Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-22T04:46:08.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XIII.—The Genera Dictyoconoides Nuttall, Lockhartia nov., and Rotalia Lamarck: Their Type Species, Generic Differences, and Fundamental Distinction from the Dictyoconus Group of Forms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

L. M. Davies
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The author recalls the facts regarding the rediscovery, in recent years, of Carter's genus Conulites ( = Dictyoconoides Nuttall). He shows how, of seven species which have been referred to this genus, three always have numerous intercalary whorls in their spires, and four never have any such whorls. The association of these two groups together within a single genus has, so far as he himself is concerned, been due to the uncertainty hitherto existing regarding the type species cooki, whose spire was stated by Carter sometimes to show an intercalary whorl, but generally to be “single throughout.” Carter's original specimens, which had long been mislaid, have recently been found, however, and they all prove to belong to now familiar types, which invariably contain numerous intercalary whorls in their spires. The author therefore separates the four species which do not possess such whorls into a new genus, Lockhartia.

The author next discusses the supposed identity of Dictyoconoides with Rotalia, and shows that the Rotalia must be judged by their type species R. trochidiformis. He shows that this species, among other characteristic features, invariably displays the structures called “astral lobes” by Carpenter and Brady, and is distinguished by the same from both Dictyoconoides and Lockhartia; while it is further distinguished from Dictyoconoides by the absence of intercalary whorls in its spire.

The author then compares the development of Rotalid forms, like the above, with that of piano-spiral ones like Nummulites and Assilines; and he finally shows the fundamental difference in structure between all these spirally wound types and those with an “end-on” development, like the Dictyoconus group of forms, with which some of them have been confused in the past.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , 1933 , pp. 397 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1933

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

(1) Archiac, A. D', and Haime, J., 1853. “Deser. des Anim. Foss. du Groupe Numm. de l'Inde,” p. 347; (a) p. 347, pl. xxxvi, figs. 17a–c.Google Scholar
(2) Blainville, H. M. D. De, 1827. “Manuel de Malacologie et de Conchyliologie,” p. 391, pl. vi, figs. 3–3c; pl. x, figs. 1–1c; (a) p. 391.Google Scholar
(3) Brady, H. B., 1884. “Report on Scientific Results of Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger, 1873–6,” Zoology, vol. ix, Foraminifera, pp. 641, 702, etc.; (a) pp. 641–2; (b) pp. 640–1.Google Scholar
(4) Bronn, H. G., 1824. “System der Urweltlichen Konchylien,” etc., pp. 7, 49, pl. i, figs. 7a–b.Google Scholar
(5) Brown, T., 1839. “Text-book of Conchology,” 5th ed., p. 61, pl. x, fig. 16.Google Scholar
(6) Brown, T., 1843. “Elements of Fossil Conchology,” p. 23, pl. ii, fig. 16; pl. iii, fig. 12.Google Scholar
(7) Carpenter, W. B., Parker, W. K., and Jones, T. Rupert, 1862. “Introduction to the Study of the Foraminifera,” Ray Soc. Pub., pp. 229–35; (a) pp. 233–5, fig. xxxviii, C and E; (b) pp. 203–4, 212; (c) p. 204; (d) pp. 44, etc.; (e) fig. xxxviii (less C and E).Google Scholar
(8) Carter, H. J., 1861. “Further Observations on the Structure of Foraminifera,” etc., Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 3, vol. viii, pp. 251, 331–2, 457–8, pl. xv, fig. 7; (a) pp. 459–60, pl. xvii, figs. 7–9; (b) p. 458; (c) pp. 457–8, pl. xv, figs. 7c, 7e; (d) pl. xv, figs. 7, 7a–b, 7d, 7f–g.Google Scholar
(9) Chapman, F., 1900. “On a Patellina-Limestone,” etc., Geol. Mag. Lond., n.s., Dec. 4, vol. vii, p. 12.Google Scholar
(10) Chapman, F., 1902. “The Foraminifera,” etc., pp. 65, 135, 156, etc.Google Scholar
(11) Crouch, E. A., 1827. “Illustrated Introduction to Lamarck's Conchology,” p. 41, pl. xxii, fig. 5.Google Scholar
(12) Cushman, J. A., 1927. Contr. Cush. Lab. Foram. Research, vol. iii, pt. 2, pl. 24, figs. 5–7b; (a) pt. 3, pp. 140–1; (b) pt. 2, p. 124, pl. 24, figs. 5–7b; pt. 3, p. 141; (c) pt. 1, p. 43.Google Scholar
(13) Cushman, J. A., 1928. “Foraminifera,” etc., pp. 273–4, pl. 40, figs. 3–4; (a) pp. 178–84, pl. 23.Google Scholar
(14) Cuvier, G., 1834. “Animal Kingdom,” Henderson's, ed., vol. iii, p. 18; 1837, ditto, Plates, pl. viii, fig. 3.Google Scholar
(15) Davies, L. M., 1924. “Notes on the Geology of Kohat,” etc., J. Asiat. Soc. Beng., n.s., vol. xx, p. 223.Google Scholar
(16) Davies, L. M., 1925. “Proceedings of the 12th Indian Science Congress,” p. 220.Google Scholar
(17) Davies, L. M., 1926. “Remarks on Carter's Genus Conulites (= Dictyoconoides Nuttall),” etc., Rec. Geol. Sun. Ind., vol. lix, pp. 237–53, pls. 16–20; (a) p. 250; (b) p. 243, footnote 3; (c) pp. 240–6, pls. 16–17, figs. 1–6; (d) pp. 246–7, pl. 17, figs. 7–76; (e) pp. 247–8, pl. 18, fig. 8; (f) pp. 248–9; (g) p. 245; (h) pl. 16, figs. 1–2.Google Scholar
(18) Davies, L. M., 1926. “Notes on the Correlation of Pinfold's Chharat Series,” etc., Trans. Min. Geol. Inst. Ind., vol. xx, p. 215, etc.Google Scholar
(19) Davies, L. M., 1927. “Ranikot Beds at Thai,” etc., Quart. J. Geol. Soc. Lond., vol. lxxxiii, pp. 280–1, pl. xxi, figs. 13–15; pl. xxii, fig. 6; (a) p. 279, pl. xxi, figs. 10–12; pl. xxii, fig. 5; (b) pp. 279–80, pl. xxii, figs. 1–4; (c) p. 284, etc.Google Scholar
(20) Davies, L. M., 1927. “Supplement to ‘Notes on the Correlation of Pinfold's Chharat Series,’” etc., Trans. Min. Geol. Inst. Ind., vol. xxi, p. 319, and Table at end.Google Scholar
(21) Davies, L. M., 1930. “The Genus Dictyoconus and its Allies,” etc., Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. lvi, pp. 485–505, pls. i–ii; (a) p. 490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(22) Davies, L. M., 1930. “Fossil Fauna of the Samana Range,” etc., Mem. Geol. Surv. Ind., Pal. Ind., n.s., vol. xv, pp. 75–6, pl. x, figs. 6–7; (a) pp. 76–7, pl. x, fig. 9; (b) p. 76; (c) pp. 74–5, pl. x, fig. 8; (d) pp. 13–14; (e) p. 73; (f) pp. 73–4, pl. x, fig. 5; (g) pp. 76–7, pl. x, fig. 9.Google Scholar
(23) Defrance, J. L. M., 1824. Dict. Sci. nat., vol. xxxii, p. 187; (a) vol. xlvi, p. 303; (b) 1816–30, ditto, Plates, pl. 14, figs. 3–3c; pl. 19, figs. 1–1c; (c) pl. 19, figs. 1–1c.Google Scholar
(24) Douvillé, H., 1926. “La Forme conique chez les Foraminifères,” etc., Bull. Soc. géol. Fr., Sér. 4, vol. xxvi, pp. 31–6, pl. ii; (a) pp. 23–6, pl. ii.Google Scholar
(25) Douvillé, H., 1930. “Parasitisme ou Commensalisme chez les Foraminifères,” Centenaire de la Soc. géol. de Fr., Livre Jubilaire, vol. i, pp. 257–62, pls. xxxiii–xxxiv.Google Scholar
(26) Favre, J., 1918. “Catalogue Illustré de la Collection Lamarck,” 6e livr., pl. ii, figs. 12a–c.Google Scholar
(27) Guettard, J. E., 1770. “Mémoirs sur différentes parties des Sciences et Arts,” vol. iii, p. 432, pl. xiii, figs. 11–13, 22.Google Scholar
(28) Hofker, J., 1927. “Foraminifera of the Siboga Expedition,” pp. 34–42; (a) pp. 35–7, pl. xvi, figs. 1–6.Google Scholar
(29) Jones, , 1878. In Dixon's “Geology of Sussex,” new ed., p. 172 (not pl. ix (10), fig. 6).Google Scholar
(30) Lamarck, J. B. P. A. M. De, 1801. “Système des Animaux sans Vertèbres,” 1st ed., p. 401.Google Scholar
(31) Lamarck, J. B. P. A. M. De, 1804. Ann. du Mus. nat. d'Hist. naturelle, vol. v, pp. 183–5; (a) p. 184; (b) 1806, ditto, vol. viii, p. 387, pl. 62, figs. 8a–b, 9a–b; (c) p. 387, pl. 62, figs. 8a–b.Google Scholar
(32) Lamarck, J. B. P. A. M. De, 1822. “Hist, naturelle des Anim. sans Vertèbres,” 1st ed., vol. vii, p. 617.Google Scholar
(33) Lamarck, J. B. P. A. M. De, 1823. “Coq. Foss. Paris,” p. 14, pl. xiv, figs. 8a–b.Google Scholar
(34) Lamarck, J. B. P. A. M. De, 1832. “Encyclopédie Méthodique,” vol. iii, p. 912; (a) pp. 912–3; (b) 1827, ditto, Tables, p. 14, pl. 466, figs. 8a–b.Google Scholar
(35) Mantell, , 1850. “Pictorial Atlas of Fossil Remains,” p. 143, pl. lxii, fig. 2 (not fig. 1).Google Scholar
(36) Nuttall, W. L. F., 1925. “Two Species of Eocene Foraminifera from India,” etc., Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 9, vol. xvi, pp. 378–88, pls. xx–xxi; (a) p. 384; (b) p. 387; (c) pp. 384–7, pl. xxi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(37) Nuttall, W. L. F., 1926. “The Larger Foraminifera of the Upper Ranikot Series,” etc., Geol. Mag. Lond., vol. lxiii, pp. 112–21, pls. x–xi; (a) p. 119, pl. xi, figs. 7–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(38) Nuttall, W. L. F. and Brighton, A. G., 1931. “Larger Foraminifera from the Tertiary of Somaliland,” Geol. Mag. Lond., vol. lxviii, pp. 54–6, pl. iii, figs. 9–13; (a) p. 55; (b) pp. 56–7, pl. iii, figs. 14–17; (c) p. 57, pl. iv, figs. 1–3.Google Scholar
(39) Orbigny, A. D', 1826. “Tableau Méthodique de la Classe des Céphalopodes,” pp. 106–10; extract from Ann. Sci. Nat., vol. vii, pp. 272–6; (a) pp. 106 and 272 respectively; (b) pp. 109 and 275 respectively.Google Scholar
(40) Orbigny, A. D', 1850. “Prodrome de Paléontologie,” p. 407.Google Scholar
(41) Parkinson, , 1811. “Organic Remains of a Former World,” vol. iii, p. 160, pl. xi, fig. 2.Google Scholar
(42) Quenstedt, F. A., 1885. “Handbuch der Petrefacten,” ed. 3, Abth. 5, p. 1057, pl. 86, fig. 48.Google Scholar
(43) Reuss, , 1845–1846. In “Grundriss der Verstenerungskunde,” von H. B. Geinitz, p. 674, pl. xxiv, figs. 51a–b.Google Scholar
(44) Rijsinge, C. Van, 1930. “Some Remarks on Dictyoconoides (= Conulites, Carter = Rotalia, Lamarck),” Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 10, vol. v, p. 118; (a) pp. 130–2; (b) p. 135; (c) pp. 116–35; (d) text-figs. 5 and 12; (e) pp. 132–5, text-figs. 9, 12, etc.Google Scholar
(45) Schlumberger, Ch., and Douvillé, H., 1905. “Sur Deux Foraminifères Eocènes,” Bull. Soc. géol. Fr., Sér. 4, vol. v, p. 291.Google Scholar
(46) Schwager, , 1883. Palœontographica, vol. xxx, pp. 58, 136, pl. xxviii (v), figs. 12a–d.Google Scholar
(47) Terquem, , 1882. “Foram. de l'Éocène des Environs de Paris,” Mém. Soc. géol. Fr., Sér. 3, vol. ii, p. 69, pl. iii, figs. 4–4c (not figs. 2–2c).Google Scholar
(48) Viennot, P., and White, E. J., 1929. Bull. Soc. géol. Fr., Sér. 4, vol. xxix, pp. 391–3, pl. xxxiii, fig. 1.Google Scholar
(49) Wadia, D. N., and Davies, L. M., 1929. “Age and Origin of Gypsum associated with the Salt Deposits of Kohat,” etc., Trans. Min. Geol. Inst. Ind., vol. xxiv, p. 210, etc.Google Scholar
(50) Williamson, W. C., 1858. “On the Recent Foraminifera of Great Britain,” Ray Soc. Pub., pp. 46–7, figs. 86–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar