Jump to content

Calceola (Rhizophylum) tennesseensis (Roemer)


rawwardigger

Recommended Posts

I straightened up my Riker show case of the Calceola (Rhizophylum) tennesseensis I've found in Wayne County TN. I have a few more and a couple more operculum (lids). Here's an article on pages 6 & 7 in this link: http://www.memphisgeology.org/images/rocknews1116.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2tOxbcyxSpHnOp5uRY6aW7DJUhvFmkQEmghhdSasT6_wNB40U8ptICOIY

Thanks for looking and Rock On!!

Calceola (Rhizophylum) tennesseensis VI.jpg

  • Enjoyed 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for showing these allowing me to learn something new today. I never realized there were rugosa corals that had operculums!!

  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nice indeed.

Thanks for sharing.

I have Calceola sandalina from here in Morocco, so it's nice to see a different species from the US. 

Calceola.thumb.jpg.6e5007f6dc5c536bc186fd30da444b04.jpg

  • Enjoyed 1

Life's Good!

Tortoise Friend.

MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png.a47e14d65deb3f8b242019b3a81d8160-1.png.60b8b8c07f6fa194511f8b7cfb7cc190.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, minnbuckeye said:

Thanks for showing these allowing me to learn something new today. I never realized there were rugosa corals that had operculums!!

Yes Sir and Thank You! Until a few years ago I didn't know either! lol People on the group helped me with the ID with my first find and then about a year later I started finding more and more!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Very nice indeed.

Thanks for sharing.

I have Calceola sandalina from here in Morocco, so it's nice to see a different species from the US. 

Calceola.thumb.jpg.6e5007f6dc5c536bc186fd30da444b04.jpg

Yes Sir, You actually assisted in my search for answers a few years ago when I posted the only one I had ever found. It still remains being the best one I've found (top center in the picture). Here's a close up.

Calceola (Rhizophylum) tennesseensis III.jpg

  • Enjoyed 1
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, rawwardigger said:

Yes Sir, You actually assisted in my search for answers a few years ago when I posted the only one I had ever found. It still remains being the best one I've found (top center in the picture). Here's a close up.

 

Glad to have been of some help and that you've really built up the collection. :)

  • Thank You 1

Life's Good!

Tortoise Friend.

MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png.a47e14d65deb3f8b242019b3a81d8160-1.png.60b8b8c07f6fa194511f8b7cfb7cc190.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calceola and Rhizophyllum are two different genera, in no case is Rhizophyllum a subgenus of Calceola.
Calceola is not a genus present in North America. Citations of that genus in North America are revised and the materials are included in the genus Rhizophyllum.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, oyo said:

Calceola and Rhizophyllum are two different genera, in no case is Rhizophyllum a subgenus of Calceola.
Calceola is not a genus present in North America. Citations of that genus in North America are revised and the materials are included in the genus Rhizophyllum.

 

I posted the same info back for the OP back in 2019! 

Unfortunately, you can only lead a horse to water....

cowboy 1 smiley

 

  • I found this Informative 1
  • Thank You 1

image.png.a84de26dad44fb03836a743755df237c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, piranha said:

 

I posted the same info back for the OP back in 2019! 

Unfortunately, you can only lead a horse to water....

cowboy 1 smiley

 

I also remember giving this information several times on this forum. I don't know if exactly to this person, I don't remember. Anyway, I'll keep doing it.

Edited by oyo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/13/2022 at 12:23 PM, oyo said:

Calceola and Rhizophyllum are two different genera, in no case is Rhizophyllum a subgenus of Calceola.
Calceola is not a genus present in North America. Citations of that genus in North America are revised and the materials are included in the genus Rhizophyllum.

I copied this off the link I provided: Tennessee Namesake Index & Guide Fossils: ! ! Calceola (Rhizophylum) tennesseensis (Roemer). The provided link tells about this. "Shimer and Shrock list two Tennessee namesake index fossils corals: Rhizophy!um tennes-seensis and Calceola tennesseensis. C. tennesseensis (Figure 1) is a slightly curved, horn-shaped, solitary rugose coral (tetracoral) with one side that is strongly flattened. Its most distinctive feature is a unique hinged top (operculum) not seen in other groups of rugose corals. Both names actually refer to the same fossil, and illustrate how the taxonomy has been revised over time since their first discovery in the early 1800’s. The primary genus is Calceola, coined in 1799 by Jean Baptiste de Lamarck, the great evolutionary biologist. C. tennesseensis was named by Ferdinand Roemer (mistakenly attributed to Rominger, probably Carl Ludwig Rominger, in the Index Fossils of North America)".

