Jump to content
  • Elrathia kingii


    Images:

    Fossil-Hound
    • Collected on a field trip to U-Dig Utah and prepared at the U-Dig site station. After a light mechanical brush exposed the shale, mineral oil was applied with another brush for a polished finish.

    Taxonomy

    Elrathia kingii

    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Arthropoda
    Class: Trilobita
    Order: Ptychopariida
    Family: Alokistocaridae
    Genus: Elrathia
    Species: E. kingii
    Author Citation Elrathia kingii (Meek 1870)

    Geological Time Scale

    Eon: Phanerozoic
    Era: Paleozoic
    Period: Cambrian
    Epoch: Middle

    Stratigraphy

    Wheeler Shale Formation

    Provenance

    Collector: Jason Rice
    Date Collected: 05/08/2017
    Acquired by: Field Collection

    Location

    U-Dig
    Utah
    United States

    Comments

    Collected on a field trip to U-Dig Utah and prepared at the U-Dig site station. After a light mechanical brush exposed the shale, mineral oil was applied with another brush for a polished finish.



    User Feedback


    piranha

    Posted · Report

    The correct citation is: Elrathia kingii (Meek 1870).  The parentheses around the author citation indicate it is not the original taxonomic placement.  It was originally established: Conocoryphe (Conocephalites) kingii by Meek 1870, and later synonymized as Elrathia kingii by Walcott 1924.  Even though Walcott is the last author to change the taxonomy, Meek always retains priority.

     

    Meek, F.B. (1870)
    Descriptions of fossils collected by the U.S. Geological Survey, under the charge of Clarence King.
    Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 14(2):56-64
     
    Walcott, C.D. (1924)
    Cambrian Geology and Paleontology V, No.2, Cambrian and Lower Ozarkian trilobites.
    Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 75(2):53-60

     

    IMG.jpg.31bf4e6e8fc3ec98af6fe870528047a0.jpg

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    piranha

    Posted · Report

    12 minutes ago, Fossil-Hound said:

    @piranha updated to the format of: author (year of classification)

     

     

    It's not an arbitrary format, those are the rules according to the ICZN.  That particular rule is quite important.  Otherwise future research might neglect the original description of Meek.  Here it is for anyone interested:

     

    IMG.thumb.jpg.30604a2dd73540f0a140ba547755918f.jpg

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Fossil-Hound

    Posted · Report

    @piranha on the official Wikipedia entry under the scientific classification I'm seeing:

     

    Walcott, 1924

     

    Readers should be able to see that Meek was the author and the classification made in 1870 and that these two are associated with the collection entity being an Elrathia kingii.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    piranha

    Posted · Report

    33 minutes ago, Fossil-Hound said:

    @piranha on the official Wikipedia entry under the scientific classification I'm seeing:

     

    Walcott, 1924

     

    Readers should be able to see that Meek was the author and the classification made in 1870 and that these two are associated with the collection entity being an Elrathia kingii.

     

     

    'Wacott 1924' is the attribution for genus.  Again, according to the ICZN rules, the correct citation is: Elrathia kingii (Meek 1870).  Unfortunately, Wikipedia falls short of the mark.  As far as extra information is concerned, the entry at Wikipedia does not even give the citation for Meek or Walcott.  At least the readers of this entry have the welcome bonus of the citations and the descriptions.  

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    doushantuo

    Posted · Report

    IMO ,using Wikipedia in paleontology is er,

    "disadvantageous"

    Thanks,Piranha,for the heads up on correct citations & nomenclature

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Kane

    Posted · Report

    An online resource much better than Wikipedia for getting some quick data for Collections entries would be the Paleobiology database, Fossilworks. Here is the entry for Elrathia kingii that properly references Meek: http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=311124

     

    It is a fairly good database, but as with any database there may be some lacunae. It is best to search and compare across a few databases. The Fossilworks db obviously should not be used for visual identification, but only for when the identification is certain. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Fossil-Hound

    Posted · Report

    @Kane thanks!

    7 hours ago, piranha said:

     

     

    'Wacott 1924' is the attribution for genus.  Again, according to the ICZN rules, the correct citation is: Elrathia kingii (Meek 1870).  Unfortunately, Wikipedia falls short of the mark.  As far as extra information is concerned, the entry at Wikipedia does not even give the citation for Meek or Walcott.  At least the readers of this entry have the welcome bonus of the citations and the descriptions.  

     

     

    Alright well I'm used to the Wikipedia format not ICZN, but as you and others have mentioned Wikipedia seems to be lacking and is unofficial (hence a wiki). Updated the entry.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    piranha

    Posted · Report

    6 hours ago, Kane said:

    An online resource much better than Wikipedia for getting some quick data for Collections entries would be the Paleobiology database, Fossilworks. Here is the entry for Elrathia kingii that properly references Meek: http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=311124

     

    It is a fairly good database, but as with any database there may be some lacunae. It is best to search and compare across a few databases. The Fossilworks db obviously should not be used for visual identification, but only for when the identification is certain. 

     

     

    Paleobiology Database also has issues.  The citations are incorrect for Meek and Walcott.  The entry for Meek 1870 has the journal volume listed as: 22(1):56-64.  The one I posted above is correct.  The following papers corroborate the correct citation. 1 2 3   

     

    The entry for Walcott 1924 is really a wild goose chase.  The wrong title is listed and the volume info is also incorrect.

    IMG.thumb.jpg.1d3a067ee4aac79b79a47d50704e9327.jpg

     

    The correct volume for that title is:

     

    Walcott, C.D. (1912)
    Cambrian Geology and Paleontology II. No. 9. New York Potsdam-Hoyt Fauna.
    Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 57(9):251-304

     

    The volume info they have listed is actually this title:

     

    Walcott, C.D. (1924)
    Cambrian Geology and Paleontology V, Geological Formations of Beaverfoot-Brisco-Stanford Range, British Columbia, Canada.

    Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 75(1):1-51

     

     

    In the final analysis, there is no substitute for independent verification.  It certainly keeps the mistakes to a minimum.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Fossil-Hound

    Posted · Report

    Didn't realize my little trilobite was going to cause such a stir!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now


×