Advertisement

Swiss Journal of Palaeontology

, Volume 138, Issue 1, pp 65–85 | Cite as

High-level classification of the nautiloid cephalopods: a proposal for the revision of the Treatise Part K

  • Andy H. KingEmail author
  • David H. Evans
Regular Research Article

Abstract

High-level classification of the nautiloid cephalopods has been largely neglected since the publication of the Russian and American treatises in the early 1960s. Although there is broad general agreement amongst specialists regarding the status of nautiloid orders, there is no real consensus or consistent approach regarding higher ranks and an array of superorders utilising various morphological features has been proposed. With work now commencing on the revision of the Treatise Part K, there is an urgent need for a methodical and standardised approach to the high-level classification of the nautiloids. The scheme proposed here utilizes the form of muscle attachment scars as a diagnostic feature at subclass level; other features (including siphuncular structures and cameral deposits) are employed at ordinal level. We recognise five subclasses of nautiloid cephalopods (Plectronoceratia, Multiceratia, Tarphyceratia nov., Orthoceratia, Nautilia) and 18 orders including the Order Rioceratida nov. which contains the new family Bactroceratidae. This scheme has the advantage of relative simplicity (it avoids the use of superorders) and presents a balanced approach which reflects the considerable morphological diversity and phylogenetic longevity of the nautiloids in comparison with the ammonoid and coleoid cephalopods. To avoid potential confusion arising in the higher levels of nautiloid classification employed in the revision of the Treatise Part K, we propose herein to replace the suffix ‘-oidea’ at subclass level with the suffix ‘-ia’. Apart from removing ambiguity and clarifying the nomenclature, this approach also brings greater consistency and affinity with modern zoological classification schemes used for cephalopods. The original Treatise Part K adopted an ‘abbreviated’ form of name for nautiloid orders using the ending ‘-cerida’ rather than ‘-ceratida’ (e.g., Order Actinocerida rather than Actinoceratida). For the revision of Treatise Part K, we propose using the ‘full’ version of the ordinal names. This approach re-employs several order names in their original form, e.g., Ellesmeroceratida, Oncoceratida, and Tarphyceratida. For reasons of consistency, we also apply the same to ordinal names created since the original Treatise Part K; therefore, Order Bisonocerida becomes Bisonoceratida.

Keywords

Classification Plectronoceratia Multiceratia Tarphyceratia Nautilia Orthoceratia Treatise 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to many nautiloid specialists for their time and detailed discussions regarding the merits or otherwise of various systematic schemes we considered during the evolution and compilation of this paper. We particularly wish to thank Kathleen Histon (Valganna), Marcela Cichowolski (Buenos Aires) and colleagues based in Prague (Martina Aubrechtová, Štěpán Manda and Vojtěch Turek). We are also grateful to the following for their helpful advice and suggestions regarding wider classification of cephalopods relating to our proposal and the revision of the Treatise Part K: Alexander Pohle (Zurich), Christian Klug (Zurich), Dirk Fuchs (Munich), Kenneth De Baets (Erlangen), Larissa Doguzhaeva (Stockholm), Neil Landman (New York), Peter Ward (Seattle), René Hoffmann (Bochum) and Stijn Goolaerts (Brussels). We also thank Mikhail Rogov (Moscow) for very kindly supplying sets of Russian references and the two reviewers for their very constructive and helpful comments. However, the final views expressed here are solely those of the authors.

