Guguita2104 Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 I've read in some sites (even at very distinguished museum sites) that the ammonoids/belemnoids are also known as ammonites/belemnites. Is this correct?Is a goniatite also an ammonite? IMO, we should only consider ammonites/belemnites the ammonoids/belemnoids that belong to Ammonitida/Belemnitida order (wich only existed in Mesozoic Era). Can someone clarify it, please? Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manticocerasman Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Goniatites are part of the subclass of the Ammonoidea. other orders in the Ammonoidea are : Anarcestida, Clymeniida, Prolecanitida, Ceratitida, Phylloceratida, Lytoceratida and of course Ammonitida 2 growing old is mandatory but growing up is optional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johannes Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) You are mixing very different things. As far as I know the most modern concept, the subclass/cohort Ammonoidea comprises several orders (Agonititida, Clymeniida, Goniatitida, Prolecanitida, Ceratida), and some of them were put together in the group "Neoammonoidea": Phylloceratida, Lytoceratida, Ancyloceratida and Ammonitida (comprising the suprafamilies Psilocerataceae, Eoderocerataceae, Hildocerataceae, Stephanocerataceae and Perisphinctaceae). Belemnoidea, Belemnitida, Aulacocerida, Diplobelida, Belemnitina, Belemnopseina and Belemnotheutida are another talk, and a little bit more complicated... So answering your questions: 1) The problem is, that some websites try to simplify a complex system, creating a lot of additional taxonomic confusion to the general taxonomic confusion. 2) A goniatite (ignoring thats a simplified term and not a correct taxonmic group) belongs to the Ammonoidea, but not to the Ammonitida. 3) we should use/consider the correct taxonomy to avoid most of the uncertainities. Or we talk about them like about our friends, doesn't matter if the were our cousins, or the uncle of our neighbours sister using only their personal and family-name (genus + species) Hope I have clarified it. edit: kevin was faster, but with a little bit older systematic concept. Edited June 15, 2016 by Johannes 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guguita2104 Posted June 15, 2016 Author Share Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) You are mixing very different things. As far as I know the most modern concept, the subclass/cohort Ammonoidea comprises several orders (Agonititida, Clymeniida, Goniatitida, Prolecanitida, Ceratida), and some of them were put together in the group "Neoammonoidea": Phylloceratida, Lytoceratida, Ancyloceratida and Ammonitida (comprising the suprafamilies Psilocerataceae, Eoderocerataceae, Hildocerataceae, Stephanocerataceae and Perisphinctaceae). Belemnoidea, Belemnitida, Aulacocerida, Diplobelida, Belemnitina, Belemnopseina and Belemnotheutida are another talk, and a little bit more complicated... So answering your questions: 1) The problem is, that some websites try to simplify a complex system, creating a lot of additional taxonomic confusion to the general taxonomic confusion. 2) A goniatite (ignoring thats a simplified term and not a correct taxonmic group) belongs to the Ammonoidea, but not to the Ammonitida. 3) we should use/consider the correct taxonomy to avoid most of the uncertainities. Or we talk about them like about our friends, doesn't matter if the were our cousins, or the uncle of our neighbours sister using only their personal and family-name (genus + species) Hope I have clarified it. edit: kevin was faster, but with a little bit older systematic concept. Very thanks! That's exactly what I thought ! Apologize for the use of goniatite instead of the correct taxonomic classification. Now I think I can leave a comment and correct it in some sites (like Wikipédia_Portugal) Edited June 15, 2016 by Guguita2104 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guguita2104 Posted June 15, 2016 Author Share Posted June 15, 2016 About belemnoidea I think we can say the same, because all the belemnites are belemnoids, but not all the belemnoids are belemnites. Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 *mumbles something about "plesion" and disappears..* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guguita2104 Posted June 15, 2016 Author Share Posted June 15, 2016 Just another question:Isn't Lytoceratida a suborder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) i almost forgot: https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/3758 https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app26/app26-161.pdf Edited June 15, 2016 by doushantuo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 and: http://www.ville-ge.ch/mhng/paleo/paleo-pdf/29-1/pal_29_1_01_1.pdf 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) and: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.587.4299&rep=rep1&type=pdf and: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47800429_Early-middle_Jurassic_Lytoceratid_Ammonites_with_constrictions_from_Morocco_Palaeobiogeographical_and_evolutionary_implications Edited June 15, 2016 by doushantuo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridgehiker Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Palaeontology, for the most part, isn't that focused on 'biological' taxonomy. Researchers don't study broad ranges of phyla or classes. If someone studies cephalopods it is usually a specific range...such as Upper Paleozoic or Cretaceous, etc. Someone like Nassichuk, who studies Upper Paleozoic cephalopods wouldn't have a clue about lower Paleozoic ones or those from The Mesozoic. Or...Cobban would know the minutia about Cretaceous ones and zero about Paleozoic. Trying to tie cephalopod studies into broad classifications are speculative at best. There just isn't the demand for it. The same with corals, echinoderms, etc. The only phylum with more than dabbling in trying to tie everything together are vertebrates. They tend to be studied for their own sake rather than their use in aging deposits, biostratigraphy, etc. Relationships between cephalopod taxa are iffy at best. Mostly educated speculation. Classifications are used more because of priority in the literature than anything else. The various Treatise try to gather everything together but is only based on published literature. Bottom line...most of the terms are really a way of researchers comparing apples to apples and not apples to oranges. They aren't any definitive statement about actual relationship between cephalopod groups...that is just way too much to take on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 A lot of science is "educated speculation".More so than most people know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guguita2104 Posted June 15, 2016 Author Share Posted June 15, 2016 and: http://www.ville-ge.ch/mhng/paleo/paleo-pdf/29-1/pal_29_1_01_1.pdf and: http://www.ville-ge.ch/mhng/paleo/paleo-pdf/29-1/pal_29_1_01_1.pdf and: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.587.4299&rep=rep1&type=pdf and: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47800429_Early-middle_Jurassic_Lytoceratid_Ammonites_with_constrictions_from_Morocco_Palaeobiogeographical_and_evolutionary_implications Thanks doshuanto !!!For what I read (I've to analyse them better) those papers seem very informative ! Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts