Lyell Collection

Journal of the Geological Society

Lyell Centre  |   Lyell Collection  |   Subscriptions   |   Geological Society  |   Email alerts  |   Online bookshop  |   Help


Keywords:
Author:
Advanced search>>
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by DONOVAN, D. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Journal of the Geological Society; 1994; v. 151; issue.6; p. 1035-1040;
DOI: 10.1144/gsjgs.151.6.1035
© 1994 Geological Society of London

Article

History of classification of Mesozoic ammonites

D. T. DONOVAN

Department of Geological Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London WClE 6BT, UK

The ammonites were first subdivided at generic level on the basis of shell coiling, heteromorphs or ‘uncoiled’ shells being separated after 1799 from the normally coiled shells. The latter were referred to a single genus, Ammonites, until the late nineteenth century. After the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of species in 1859, the more forward-looking workers adopted the ideal of a classification based on phylogenetic relationships. This necessitated the use of a wider range of characters. Increasing realization of the complexity of phylogenetic relationships brought a proliferation of names at lower taxonomic levels—genus and family. For a while, the belief that the growth stages of the shell provided a reliable key to ancestry dominated the work of several specialists.

In the early twentieth century, Schindewolf favoured reliance on a single character, sutural ontogeny, as the decisive criterion in determining relationships. Other workers favoured a balanced appreciation of several characters. In the mid-twentieth century some felt that the detailed lineages, of which glimpses are seen through the fossil record, might never be disentangled, and that classification at generic and specific level must often be arbitrary. Recently, more abundant material and better stratigraphical information have led to the recognition of lineages based on closely-spaced assemblages which can be used as a basis for classification. The usefulness of the present classification is briefly considered.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
GeologyHome page
E. Nardin, I. Rouget, and P. Neige
Tendencies in paleontological practice when defining species, and consequences on biodiversity studies
Geology, 2005; 33: 969 - 972.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]