Journal of Paleontology, 91(1), 2017, p. 194–198 Copyright © 2016, The Paleontological Society 0022-3360/16/0088-0906 doi: 10.1017/jpa.2016.148


Taxonomic Note


A taxonomic correction after 140 years Rakhi Dutta,* and Subhendu Bardhan Department of Geological Sciences, Jadavpur University, Kolkata-7000032, India ⟨rakhi.geol@gmail.com⟩⟨sbardhan12@gmail.com⟩


Abstract.—Waagen (1875) was the first who dealt with the Jurassic ammonites of Kutch based on detailed taxo- nomic work. In his monograph, he described among many species Perisphinctes spirorbis Neumayr, 1870 and P. aberrans Waagen, 1875 from the Callovian of Kutch, but the figures mentioned in the description did not corre- spond to the actual species. For P. spirorbis, the plate illustrated the holotype of an entirely different species (P. aberrans). On the other hand, P. spirorbis was illustrated as the lectotype of P. aberrans. Later, Spath (1924) introduced a new genus, Subgrossouvria, based on Waagen’s P. aberrans as type species. He also erected another genus, Indosphinctes, and included P. spirorbis Waagen, 1875 within the synonymy of I. indicus (Siemiradzki, 1899). Spath (1931) was aware of wrong numbering of plates of Waagen’s two species. But subsequent workers were ignorant of these taxonomic errors and continued to refer Waagen’s wrong plate numbers. We have here described both the type specimens and provided diagnoses for Spath’s two genera. We plead for this taxonomic correction in the incoming revised Treatise on Jurassic ammonites.


Introduction


A brilliant work in science generally comes of age and has a long lasting effect. But technical errors in it may confound the actual truth and mislead generations after. This is exactly what happened when a pioneering worker in the science of taxonomy of the nineteenth century, Waagen (1875), described his ammonite species Perisphinctes aberrans from the Jurassic of Kutch. The Jurassic of Kutch is famous worldwide for its


extraordinary diversity of ammonites. Waagen (1875) was the first to produce a comprehensive taxonomic work on Kutch ammonites. Subsequently, Spath (1924, 1927–1933), another expert on ammonite taxonomy, revised and expanded Waagen’s work on Kutch ammonites. Waagen (1875, p. 175) described the upper Callovian species P. aberrans, but inadvertently mentioned the wrong number on his plate (Waagen, 1875, pl. 40, fig. 1a–c instead of pl. 41, figs. 1a–c). In plate no. 40, figs. 1 and 2, another species, Perisphinctes spirorbis Neumayr, 1870, was illustrated. This apparent little error had far-reaching taxonomic consequences. Spath (1924), on the basis of Waagen’s Perisphinctes aberrans, introduced a new genus Subgrossouvria, with Subgrossouvria aberrans designated as the type species. Spath (1924) was aware of the wrong numbering of plates made by Waagen (1875), but was not always explicit to mention it. Spath (1924, p. 13) introduced the genus Subgrossouvria “For P. aberrans,Waagen, pl. XL, fig. 1, non. 2 (=? Perisph jupiter, Loczy, non A. jupiter, Steinmann) represented by specimen 339 (genoholotype) which shows


* Corresponding author


extremely evolute inner whorls, the new genus Subgrossouvria, gen. nov. is proposed. Another specimen (351), between S. morley-daviesi,n. n.(=P. aberrans, Waagen, pl. XLI, fig. 2 only) and S. coronaeformis, Loczy sp. (50b), and only a little stouter than S. villanoides, Till sp. (95), also belongs to this genus.” While referring the type specimen of Subgrossouvria,


mentioned Waagen’s true plate and figure number (i.e., pl. 41, fig. 2). These created further confusion. Curiously, Spath (1931, p. 374) maintained this stand, even though he was aware of the misplacement of Waagen’s figure, and while systematically describing Subgrossouvria aberrans, he categorically men- tioned, “This striking form was sufficiently well figured by Waagen to be recognized; but owing to the wrong numbering of his plate, writers like Noetling (1895, p. 21, pl. xxiii, fig. 5) have applied the name to species of quite different affinity.” Again, Spath (1931, p. 376) retained Waagen’s wrong number of plate and figure in the synonymy list, but inserted the correct number in the same for S. morley-daviesi. Many later workers were not aware of this technical lapse


Spath (1924) retained Waagen’s wrong numbering of plate and figure (i.e., pl. 40, fig. 1), but for S. morley-daviesi, he correctly


and compared their ammonite species with the figure illustrated byWaagen (pl. 40, fig. 1),which was not Perisphinctes aberrans. For example, Siemiradzki (1899) groupedWaagen’s P. aberrans with an entirely unrelated and older genus, Procerites (Spath, 1931, p. 286). The greatest mistake took place when Arkell et al. (1957) made the robust ammonite compendium in the Treatise. They were perhaps not aware about the wrong numbering ofWaagen’s plate, and illustrated (p. L319, fig. 406) the specimen ofWaagen’splate no.40, fig. 1 as the holotype of


194


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192  |  Page 193  |  Page 194  |  Page 195  |  Page 196  |  Page 197  |  Page 198  |  Page 199  |  Page 200  |  Page 201  |  Page 202  |  Page 203  |  Page 204  |  Page 205  |  Page 206  |  Page 207  |  Page 208