Supplementary material

13358_2019_186_MOESM1_ESM.docx (28 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 28 kb)

References

  1. Agassiz, L. (1847). An introduction to the study of Natural History, in a series of lectures delivered in the hall of the College of Physicians and Surgeons (pp. 1–58). New York: Greeley & McElrath.Google Scholar
  2. Aubrechtová, M. (2015). A revision of the Ordovician cephalopod Bactrites sandbergeri Barrande: Systematic position and palaeobiogeography of Bactroceras. Geobios, 48, 193–211.Google Scholar
  3. Aubrechtová, A., & Meidla, T. (2016). The oldest ascocerid cephalopod from the Silurian of Estonia and notes on the biogeography of the order Ascocerida (class Cephalopoda). Estonian Journal of Earth Sciences, 65(2), 98–104.Google Scholar
  4. Balashov, Z. G. (1960). New Ordovician nautiloids of the USSR. New species of ancient plants and invertebrates of the USSR, 2, 123–136. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  5. Balashov, Z. G. (1962a). Order Tarphyceratida. In V. E. Ruzhentsev (Ed.), Fundamentals of Paleontology (Osnovy Paleontologii) V. Mollusca-Cephalopoda I (pp. 99–106). Moscow: Akademii Nauk. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  6. Balashov, Z. G. (1962b). Order Intejoceratida. In V. E. Ruzhentsev (Ed.), Fundamentals of Paleontology (Osnovy Paleontologii) V. Mollusca-Cephalopoda I (pp. 315–316). Moscow: Akademii Nauk. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  7. Barskov, I. S., Leonova, T. B., & Shilovsky, O. P. (2014). Middle Permian Cephalopods of the Volga-Ural Region. Paleontological Journal, 48(13), 1339–1422.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, J. Y., & Teichert, C. (1983). Cambrian Cephalopoda of China. Palaeontographica Abteilung A, 181(1–2), 1–102.Google Scholar
  9. Chen, J. Y., Tsou, S. P., Chen, T. E., & Qi, D. L. (1979). Late Cambrian cephalopods of North China. Plectronocerida, Protactinocerida (ord. nov.) and Yanhecerida (ord. nov.). Acta Palaeontologica Sinica, 18(1), 1–24. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  10. Crick, R. E. (1988). Buoyancy regulation and macroevolution in nautiloid cephalopods. Senckenbergiana Lethaea, 69(1/2), 13–42.Google Scholar
  11. De Blainville, H. M. D. (1825). Manuel de malacologie et de conchyliologie (1825–1827) (p. viii + 664). Paris: F. G. Levrault.Google Scholar
  12. Doguzhaeva, L. A. (1995). An Early Cretaceous orthocerid cephalopod from north-western Caucasus. Palaeontology, 37(4), 889–899.Google Scholar
  13. Doguzhaeva, L., & Mapes, R. H. (2015). The body chamber length variations and muscle and mantle attachments in ammonoids. In C. Klug, et al. (Eds.), Ammonoid paleobiology: From anatomy to ecology, Topics in Geobiology (Vol. 43, pp. 545–584). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Doguzhaeva, L. A., Mutvei, H., & Mapes, R. H. (1999). Early ontogeny of the siphuncle and shell in the early Carboniferous Rayonnoceras (Actinocerida) from Arkansas, USA. In F. Olóriz & F. J. Rodriguez-Tovar (Eds.), Advancing research on living and fossil cephalopods (pp. 255–261, xvi + 550). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Dzik, J. (1984). Phylogeny of the Nautiloidea. Palaeontologia Polonica, 45, 1–219.Google Scholar
  16. Dzik, J., & Kiselev, G. N. (1995). The Baltic nautiloids Cyrtoceras ellipticum Lossen 1860, C. priscum Eichwald 1861, and Orthoceras damesi Krause 1877. Paläontogische Zeitschrift, 69(1/2), 61–71.Google Scholar
  17. Dzik, J., & Korn, D. (1992). Devonian ancestors of Nautilus. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 66(1–2), 81–98.Google Scholar
  18. Engeser, T. (1996). The Position of the Ammonoidea within the Cephalopoda. In N. H. Landman, K. Tanabe, & R. A. Davis (Eds.), Ammonoid Paleobiology (pp. 3–19). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  19. Evans, D. H. (1988). Cephalopods from the Ordovician of England and Wales, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis (pp. 1–445). Wales: University of Wales.Google Scholar
  20. Evans, D. H. (1992). Phragmocone implosion in Ordovician nautiloids and the function of siphonal diaphragms and endocones. Palaeontology, 35(3), 585–595.Google Scholar
  21. Evans, D. H. (2005). The Lower and Middle Ordovician cephalopod faunas of England and Wales (pp. 1–81). London: Monograph of the Palaeontographical Society.Google Scholar
  22. Evans, D. H., & King, A. H. (1990). The affinities of early oncocerid nautiloids from the Lower Ordovician of Spitsbergen and Sweden. Palaeontology, 33, 623–630.Google Scholar
  23. Evans, D. H., & King, A. H. (2012). Resolving polyphyly within the Endocerida: The Bisonocerida nov., a new order of Early Palaeozoic nautiloids. Geobios, 45(1), 19–28.Google Scholar
  24. Fischer, A. G., & Teichert, C. (1969). Cameral deposits in cephalopod shells. The University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, 37, 1–37.Google Scholar
  25. Flower, R. H. (1940). The apical end of Actinoceras. Journal of Paleontology, 15, 436–442.Google Scholar
  26. Flower, R. H. (1941). Development of the Mixochoanites. Journal of Paleontology, 15, 523–548.Google Scholar
  27. Flower, R. H. (1943). Apsidoceras in the Trenton of Montreal. Journal of Paleontology, 17, 258–263.Google Scholar
  28. Flower, R. H. (1949). New genera of Devonian nautiloids. Journal of Paleontology, 23, 74–80.Google Scholar
  29. Flower, R. H. (1952). New Ordovician cephalopods from eastern North America. Journal of Paleontology, 26, 24–39.Google Scholar
  30. Flower, R. H. (1955). Status of endoceroid classification. Journal of Paleontology, 29, 329–337.Google Scholar
  31. Flower, R. H. (1957). Annotated bibliography of paleoecology of nautiloids of the Paleozoic. Geological Society of America Memoir, 67, 829–852.Google Scholar
  32. Flower, R. H. (1962). Revision of Buttsoceras. New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Memoir, 10, 1–17, pls 1–6.Google Scholar
  33. Flower, R. H. (1963). New Ordovician Ascoceratida. Journal of Paleontology, 37, 69–85.Google Scholar
  34. Flower, R. H. (1964a). The nautiloid Order Ellesmerocerida (Cephalopoda). New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Memoir, 12, 1–164, pls. 1–32.Google Scholar
  35. Flower, R. H. (1964b). Nautiloid shell morphology. New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Memoir, 13, 1–78.Google Scholar
  36. Flower, R. H. (1976). Ordovician cephalopod faunas and their role in correlation. In M. G. Bassett (Ed.), The Ordovician System: Proceedings of a Palaeontological Association symposium, Birmingham, September 1974 (pp. 523–552). Cardiff: University of Wales Press and National Museum of Wales.Google Scholar
  37. Flower, R. H. (1984). Bodeiceras, a new Mohawkian oxycone, with revision of the order Barrandeoceratida and discussion of the status of the order. Journal of Paleontology, 58(6), 1372–1379.Google Scholar
  38. Flower, R. H., & Caster, K. E. (1935). The stratigraphy and paleontology of northwestern Pennsylvania, Part II: Paleontology, Section A: The cephalopod fauna of the Conewango Series of the Upper Devonian in New York and Pennsylvania. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 22(75), 1–57.Google Scholar
  39. Flower, R. H., & Kummel, B. (1950). A classification of the Nautiloidea. Journal of Paleontology, 24, 604–616.Google Scholar
  40. Flower, R. H., & Teichert, C. (1957). The Cephalopod Order Discosorida. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions. Mollusca, Article 6, 1–144, pl. 1–43.Google Scholar
  41. Foerste, A. F. (1928). Cephalopoda. In W. H. Twenhofel (Ed.), The geology of Anticosti Island. Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir (Vol. 154, pp. 257–321, pl. 27–53). Ottawa: Geological Survey of Canada.Google Scholar
  42. Foerste, A. F. (1935). Bighorn and related cephalopods. Denison University Bulletin, Journal of the Science Laboratory, 30(1–96), 1–22.Google Scholar
  43. Foord, A. H., & Crick, G. C. (1889). On the muscular impressions of Coelonautilus cariniferus, J. de C. Sowerby, sp., compared with those of the Recent Nautilus. Geological Magazine, 6, 494–497.Google Scholar
  44. Frey, R. C. (1995). Middle and Upper Ordovician Nautiloid Cephalopods of the Cincinnati Arch Region of Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 1066-P, iv + 126. 22 plates.Google Scholar
  45. Furnish, W. M., & Glenister, B. F. (1964a). Nautiloidea-Ellesmerocerida. In R. C. Moore (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part K, Mollusca 3, Cephalopoda (pp. K129–K159). Kansas: Geological Society of America and The University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  46. Furnish, W. M., & Glenister, B. F. (1964b). Nautiloidea-Tarphycerida. In R. C. Moore (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part K, Mollusca 3, Cephalopoda (pp. K343–K368). Kansas: Geological Society of America and The University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  47. Furnish, W. M., Glenister, B. F., & Hansman, R. H. (1962). Brachycycloceratidae, novum, deciduous Pennsylvanian Nautiloids. Journal of Paleontology, 36, 1341–1356.Google Scholar
  48. Holland, C. H. (1999). The nautiloid cephalopod order Ascocerida in the British Silurian. Palaeontology, 42(4), 683–689.Google Scholar
  49. Holm, G. (1898). Om ett par Bactrites-liknande Undersiluriska Orthocer-former. Palaeontologiska notiser 179, Sveriges Geologiska Undersökning, serie C, pp. 354–366.Google Scholar
  50. Hook, S. C., & Flower, R. H. (1977). Late Canadian (Zones J, K) cephalopod faunas from southwestern United States. New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Memoir, 32, 1–102.Google Scholar
  51. ICZN. (1999). International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Fourth Edition. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, London. Articles 1–90. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/. Accessed 06 Feb 2019
  52. Kennedy, W. J., Cobban, W. A., & Klinger, H. C. (2002). Muscle attachment and mantle related features in Upper Cretaceous Baculites from the United States Western interior. In H. Summesberger, K. Histon, & A. Daurer (Eds.), Cephalopods—Present and past (Vol. 57, pp. 89–112). Wein: Abhandlungen der Geologischen Bundesanstalt.Google Scholar
  53. King, A. H. (1998). A review of the cyclostomiceratid nautiloids, including new taxa from the Lower Ordovician of Öland, Sweden. Palaeontology, 41, 335–347.Google Scholar
  54. King, A. H. (1999). A review of Volkhovian and Kundan (Arenig-Llanvirn) nautiloids from Sweden. In F. Olóriz & F. J. Rodríguez-Tovar (Eds.), Advancing research on living and fossil cephalopods. xvi + 550 pp (pp. 137–159). New York: Kluwer Academic-Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  55. King, A. H. (2014). Taxonomic review of early Darriwilian estonioceratids (Tarphycerida, Nautiloidea) from Sweden, Estonia, and the ‘Diluvium-Geschiebe’ of northern Germany and Poland. In B. Berning & A. Lukender (Eds.), Studies on fossil and recent Cephalopods (Vol. 32, pp. 47–57). Linz. Denisia: HRSG Biologiecentrum des Oberösterreichischen Landesmuseum.Google Scholar
  56. Klug, C., Kröger, B., Vinther, J., Fuchs, D., & De Baets, K. (2015). Ancestry, Origin and Early Evolution of Ammonoids. In C. Klug, D. Korn, K. De Baets, I. Kruta, & R. H. Mapes (Eds.), Ammonoid Paleobiology: From macroevolution to paleogeography (pp. 4–24). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  57. Kobayashi, T. (1934). The Cambro-Ordovician formations and faunas of South Chosen. Palaeontology. Part. I, Middle Ordovician faunas. Journal of the Faculty of Science, Imperial University of Tokyo, section 2, 3(8), 329–519, pls. 1–44.Google Scholar
  58. Kobayashi, T. (1935). Restudy on Manchuroceras with a brief note on the classification of Endoceroids. Journal of the Geological Society of Japan, 42(506), 436–452.Google Scholar
  59. Kröger, B. (2003). The size of the siphuncle in cephalopod evolution. Senckenbergiana Lethaea, 83(1/2), 39–52.Google Scholar
  60. Kröger, B. (2006). Early growth-stages and classification of orthoceridan cephalopods of the Darriwillian (Middle Ordovician) of Baltoscandia. Lethaia, 39, 129–139.Google Scholar
  61. Kröger, B. (2007). Some lesser known features of the ancient Cephalopod order Ellesmerocerida (Nautiloidea, Cephalopoda). Palaeontology, 50(3), 565–572.Google Scholar
  62. Kröger, B. (2008). A new genus of middle Tremadocian orthoceratoids and the Early Ordovician origin of orthoceratoid cephalopods. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 53(4), 745–749.Google Scholar
  63. Kröger, B. (2012). The “Vaginaten”: The dominant cephalopods of the Baltoscandian Mid Ordovician endocerid limestone. GFF, 134(2), 115–132.Google Scholar
  64. Kröger, B. (2013). The cephalopods of the Boda Limestone, Late Ordovician, of Dalarna, Sweden. European Journal of Taxonomy, 41, 1–110.Google Scholar
  65. Kröger, B., & Evans, D. H. (2011). Review and palaeoecological analysis of the late Tremadocian-early Floian (Early Ordovician) cephalopod fauna of the Montagne Noire, France. Fossil Record, 14, 5–34.Google Scholar
  66. Kröger, B., Klug, C., & Mapes, R. (2005). Soft − tissue attachments in orthocerid and bactritid cephalopods from the Early and Middle Devonian of Germany and Morocco. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 50(2), 329–342.Google Scholar
  67. Kröger, B., & Landing, E. (2008). Onset of the Ordovician cephalopod radiation—Evidence from the Rochdale Formation (middle Early Ordovician, Stairsian) in eastern New York. Geological Magazine, 145(4), 1–31.Google Scholar
  68. Kröger, B., & Landing, E. (2009). Cephalopods and paleoenvironments of the Fort Cassin Formation (upper Lower Ordovician), eastern New York and adjacent Vermont. Journal of Paleontology, 83(5), 664–693.Google Scholar
  69. Kröger, B., & Mapes, R. H. (2004). Lower Carboniferous (Chesterian) embryonic orthoceratid nautiloids. Journal of Paleontology, 78(3), 560–573.Google Scholar
  70. Kröger, B., & Mapes, R. H. (2007). Carboniferous actinoceratoid nautiloidea (Cephalopoda)—A new perspective. Journal of Paleontology, 81(4), 714–724.Google Scholar
  71. Kröger, B., & Mutvei, H. (2005). Nautiloids with multiple paired muscle scars from Lower-Middle Ordovician of Baltoscandia. Palaeontology, 48(4), 781–791.Google Scholar
  72. Kröger, B., Vinther, J., & Fuchs, D. (2011). Cephalopod origin and evolution: A congruent picture emerging from fossils, development and molecules. BioEssays, 33(8), 602–613.Google Scholar
  73. Kuhn, O. (1940). Paläozoologie in Tabellen (pp. 1–50). Jena: G. Fischer.Google Scholar
  74. Kuhn, O. (1949). Lehrbuch der Paläozoologie (pp. 1–326). Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart.Google Scholar
  75. Kulicki, C., Tanabe, K., & Landman, N. H. (2007). Primary structure of the connecting ring of ammonoids and its preservation. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 52(4), 823–827.Google Scholar
  76. Kummel, B. (1964). Nautiloidea—Nautilida. In R. C. Moore (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part K, Mollusca 3, Cephalopoda (pp. K383–K457). Kansas: Geological Society of America and The University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  77. Laptikhovsky, V., Nikolaeva, S., & Rogov, M. (2018). Cephalopod embryonic shells as a tool to reconstruct reproductive strategies in extinct taxa. Biological Reviews, 93, 270–283.Google Scholar
  78. Laptikhovsky, V., Rogov, M., Nikolaeva, S. E., & Arkhipkin, A. I. (2013). Environmental impact on ectocochleate cephalopod reproductive strategies and the evolutionary significance of cephalopod egg size. Bulletin of Geosciences, 88(1), 83–93.Google Scholar
  79. M’Coy, F. (1844). A synopsis of the characters of the Carboniferous Limestone fossils of Ireland (pp. 1–274). Dublin: Dublin University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Manda, Š. (2001). Some new or little known cephalopods from the Lower Devonian Pragian carbonate shelf (Prague Basin, Bohemia) with remarks on Lochkovian and Pragian cephalopod evolution. Journal of the Czech Geological Society, 46(3–4), 269–286.Google Scholar
  81. Manda, Š. (2008). Palaeoecology and palaeogeographic relations of the Silurian phragmoceratids (Nautiloidea, Cephalopoda) of the Prague Basin (Bohemia). Bulletin of Geosciences, 83(1), 39–62.Google Scholar
  82. Manda, Š., & Frýda, J. (2010). Silurian-Devonian boundary events and their influence on cephalopod evolution: Evolutionary significance of cephalopod egg size during mass extinctions. Bulletin of Geosciences, 85(3), 513–540.Google Scholar
  83. Manda, Š., & Turek, V. (2009). Revision of the Pragian Rutoceratoidea Hyatt, 1884 (Nautiloidea, Oncocerida) from the Prague Basin. Bulletin of Geosciences, 84(1), 127–148.Google Scholar
  84. Manda, Š., & Turek, V. (2011). Late Emsian Rutoceratoidea (Nautiloidea) from the Prague Basin, Czech Republic: Morphology, diversity and palaeoecology. Palaeontology, 54(5), 999–1024.Google Scholar
  85. Manda, Š., & Turek, V. (2018). Silurian tarphycerid Discoceras (Cephalopoda, Nautiloidea): Systematics, embryonic development and paleoecology. Journal of Paleontology, 92(3), 412–431.Google Scholar
  86. Mapes, R. H., & Nützel, A. (2009). Late Palaeozoic mollusc reproduction: Cephalopod egg-laying behavior and gastropod larval palaeobiology. Lethaia, 42, 341–356.Google Scholar
  87. Marek, J. (1998). Pallioceratida ordo n.—A new order of the Palaeozoic cephalopods (Mollusca Cephalopda). Bulletin of the Czech Geological Survey, 73(2), 181–182.Google Scholar
  88. Miller, A. K., Youngquist, W. L., & Collinson, C. W. (1954). Ordovician cephalopod fauna of Baffin Island. Geological Society of America Memoir, 62, 234, 63 pl.Google Scholar
  89. Mironencko, A. A. (2015). The soft-tissue attachment scars in Late Jurassic ammonites from Central Russia. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 60(4), 981–1000.Google Scholar
  90. Murchison, R. I. (1839). The Silurian System founded on geological researches in the counties of Salop, Hereford, Radnor, Montgomery, Caermarthen, Brecon, Pembroke, Monmouth, Gloucester, Worcester, and Stafford: With descriptions of the coalfields and overlying formations. London: John Murray, i-xxxii + 768 pp.Google Scholar
  91. Mutvei, H. (1957). On the relations of the principal muscles to the shell in Nautilus and some fossil nautiloids. Arkiv för Mineralogi och Geologi, 2, 219–254.Google Scholar
  92. Mutvei, H. (1964a). Remarks on the anatomy of Recent and fossil cephalopoda. Stockholm Contributions to Geology, 11, 79–102.Google Scholar
  93. Mutvei, H. (1964b). On the secondary internal calcareous lining of the wall of the siphonal tube in certain fossil ‘‘nautiloid’’ cephalopods. Arkiv För Zoologi, 16, 375–423.Google Scholar
  94. Mutvei, H. (1996). Characterization of actinoceratoid cephalopods by their siphuncular structure. Lethaia, 29, 339–348.Google Scholar
  95. Mutvei, H. (1998). Siphuncular structure in a Silurian narthecoceratid nautiloid cephalopod from the Island of Gotland. GFF, 120, 375–378.Google Scholar
  96. Mutvei, H. (2002a). Nautiloid Systematics based on Siphuncular Structure and Position of Muscle Scars. In H. Summesberger, K. Histon, and A. Daurer (Eds.) CephalopodsPresent and past. Abhandlungen der Geologischen Bundesanstalt A, 57, 379–392.Google Scholar
  97. Mutvei, H. (2002b). Connecting ring structure and its significance for classification of the orthoceratid cephalopods. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 47(1), 157–168.Google Scholar
  98. Mutvei, H. (2013). Characterization of nautiloid orders Ellesmerocerida, Oncocerida, Tarphycerida, Discosorida and Ascocerida: New superorder Multiceratoidea. GFF, 135(2), 171–183.Google Scholar
  99. Mutvei, H. (2015). Characterization of two new superorders Nautilosiphonata and Calciosiphonata and a new order Cyrtocerinida of the Subclass Nautiloidea; siphuncular structure in the Ordovician nautiloid Bathmoceras (Cephalopoda). GFF, 137(3), 164–174.Google Scholar
  100. Mutvei, H. (2016). Siphuncular structures in Calciosiphonate nautiloid orders Actinocerida, Orthocerida and Barrandeocerida (Cephalopoda). GFF, 138(2), 1–11.Google Scholar
  101. Mutvei, H. (2017). The new order Mixosiphonata (Cephalopoda: Nautiloidea) and related taxa; estimates of habitat depth based on shell structure. GFF, 139(3), 219–232.Google Scholar
  102. Mutvei, H. (2018). Cameral deposits in Paleozoic cephalopods. GFF, 140(3), 254–263.Google Scholar
  103. Mutvei, H., & Dunca, E. (2007). Connecting ring ultrastructure in the Jurassic ammonoid Quenstedtoceras with discussion on mode of life of ammonoids. In N. H. Landman, R. Arnold Davis, & R. H. Mapes (Eds.), cephalopods present and past: New insights and fresh perspectives (pp. 239–256). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  104. Mutvei, H., & Dunca, E. (2011). Siphuncular Structure in the Orders Tarphycerida and Barrandeocerida (Cephalopoda: Nautiloidea). Palaeontology, 54(3), 705–710.Google Scholar
  105. Mutvei, H., & Stumbur, H. (1971). Remarks on the Genus Pictetoceras (Cephalopoda: Ellesmerocerida). Bulletin of the Geological Institutions of the University of Uppsala, New series, 2(13), 117–122.Google Scholar
  106. Mutvei, H., Zhang, Y. B., & Dunca, E. (2007). Late Cambrian plectronocerid nautiloids and their role in cephalopod Evolution. Palaeontology, 50(6), 1327–1333.Google Scholar
  107. Myagkova, E. I. (1967). Silurian nautiloids of the Siberian platform (pp. 1–49). Moscow: Nauka. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  108. Niko, S (2010). Redescription and new information on the Carboniferous cephalopod Brachycycloceras normale Miller, Dunbar and Condra, 1933. Palaeontological Research, 13, 337–343.Google Scholar
  109. Niko, S., & Mapes, R. (2011). Texanoceras, a new neptunoceratid cephalopod genus from the upper Pennsylvanian Graham and Caddo Creek Formations in north-central Texas. Journal of Paleontology, 85, 519–523.Google Scholar
  110. Phillips, D. (1985). The nautiloid Brachycycloceras in the Upper Carboniferous of Britain. Palaeontology, 28(2), 235–242.Google Scholar
  111. Pohle, A., & Klug, C. (2018). Early and Middle Devonian cephalopods from Hamar Laghdad (Tafilalt, Morocco) and remarks on epicoles and cameral deposits. Neues Jahrbuch fur Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, 290, 203–240.Google Scholar
  112. Ponder, W., & Lindberg, D. R. (2019). Phylogeny and evolution of the Mollusca (revised). 2 volumes. Berkeley: University of California Press. (in press)Google Scholar
  113. Ristedt, H. (1968). Zur revision der Orthoceratidae. Abhandlungen der Mathematisch—Naturwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jahrgang, 1968(4), 213–287.Google Scholar
  114. Ruzhentsev, V. E., Balashov, Z. G., Shimanskiy, V. N., & Zhuravleva, F. A. (1962). Mollusca-Cephalopoda I. In V. E. Ruzhentsev (Ed.), Fundamentals of Paleontology (Osnovy Paleontologii) (Vol. V). Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, vii + 352.Google Scholar
  115. Schröder, H. (1882). Beiträge zur Kenntniss der in ost- und westpreussischen Diluvialgeschieben gefundenen Silurcephalopoden (Fortsetzung). Schriften der physikalisch-ökonomischen Gesellschaft zu Königsberg i. Pr, 22, 54–96. (in German).Google Scholar
  116. Shevyrev, A. A. (2006). The cephalopod macrosystem: A historical review, the present state of knowledge, and unsolved problems: 2. Classification of nautiloid cephalopods. Paleontological Journal, 40(1), 46–54.Google Scholar
  117. Shimanskiy, V. N. (1957). Systematics and phylogeny of the order Nautilida. Bulletin Moscow Institute for Nature and Geology, 32(4), 105–120. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  118. Shimanskiy, V. N. (1967). Kamennougolniye Nautilida (Carboniferous Nautilida). Akademiia Nauk SSSR, Trudy Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, 115, 1–258. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  119. Starobogatov, Y. I. (1983). The system of Cephalopod Mollusks. Systematics and Ecology of Cephalopod Mollusks. Collection of Scientific Papers (pp. 4–7). St. Petersburg: Zoological Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  120. Strand, T. (1934). The Upper Ordovician cephalopds of the Oslo Area. Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift, 14, 1–117.Google Scholar
  121. Stridsberg, S. (1985). Silurian oncocerid cephalopods from Gotland. Fossils and Strata, 18, 1–65.Google Scholar
  122. Sweet, W. C. (1958). The Middle Ordovician of the Oslo Region, Norway. 10. Nautiloid cephalopods. Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift, 38, 1–176.Google Scholar
  123. Sweet, W. C. (1959). Muscle attachment impressions in some Paleozoic nautiloid cephalopods. Journal of Paleontology, 33(2), 293–304.Google Scholar
  124. Sweet, W. C. (1964). Nautiloidea-Orthocerida. In R. C. Moore (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part K, Mollusca 3, Cephalopoda (pp. K216–K261). Kansas: Geological Society of America and The University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  125. Tajika, A., Nützel, A., & Klug, C. (2018). The old and the new plankton: ecological replacement of associations of mollusc plankton and giant filter feeders after the Cretaceous? PeerJ, 6, e4219.  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4219.Google Scholar
  126. Tajika, A., & Wani, R. (2011). Intraspecific variation of hatchling size in Late Cretaceous ammonoids from Hokkaido, Japan: Implication for planktic duration at early ontogenetic stage. Lethaia, 44, 287–298.Google Scholar
  127. Tanabe, K., & Uchiyama, K. (1997). Development of the embryonic shell structure in Nautilus. The Veliger, 40(3), 203–215.Google Scholar
  128. Teichert, C. (1933). Der Bau der actinoceroiden Cephalopoden. Palaeontographica Abteilung A, 78, 111–230.Google Scholar
  129. Teichert, C. (1964). Morphology of hard parts. In R. C. Moore (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part K, Mollusca 3, Cephalopoda (pp. K13–K53). Kansas: Geological Society of America and The University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  130. Teichert, C. (1967). Major features of cephalopod evolution. In C. Teichert & E. L. Yochelson (Eds.), Essays in paleontology and stratigraphy, R. C. Moore commemorative volume. Special Publications of the University of Kansas, Cephalopoda (Vol. 2, pp. 162–210). Kansas: Geological Society of America and The University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  131. Teichert, C. (1969). Nomenclatural note—Names and authorship of some Cephalopod orders. Journal of Paleontology, 43(2), 561–562.Google Scholar
