Advertisement

Palaeontologische Zeitschrift

, Volume 9, Issue 1–3, pp 287–313 | Cite as

Ein neues Zeugnis uralten Lebens

Erweiterte Ausführung der bei der Göttinger Tagung der Palaeontologischen Gesellschaft gegebenen Mitteilung
  • J. F. Pompeckj
Die Tagung der Palaeontologischen Gesellschaft in Göttingen (29. September bis 4. Oktober 1926)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. 1).
    F. Johnstrup, Abriß der Geologie von Bornholm. IV. Jahresb. d. Geogr. Ges. Greifswald, S. 13, 1889.Google Scholar
  2. 1).
    Rud. Rüdemann, The lower Siluric Shales of the Mohawk Valley. New York St. Mus. Bull. 162, S. 75, T. 1, F. 9 (Albany 1912).Google Scholar
  3. 1).
    Ch.D. Walcott, Middle Cambrian Holothurians and Medusae. Cambrian Geology and Paleontology, Vol. II, Nr. 3, 1911. Smiths. Misc. Coll., Vol. 57, S. 45–55, Taf. 8–13.Google Scholar
  4. 1).
    Ch. D. Walcott, Appendages of Trilobites. Cambrian Geology and Paleontology IV, Nr. 4. Smiths. Misc. Coll., 1918, Bd. 57, S. 116–178. — Ch.D. Walcott, Notes on structure of Neolenus. ibid. IV, Nr. 7, ibid. 1921, Bd. 57, S. 365–432.Google Scholar
  5. 1).
    Ch. D. Walcott, Cambrian Geology and Paleontology II, Nr. 6, Middle Cambrian Branchiopoda, Malacostraca, Trilobita and Merostomata. Smiths. Misc. Coll. 1912, Bd. 57, S. 192, Taf. 25, 26.Google Scholar
  6. 1).
    Ch. D. Walcott, ebenda,, S. 177, Taf. 27, Fig. 1–3.Google Scholar
  7. 2).
    Ch. D. Walcott, ebenda,, S. 181, Taf. 27, Fig. 4.Google Scholar
  8. 3).
    W. T. Calman, On the genusAnaspides and its affinities with certain fossil Crustacea. Transact. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 1896, Bd. 38, S. 787, Taf. I, Fig. 1.Google Scholar
  9. 4).
    Th. H. Withers, Catalogue of the Machaeridia (Turrilepas and its allies) in the department of Geology. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.). 1926.Google Scholar
  10. 1).
    S. H. Scudder, Archipolypoda, a subordinal Type of spined Myriapoda from the Carboniferous Formation. Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist, 1882, Bd. 3, Nr. 5, Taf. 12, Fig. 1, 9, 22, 23, 26.Google Scholar
  11. 1).
    S. H. Scudder, The affinities ofPalaeocampa. Am. Journ. of Sc. 1882, Ser. 3, Bd. 24. — Ders., Myriapoda, inK. A. Zittel, Handb. d. Palaeontologie, 1885, Bd. II, S. 726, Fig. 894. — Ders., Systematic review of our present knowledge of fossil insects, including Myriapods and Arachnids. Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv. 1886, Nr. 31, S. 13.Google Scholar
  12. 1).
    Handwörterbuch der Naturwissenschaften. Jena 1912, Bd. 6, S. 1149.Google Scholar
  13. 2).
    Diese Zeitschr. 1927, Bd. 8, S. 323, Fig. 3.Google Scholar
  14. 1).
    A. Handlirsch, Die fossilen Insekten und die Phylogenie der rezenten Formen. 1908, S. 3–10.Google Scholar
  15. 2).
    E. L. Bouvier, Monographie des Onychophores. Annal. d. Sc. nat., Zoologie, 1907, Ser. 9, Bd. II, S. 15.Google Scholar
  16. 1).
    Ch. D. Walcott, Cambrian Geology and Palaeontology II, Nr. 5. Smiths. Misc. Coll. 1911, Bd.57, S. 116, 117, Taf. 23, Fig. 8, 9.Google Scholar
  17. 2a).
    Ch. D. Walcott, a. a. O., Bd.57, S. 123, Taf. 21, Fig. 1–4.Google Scholar
  18. 3).
    Ch. D. Walcott, a. a. O., Bd.57, S. 126, Taf. 22, Fig. 2. Die scheinbar oder wirklich gespaltenen, langen, groben Parapodien ebenso wie die durch eine Furche quergeteilten Körpersegmente stempeln diesen „Wurm” zu einem höchst eigenartigen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung 1927

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. F. Pompeckj
    • 1
  1. 1.Berlin

Personalised recommendations