Jump to content

More Trilo-Bits From Minnesota


Clanjones

Recommended Posts

What kind of trilobite is this? It has both eyes intact.

post-15171-0-66505200-1415919725_thumb.jpg

Eyes: post-15171-0-28138700-1415920077_thumb.jpg

Is this thing part of a trilobite?

post-15171-0-78720400-1415919835_thumb.jpg

post-15171-0-38660600-1415919880_thumb.jpg

They were both found in Forestville, MN.

Edited by Clanjones
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the third and fourth image, those look like how the podial plates come together in an echinoid, the way they are staggered in pairs. Urchin?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what kind of trilo that is but the other thing is a conularid.

Might be...

(click on image)

http://www.fossilmall.com/EDCOPE_Enterprises/invertebrates/invert115/invfossil115.htm

http://www.paleoportal.org/index.php?globalnav=fossil_gallery&sectionnav=detail&submission_id=1720&taxon_id=55&state_id=&period_id=&assemblage_id=&last_section=search

But still the way they are staggered bothers me...

Edited by tmaier
Link to post
Share on other sites

The trilobite is Flexicalymene sp. and the conulariid appears to be a perfect match with Climacoconus (=Conularia) quadrata listed in the Maquoketa Fm:

 

IMG1.jpg

 

Iten, H.V., Fitzke, J.A., & Cox, R.S. (1996)

Problematical fossil cnidarians from the Upper Ordovician of the north-central USA.

Palaeontology, 39(4):1037-1064

 

OPEN ACCESS PDF

 

 

 

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

The cited paper has an error worth noting. It incorrectly uses the name "C. quadratus", when in fact, the correct species is Climacoconus quadrata as I listed it above. Attached is Walcott's original description which always retains the precedence of the species name quadrata:

 

IMG1.jpg

 

Walcott, C.D. (1879)

Descriptions of new species of fossils from the Trenton limestone.

New York State Museum of Natural History, Annual Report, 28:93-97

 

 

 

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

Hi piranha,

Here's a somewhat related question. Sometimes, when people move a species to a new or different genus they will modify the species name to agree with the gender of the new genus name. As an example, the mosquito formerly known as Aedes albopictus was moved to Stegomyia (actually, Stegomyia was a subgenus of Aedes that got raised to full generic rank), and the researchers modified the species name to Stegomyia albopictum. In your opinion, is it ever valid (within the rules of nomenclature) to change the species name this way? To me, it seems so many changes make it very hard to know that Aedes albopictus and Stegomyia albopictum are actually the same thing.

I'm reminded of a comment by Rousseau Flower, who was an expert on Paleozoic nautiloids and corals, after he dealt with a convoluted nomenclatural issue: "After all, paleontology should be about the study of fossils, not the study of names of fossils".

Don

Edited by FossilDAWG
Link to post
Share on other sites

...In your opinion, is it ever valid (within the rules of nomenclature) to change the species name this way? To me, it seems so many changes make it very hard to know that Aedes albopictus and Stegomyia albopictum are actually the same thing.

I'm in complete agreement that unnecessary changes can make it very difficult for researchers. Evidently Iten et al. felt justified changing 'quadrata' to 'quadratus', or perhaps it was just a simple oversight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those on-line databases are a great help, though few of them are completely exhaustive wrt synonymies. However my question was more about the rules: is it legit under the rules of nomenclature to "adjust" a specific name to conform to the language or gender of the genus? I know much confusion has arisen from people trying to correct what they see as "spelling mistakes"; even if the original author makes an obvious spelling mistake once the name is published the name is set, mistake and all.

I did see one paper where the authors used one name (Pionodema germanus) for a new species of brachiopod in the written text/description, but called it Pionodema proteus in the figures. Oops! That's not just a little spelling mistake.

Don

Link to post
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...