Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T15:31:14.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Notes on the Cardinal Process in the Productidae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

Roland Goldring
Roland Goldring
Affiliation:
Geology Department, University Of Bristol
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The cardinal process in the Productidae is divided into two main types, either bi- or trilobed. The process in several species, illustrating each type, is described and figured, and the development of both types compared.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 92 , Issue 5 , October 1955, pp. 402 - 412
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Chao, Y. T., 1927. Productidae of China, 1, Producti. Pal. Sinica., (B), 5, 2, 1–144.Google Scholar
Chao, Y. T., 1928. Productidae of China, 2, Chonetinae, Productinae, and Richtho-feninae. Pal. Sinica., (B), 5, 3, 1–103.Google Scholar
Davidson, T., 1858–1863. British Fossil Brachiopods, 2. Permian and Carboniferous species. Palaeont. Soc., London.Google Scholar
King, R. E., 1931. The geology of the Glass Mountains. Pt. 2, Permian formations and descriptions of Brachiopods. Univ. Texas Bull. 3042, 1–82.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, R., 1914. Les Brachiopodes du Carbonifère supérieur de Bolivie. Ann. Paléont., 9, 3–100.Google Scholar
Licharew, B., 1938. On some pecularities in the internal structure of Productus Sowerby s.l. Problems Palae., 4, 287–292.Google Scholar
Miloradovich, B. V., 1945. Some data on the morphology of the shells of Productidae. Bull. Acad. Sci. U.R.S.S. Ser. Biol., 4, 485–500 (in Russian with English summary).Google Scholar
Muir-Wood, H. M., 1930. The Classification of the British Carboniferous Brachiopod Subfamily Productinae. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (10) 5, 100–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paeckelmann, W., 1931. Die Fauna des deutschen Unterkarbons, 2. Die Productinae und Productus-ähnlichen Chonetinae. Abh. Preuss. Geol. Landes., 136, 1–440.Google Scholar
Paul, H., 1937. Die Transgression der Viséstufe am Nordrande des Rheinischen Schiefergebirge. Abh. Preuss. Geol. Landes., 179, 1–117.Google Scholar
Prentice, J. E., 1949. The hemisphaericus-like Gigantellids of the Southern Pennines. Proc. Yorks. Geol. Soc., 27, 247–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prentice, J. E., 1950. The genus Gigantella Sarycheva. Geol. Mag., 87,436–8.Google Scholar
Reed, F. R. C., 1943. Notes on certain Upper Devonian Brachiopods figured by Whidborne. Geol. Mag., 80, 69–78, 95–106, 132–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, A. H., and Summerson, C. H., 1943. Cardinal Process of Productidae. Journ. Pal., 17, 323–330.Google Scholar
Whidborne, G. F., 1896–1907. A Monograph of the Devonian fauna of the South of England, 3. The Marwood and Pilton Beds. Palaeont. Soc., London.Google Scholar