"Later in 1866, the Swedish paleontologist Gustof Lindström (1829-1901) revised the operculate corals by describing a new genus of operculate rugose coral, Rhizophy!um, with the primary difference being in the internal growth structure. In 1915, Ray S. Bassler, who worked in Tennessee for a time, compiled an index of fossils from the middle Paleozoic (Bibliographic Index of American Ordovician and Silurian Fossils; U. S. National Museum Bulletin 92) in which he listed a revision of C. tennesseensis to reflect the modern (at least in 1915) taxonomic understanding of these corals, showing Calceola to be subdivided into several subgenera, including the subgenus Rhizophy!um, which approximates the Tennessee samples. Thus the most proper name most accepted today is Calceola Fabulous Tennessee Fossils (Rhizophy!um) tennesseensis. Note that this is a combination of the two original names from the Index. Two fossil taxa become one. Calceola (Rhizophy!um) tennesseensis is found preserved in the Brownsport Formation".  

This article was published by: MEMPHIS ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY and written by: Dr. Michael A. Gibson, University of Tennessee at Martin

Confused? Yes but it was published.

Edited by rawwardigger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, "Calceola Fabulous Tennessee Fossils (Rhizophy!um) tennesseensis" is not a proper species name under any circumstances.  Neither is "Rhizophy!um".  It is never appropriate to use a punctuation mark as a character in a scientific name.

Rhizophyllum is not a subgenus of Calceola.  These are two different genera, externally similar but distinguished by internal structures.  Calceola tennesseensis was reassigned to the genus Rhizophyllum in Oliver 1963 [New occurrences of the rugose coral Rhizophyllum in North America.  USGS Professional Paper 475, Article 153].  Dr Oliver was the leading specialist on North American Paleozoic corals.  Note that this paper is a peer-reviewed publication dealing specifically with the taxonomy of Rhizophyllum species in North America, in contrast to Dr Martin's paper that you cite that is a popular science article, not a serious taxonomic study, based on older papers such as Bassler's 1915 paper.  Dr. Martin seems to have been unaware of Dr. Oliver's 1963 publication.

 

Here are a some relevant quotes from the Oliver 1963 paper:

"Rhizophyllum is near relative of the genus Calceola, with which it has often been confused because of external similarity. Calceola is apparently restricted to the middle Devonian (Eifelian and Givetian) and is widely distributed on most continents but is not known from North America. Reported occurrences of Calceola in North America are numerous, but all so far have been based on the similar-looking Rhizophyllum. "

 

"Seven nominal species of Rhizophyllum (as Calceola) were described from the Brownsport Formation in Tennessee and the Louisville Limestone in Kentucky and southern Indiana by Roemer (1854), Safford (1860), Lyell (1879), Hall (1882), and Davis (1887). Prior to this, Troost ( 1840) had described some Tennessee specimens as Calceola sandalina Lamarck (type species of Calceola). Bassler (1915, p. 157-158) grouped all of these in three species which he referred to "Calceola (Rhizophyllum)". No review of these has since been attempted, but additional specimens of two of the three species were illustrated or described by Foerste (1931) and by Amsden (1949).
The Brownsport and Louisville Formations are of Niagnran (Wenlock or early Ludlow) age. "

 

"SYSTEMATIC DESCRIPTIONS
Genus Rhizophyllum Lindstrom
Rhizophyllum Lindstrom, 1866a, p. 287; 1866b, p. 411; 1883, p. 22; Sherzer. 1891, p. 296; Hill, 1940, p. 394; Wang, 1948, p. 1, 3; Hill, 1956. p. 314.
Calceola of many authors (including all known descrip­tions or citations of North American specimens).
Type species.-By monotypy, Calceola gotlandica Roemer, 1856, p. 798; Silurian, Island of Gotland, Sweden. "

 

"Discussion. -Lindstrom ( 1866a, b) established the genus Rhizophyllum to separate the "Calceola" with cystiphylloid interrnal structure from typical Calceola with stereoplasm-filled interiors. He• discussed opercu­lated corals at length (1866a, b, 1883) and placed all of the American "Calceola" in two species of Rhizophyl­lum.
Bassler (1915) considered Rhizophyllum to be a subgenus of Calceola and was followed in this usage by Foerste (1931) and Shimer and Shrock (1944). Sherzer (1891) and Amsden (1949) are the only two American paleontologists who have published taxonomic papers using Rhizophyllum as a genus; European and Aus­tralian workers have recognized the genus since its first description. "

 

I hope this helps to clarify things.

Don

  • I found this Informative 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, FossilDAWG said:

Firstly, "Calceola Fabulous Tennessee Fossils (Rhizophy!um) tennesseensis" is not a proper species name under any circumstances.  Neither is "Rhizophy!um".  It is never appropriate to use a punctuation mark as a character in a scientific name.

Rhizophyllum is not a subgenus of Calceola.  These are two different genera, externally similar but distinguished by internal structures.  Calceola tennesseensis was reassigned to the genus Rhizophyllum in Oliver 1963 [New occurrences of the rugose coral Rhizophyllum in North America.  USGS Professional Paper 475, Article 153].  Dr Oliver was the leading specialist on North American Paleozoic corals.  Note that this paper is a peer-reviewed publication dealing specifically with the taxonomy of Rhizophyllum species in North America, in contrast to Dr Martin's paper that you cite that is a popular science article, not a serious taxonomic study, based on older papers such as Bassler's 1915 paper.  Dr. Martin seems to have been unaware of Dr. Oliver's 1963 publication.

 

Here are a some relevant quotes from the Oliver 1963 paper:

"Rhizophyllum is near relative of the genus Calceola, with which it has often been confused because of external similarity. Calceola is apparently restricted to the middle Devonian (Eifelian and Givetian) and is widely distributed on most continents but is not known from North America. Reported occurrences of Calceola in North America are numerous, but all so far have been based on the similar-looking Rhizophyllum. "

 

"Seven nominal species of Rhizophyllum (as Calceola) were described from the Brownsport Formation in Tennessee and the Louisville Limestone in Kentucky and southern Indiana by Roemer (1854), Safford (1860), Lyell (1879), Hall (1882), and Davis (1887). Prior to this, Troost ( 1840) had described some Tennessee specimens as Calceola sandalina Lamarck (type species of Calceola). Bassler (1915, p. 157-158) grouped all of these in three species which he referred to "Calceola (Rhizophyllum)". No review of these has since been attempted, but additional specimens of two of the three species were illustrated or described by Foerste (1931) and by Amsden (1949).
The Brownsport and Louisville Formations are of Niagnran (Wenlock or early Ludlow) age. "

 

"SYSTEMATIC DESCRIPTIONS
Genus Rhizophyllum Lindstrom
Rhizophyllum Lindstrom, 1866a, p. 287; 1866b, p. 411; 1883, p. 22; Sherzer. 1891, p. 296; Hill, 1940, p. 394; Wang, 1948, p. 1, 3; Hill, 1956. p. 314.
Calceola of many authors (including all known descrip­tions or citations of North American specimens).
Type species.-By monotypy, Calceola gotlandica Roemer, 1856, p. 798; Silurian, Island of Gotland, Sweden. "

 

"Discussion. -Lindstrom ( 1866a, b) established the genus Rhizophyllum to separate the "Calceola" with cystiphylloid interrnal structure from typical Calceola with stereoplasm-filled interiors. He• discussed opercu­lated corals at length (1866a, b, 1883) and placed all of the American "Calceola" in two species of Rhizophyl­lum.
Bassler (1915) considered Rhizophyllum to be a subgenus of Calceola and was followed in this usage by Foerste (1931) and Shimer and Shrock (1944). Sherzer (1891) and Amsden (1949) are the only two American paleontologists who have published taxonomic papers using Rhizophyllum as a genus; European and Aus­tralian workers have recognized the genus since its first description. "

 

I hope this helps to clarify things.

Don

Thanks Don.

I was just going by the new article I found. I actually believe "Rhizophy!um" is a typo on the "!". Is Rhizophyllum or Rhizophylum the proper spelling with one or two "l"? 

I copied this from your reply above: "Bassler (1915, p. 157-158) grouped all of these in three species which he referred to "Calceola (Rhizophyllum)". So why is it wrong for me to post Calceola (Rhizophylum) tennesseensis?

Anyway, the picture shows my finds, the purpose for me posting in the first place. Proud of finding them and trying to share my finds.

 

Have A Good Day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do want to say your finds are very impressive!  This is a very neat coral and I'm impressed that you have been able to find such a large sample of them.

 

There are strict rules about how the names of species are constructed.  People who aren't well versed in the rules will sometimes use brackets to indicate an "old" name for a genus or species, but this is incorrect.  Calceola (Rhizophyllum) indicates that Rhizophyllum is a subgenus of Calceola.  Subgenus means that Rhizophyllum includes a species or group of closely related species that are similar enough to be included in a special grouping within the genus Calceola.  Also, this implies the existence of a subgenus, Calceola (Calceola), that would include species closer to the original concept of Calceola.  This is what Bassler thought in 1915, so when he wrote the name that way it reflected his understanding of the relationship between Calceola and Rhizophyllum.  However as Oliver explained in his 1963 paper Rhizophyllum is a valid genus on it's own, distinct from Calceola.  With this understanding, writing the name as Calceola (Rhizophyllum) indicates an incorrect relationship between these two genera, and so it is misleading.