  132. Teichert, C. (1988). Main features of Cephalopod Evolution. In M. R. Clarke & E. R. Trueman (Eds.), The Mollusca—Paleontology and neontology of cephalopods (Vol. 12, pp. 11–80). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  133. Teichert, C., & Glenister, B. F. (1953). Ordovician and Silurian cephalopods from Tasmania. Australia. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 34(144), 1–54, pl. 1–6.Google Scholar
  134. Teichert, C., Kummel, B., Sweet, W. C., Stenzel, H. B., Furnish, W. M., Glenister, B. F., et al. (1964). Mollusca 3, Cephalopoda. In R. C. Moore (Ed.), Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology, Part K. Kansas: Geological Society of America and The University of Kansas Press, xxviii + K519.Google Scholar
  135. Troedsson, G. T. (1926). On the Middle and Upper Ordovician faunas of northern Greenland. I. Cephalopods. Meddelelser om Grønland, 71(1–157), 1–65.Google Scholar
  136. Turek, V. (1975). Genus Kosovoceras gen. n. in the Silurian of Central Bohemia (Nautiloidea). Sborník geologických vĕd, 17, 7–40, pl. 1–5.Google Scholar
  137. Turek, V. (2007). Systematic position and variability of the Devonian nautiloids Hercoceras and Ptenoceras from the Prague Basin (Czech Republic). Bulletin of Geosciences, 82(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  138. Turek, V. (2008). Boionautilus gen. nov. from the Silurian of Europe and North Africa (Nautiloidea, Tarphycerida). Bulletin of Geosciences, 83(2), 141–152.Google Scholar
  139. Turek, V. (2010). Embryonic shells in some lechritrochoceratids (Nautiloidea, Barrandeocerina). In K. Tanabe, Y. Shigeta, T. Sasaki, & H. Hirano (Eds.), Cephalopods—Present and past (pp. 85–92). Tokyo: Tokai University Press.Google Scholar
  140. Turek, V., & Manda, S. (2012). “An endocochleate experiment” in the Silurian straight-shelled cephalopod Sphooceras. Bulletin of Geosciences, 87(4), 767–813.Google Scholar
  141. Turek, V., & Manda, S. (2016). Early ontogeny, anomalous growth, and healed injuries in the Silurian nautiloid Ophioceras Barrande—Implications for hatching and the autecology of the Tarphycerida. Bulletin of Geosciences, 91(2), 331–366.Google Scholar
  142. Turek, V., & Marek, J. (1986). Notes on the phylogeny of the Nautiloidea. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 60(3/4), 245–253.Google Scholar
  143. Ulrich, E. O., Foerste, A. F., & Miller, A. K. (1943). Ozarkian and Canadian cephalopods. Part II: Brevicones. Geological Society of America Special Papers, 49, x + 240.Google Scholar
  144. Ulrich, E. O., Foerste, A. F., Miller, A. K., & Furnish, W. M. (1942). Ozarkian and Canadian cephalopods. Part I: Nautilicones. Geological Society of America Special Papers, 37, x + 157.Google Scholar
  145. Wade, M. (1988). Nautiloids and their descendants: Cephalopod classification in 1986. New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Memoir, 44, 15–25.Google Scholar
  146. Warnke, K. M., Meyer, A., Ebner, B., & Lieb, B. (2011). Assessing divergence time of Spirulida and Sepiida (Cephalopoda) based on hemocyanin sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 58, 390–394.Google Scholar
  147. Westermann, G. E. G. (1977). Form and function of orthoconic cephalopod shells with concave septa. Paleobiology, 3, 300–321.Google Scholar
  148. Wright, C. W., Callomon, J. H., & Howarth, M. K. (1996). Mollusca 4 revised. Volume 4: Cretaceous Ammonoidea. Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology, Part L. Kansas: Geological Society of America and The University of Kansas Press, xx + 362.Google Scholar
  149. Yun, C. S. (2011). Ordovician cephalopods from the Jigunsan Formation, Taebaek-Yeongwol, Korea. Journal of the Paleontological Society of Korea, 27(2), 149–259.Google Scholar
  150. Zhuravleva, F. A. (1964). New Ordovician and Silurian Cephalopoda from the Siberian Platform. Paleontological Journal, 4, 87–100. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  151. Zhuravleva, F. A. (1978). Devonian orthocerodes, Superorder Orthoceratoidea. Trudy Paleontological Institute, Academy of Sciences USSR, 148, 1–223. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  152. Zhuravleva, F. A. (1994). The Order Dissidocerida (Cephalopoda). Paleontological Journal, 28(1A), 115–133.Google Scholar
  153. Zhuravleva, F. A., & Doguzhaeva, L. A. (2004). Astrovioidea: A new superorder of Paleozoic cephalopods. Palaeontological Journal, 38(Suppl 1), S1–S73.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akademie der Naturwissenschaften Schweiz (SCNAT) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geckoella LtdTauntonUK
  2. 2.Natural EnglandBridgwaterUK

Personalised recommendations