Clanjones Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) What kind of trilobite is this? It has both eyes intact. Eyes: Is this thing part of a trilobite? They were both found in Forestville, MN. Edited November 13, 2014 by Clanjones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creto Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 I don't know what kind of trilo that is but the other thing is a conularid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) 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§ionnav=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 November 13, 2014 by tmaier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 The trilobite is Flexicalymene sp. and the conulariid appears to be a perfect match with Climacoconus (=Conularia) quadrata listed in the Maquoketa Fm: 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Ahhh, yes, there are the staggered alignments that were throwing me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 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: 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 (edited) 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 November 14, 2014 by FossilDAWG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 ...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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Luckily, online databases like fossilworks.org are tying it all together by referencing the old classifications. http://fossilworks.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=110817 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilDAWG Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now