 

Don

  • I found this Informative 2
  • Enjoyed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don: As usual, spectacular summary! happy0144.gif Although the paper appears in a Geological Survey Research volume for 1963, the correct citation is Oliver 1964. emo73.gif:P

 
  • I found this Informative 1

image.png.a84de26dad44fb03836a743755df237c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, rawwardigger said:

I copied this off the link I provided: Tennessee Namesake Index & Guide Fossils: ! ! Calceola (Rhizophylum) tennesseensis (Roemer). The provided link tells about this. "Shimer and Shrock list two Tennessee namesake index fossils corals: Rhizophy!um tennes-seensis and Calceola tennesseensis. C. tennesseensis (Figure 1) is a slightly curved, horn-shaped, solitary rugose coral (tetracoral) with one side that is strongly flattened. Its most distinctive feature is a unique hinged top (operculum) not seen in other groups of rugose corals. Both names actually refer to the same fossil, and illustrate how the taxonomy has been revised over time since their first discovery in the early 1800’s. The primary genus is Calceola, coined in 1799 by Jean Baptiste de Lamarck, the great evolutionary biologist. C. tennesseensis was named by Ferdinand Roemer (mistakenly attributed to Rominger, probably Carl Ludwig Rominger, in the Index Fossils of North America)".

"Later in 1866, the Swedish paleontologist Gustof Lindström (1829-1901) revised the operculate corals by describing a new genus of operculate rugose coral, Rhizophy!um, with the primary difference being in the internal growth structure. In 1915, Ray S. Bassler, who worked in Tennessee for a time, compiled an index of fossils from the middle Paleozoic (Bibliographic Index of American Ordovician and Silurian Fossils; U. S. National Museum Bulletin 92) in which he listed a revision of C. tennesseensis to reflect the modern (at least in 1915) taxonomic understanding of these corals, showing Calceola to be subdivided into several subgenera, including the subgenus Rhizophy!um, which approximates the Tennessee samples. Thus the most proper name most accepted today is Calceola Fabulous Tennessee Fossils (Rhizophy!um) tennesseensis. Note that this is a combination of the two original names from the Index. Two fossil taxa become one. Calceola (Rhizophy!um) tennesseensis is found preserved in the Brownsport Formation".  

This article was published by: MEMPHIS ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY and written by: Dr. Michael A. Gibson, University of Tennessee at Martin

Confused? Yes but it was published.

Your specimens are very interesting. It is a pleasure for me to contemplate this type of material. In fact, I appreciate you showing them.
What is not so pleasant is seeing them misidentified. That's why, I think, all the participants in this post try to help you make that identification as correct as possible. Good opinions have been given, documents have been provided and the whole matter has been perfectly explained to you.
Congratulations on your specimens.
Greetings.

Edited by oyo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Don, piranha, oyo, all. I will make a new label and put in the Riker case. Do I put just Rhizophyllum or Rhizophyllum tennesseensis on the name tag?

Thanks Once Again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would label them Rhizophyllum tennesseensis (Roemer).

 

One other point about names, if you want them really complete you should have the name of the author, who is the person who first described the species, after the species name.  Some people also put the year, but often people don't put either on their display labels.  If the species was originally described in one genus and later the genus was changed (as is the case here) the author's name is put in brackets.

 

So many little rules!  But in the end it is all to make sure that there is only one valid name that applies to the species.

 

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If what you want is a label that is as scientific as possible, Rhizophyllum tennesseensis (Roemer, 1854) would be correct.
The author and the year are important since they refer to the original description of the species.
In addition, and given that you have several documents referring to the taxonomic history of the materials, you should keep a file with all these documents and in this way you will have the specimens perfectly identified and documented and you will be able to provide detailed and documented information about your specimens, as well as a label on them, if necessary later.
Now if you want to reach the "God level", since you have enough specimens, you could try to cut-polish some specimen that is not especially well preserved externally.

Edited by oyo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have retyped the name tag and added some more information. Took a new picture to share with you that might be interested. Now, I see that adding 1854 is recommended. Another update soon.

Thanks

Roger

Rhizophyllum tennessesis I Revised.jpg

  • Enjoyed 1
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
×
×
  • Create New...