36.Google Scholar
Stumbur, X.A., 1959, Embryonic shell of some Ordovician tarphyceratids: Paleontologitscheskij Zhurnal, v. 2, p. 25–29. [in Russian]Google Scholar
Stumbur, X.A., 1960, Early shell of nautiloids: Izvestia Akademii nauk Estonskoj SSR, v. 4, p. 368–378. [in Russian]Google Scholar
Stumbur, H.A., 1962, Nautiloid distribution in the Ordovician of Estonia (with description of some new genera): Trudy Instituta Geologii Akademii Nauk Estonskoi SSR (ENSV Teaduste Akadeemia Geoloogia Instituudi Uurimused), v. 10, p. 131–147. [in Russian]Google Scholar
Sweet, W.C., 1958, The Middle Ordovician of the Oslo region of Norway. 10. Nautiloid cephalopods: Norsk geologisk Tidsskrift, v. 3, 178 p.Google Scholar
Tajika, A., Morimoto, N., Wani, R., Naglik, C., and Klug, C., 2015, Intraspecific variation of phragmocone chamber volumes throughout ontogeny in the modern nautilid Nautilus and the Jurassic ammonite Normannites : PeerJ 3: e1306.Google Scholar
Taylor, P.D., and Vinn, O., 2006, Convergent morphology in small spiral worm tubes “Spirorbis” and its palaeoenvironmental implications: Journal of the Geological Society, v. 163, p. 225–228.Google Scholar
Teichert, C., and Glenister, B.F., 1954, Early Ordovician cephalopod fauna from northwestern Australia: Bulletins of American Paleontology, v. 35, p. 7–112.Google Scholar
Torsvik, T.H., and Cocks, L.R.M., 2013, New global palaeographical reconstructions for the Early Palaeozoic and their generation: Geological Society, London, Memoirs, v. 38, p. 5–24.Google Scholar
Turek, V., 1975, Genus Kosovoceras gen. n. in the Silurian of Central Bohemia: Sborník geologických věd, Paleontologie, v. 17, p. 7–42.Google Scholar
Turek, V., 1978, Biological and stratigraphical significance of the Silurian nautiloid Aptychopsis : Lethaia, v. 11, p. 127–138.Google Scholar
Turek, V., 1983, Hydrodynamic conditions and the benthic community of Upper Wenlockian calcareous shale in western part of the Barrandian (Kosov quarry): Časopis pro Mineralogii a Geologii, v. 28, p. 245–260.Google Scholar
Turek, V., 2008, Boionautilus gen. nov. from the Silurian of Europe and North Africa (Nautiloidea, Tarphycerida): Bulletin of Geosciences, v. 83, p. 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turek, V., and Manda, Š., 2016, Early ontogeny, anomalous growth and healed injuries in Silurian nautiloid Ophioceras Barrande—Implication for hatching in Tarphycerida (Nautiloidea): Bulletin of Geosciences, v. 91, 331–366.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E.O., Foerste, A.F., Miller, A.K., and Furnish, W.M., 1942, Ozarkian and Canadian Cephalopods Part I: Nautilicones: Geological Society of America Special Papers, v. 37, 157 p.Google Scholar
Wani, R., Kurihara, K., and Ayyasami, K., 2011, Large hatchling size in Cretaceous nautiloids persists across the end-Cretaceous mass extinction: new data of Hercoglossidae hatchlings: Cretaceous Research, v. 32, p. 618–622.Google Scholar
Ward, P.D., 1987, Natural History of Nautilus : Boston, Allen and Unwin, 263 p.Google Scholar
Westermann, G.E.G., 1998, Life habits of nautiloids, in Savazzi, E., ed., Functional Morphology of the Invertebrate Skeleton: London, Wiley, p. 263–298.Google Scholar
Whiteaves, J.F., 1897, The fossils of the Galena-Trenton and Black River Formations of Lake Winnipeg and its vicinity: Palaeozoic fossils, v. 3: Montreal, Geological Survey of Canada, Dawson Brothers, p. 192–242.Google Scholar
Whitfield, R.P., 1882, Palaeontology, Part 3: Geology of Wisconsin, v. 4, p. 163–363.Google Scholar
Wilde, P., Berry, W.B.N., and Quinby, H.M.S., 1991, Silurian oceanic and atmospheric circulation and chemistry, in Bassett, M.G., Lane, P.D., and Edwards, D., eds., The Murchison Symposium; Proceedings of an International Conference on the Silurian System: Special Papers in Palaeontology, v. 44. p. 123–143.Google Scholar
Woodward, H., 1866, On a new genus phyllopodous Crustacea from the Moffat Shales (Llandeilo Flags) Dumfriesshire: Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 22, 503–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zou, X.P., 1983, Silurian Nautiloids from Bateaobao, Darhan Muminglan Joint Banner, Inner Mongolia, in Li, W., Rong, J., and Dong, D., eds., Silurian and Devonian Rocks and Faunas of the Bateaobao Area in Darhan Mumingan Joint Banner, Inner Mongolia: Nanjing, The People´s Publishing House, p. 165–173. [in Chinese]Google Scholar