The Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event 2004
DOI: 10.7312/webb12678-023
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

22. Tube-Shaped Incertae Sedis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Hyolith conchs are generally assumed to have been aragonite, based on the poor preservation of calcareous specimens (Marek & Yochelson, 1976; Malinky et al. , 2004); even when co‐occurring taxa like trilobites and brachiopods exhibit textural preservation, hyolith conchs occur as calcite mosaics (Criterion 3; James & Klappa, 1983).…”
Section: Methods and Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hyolith conchs are generally assumed to have been aragonite, based on the poor preservation of calcareous specimens (Marek & Yochelson, 1976; Malinky et al. , 2004); even when co‐occurring taxa like trilobites and brachiopods exhibit textural preservation, hyolith conchs occur as calcite mosaics (Criterion 3; James & Klappa, 1983).…”
Section: Methods and Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The genus Sulcavitus is otherwise definitely represented only by its type species, from the Middle Ordovician of Sweden (regional Kunda Stage = global Darriwilian Stage; Malinky , Malinky et al . ).…”
Section: Biostratigraphy and Biogeographymentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The specimens described above are assigned to the genus Microcornus based on their overall shape with a bulbous protoconch, a median ridge on the dorsal side, and the resulting rounded triangular cross section (Bengtson et al, 1990; Malinky and Skovsted, 2004). The narrow conical morphology of the conchs produced by a small apical angle, along with the weakly convex ventral side, conforms to Microcornus petilus (see Bengtson et al, 1990; Demidenko in Gravestock et al, 2001; Malinky et al, 2004; Topper et al, 2009). However, the specimens recovered here differ from Microcornus petilus in having a poorly defined dorsal ridge and in lacking an ornament of fine wrinkles parallel to the apertural margin.…”
Section: Systematic Paleontologymentioning
confidence: 71%