No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
IV.—Shell-Structure in the Ammonoidea
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
Extract
The shell-structure of the Ammonoidea has received very inadequate attention from palæontologists; in most cases authors are content with describing the shell of the recent Nautilus, and saying that that of the Ammonites is exactly the same. Prof. Judd therefore suggested that I should take the subject up, when working as a research student under him. As a result, I have found that the resemblance of the Nautilus- to the Ammonite-shell is literally true; but the structure of the extinct forms throws an altogether new light on that of the recent one, while the usual homology of parts between the two requires, I think, revision.
Information
- Type
- Original Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1895
References
page 249 note 1 Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Cambridge, iii, 1852.Google Scholar
page 250 note 1 F. von Römer, Jahresber. Schlesisch Gesells., Breslau, 1873.
page 250 note 2 Loc. cit
page 250 note 3 British Fossil Cephalopoda
page 250 note 4 Carpenter, Brit. Assoc. Reports, 1847, p. 46; Sorby, Pres. Address, Geol. Soc., 1879, says the laminæ are pierced by fine needles of aragonite, p. 31.
page 251 note 1 Manuel de Conchyliologie, 1825
page 251 note 2 Rose, Abh. Akad., Berlin, 1858, also Carpenter, loc. cit.
page 252 note 1 Untersuch. ü. crust. Panzer u. Mollusk. schaal., Berlin, 1877. Of course I do not mean here that growth from within can go on to the extent that Méry postulated, Hist: de l'acad. rog. des Sci., Mém., 1710.
page 252 note 2 Loc. cit
page 254 note 1 Inaug. Dissert. Tübingen, Salzburg, 1873.
page 254 note 2 Hyatt, Arietidæ, p. 216; Haug, Neues Jahrb., 1885, pt. iii, p. 593.
page 254 note 3 Vrolik, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., xii, 1843, p. 173.
page 254 note 4 Steinmann, Berich. d. Naturforsch. Gesell., Freiburg, 1889, vol. iv.
page 255 note 1 Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., Cambridge, 1871, vol. iii, p. 91.Google Scholar
page 255 note 2 Verstein. d. Rhein. Schichisyst. in Nassau,1850, p. 58.
page 255 note 3 Petrefaktenkunde Deutschlands, pt. i, 1846.
page 255 note 4 Syst. Silur., vol. ii, p. 23, 1867.Google Scholar
page 255 note 5 Palæontographica, vol. iv, p. 184.Google Scholar
page 255 note 6 Verhandl. d. Naturhist. Vereins. d. preuss. Rheinlande, 1853, vol. x.
page 255 note 7 Keyserling, Reise in das Petschoraland, St. Petersburg, 1846, p. 274.
page 255 note 8 Mojsisovics, Med. Trias Provinz, Abh. geol. Reichsanst., Wien, 1882.
page 255 note 9 Hauer, Trias v. Bosnien, Denksch. Akad., Wien, 1892, vol. lix.
page 255 note 10 Loc. cit. p. 93, fig. 14d.
page 256 note 1 Sandberger, G., Schrift d. oberhess. Gesells. f. Natur u. Heilkunde, No. vii, p. 79, 1859.
page 256 note 2 Sandberger, G., Jahrb. d. Vereins. f. Naturkunde, Wiesbaden, vii, p. 292, 1851.
page 256 note 3 Eck, Zeits. deutsch. geol. Gesells., p. 276, 1879.
page 256 note 4 Wright, Lias Ammonites, Pal. Soc., pl. xxv.
page 256 note 5 Oppel, Die Juraformation, Jahresh. d. Vereins. f. Naturkunde, Stuttgart, vol. xii, 1855.
page 256 note 6 Brooks, Proc. Boston Nat. Hist. Soc., vol. xxiii, p. 380.