Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:41:43.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

V.—Notes on Yunnan Cystidea. III. Sinocystis compared with similar genera

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

Extract

The Diploporita, to which Order Sinocystis clearly belongs, have J been divided into Families according to the greater or less extension of the subvective system over the theca and the modifications thus induced in the arrangement of the thecal plates. All those in which the epithecal food-grooves do not extend beyond the adoral circlet of plates are referred to the Sphæronidæ. The line between the Sphæronidæ and the more advanced Glyptosphæridæ cannot be drawn rigidly, and such a genus as Proteocystis constitutes a natural transition. Sinocystis, however, comes well within this boundary.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1919

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 71 note 1 Fossilien d. Mungo-Kreide”: Geol. v. Kamerun, ii, p. 216, 1904.Google Scholar

page 71 note 2 Lang, W. D., “Calcium Carbonate and Evolution in Polyzoa”: Geol. Mag., Dec. VI, Vol. III, No. 620, pp. 74–5, 02, 1916.Google Scholar

page 74 note 1 Dec. 1879. Journ. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., ii, pp. 104–8.

Jan. 1880. Tom. cit., p. 259.

Dec. 1882. Op. cit., v, p. 223.

1889. N. Amer. Geol. and Pal., pp. 253–5.

1891. Adv. Sheets 17 Rep. Geol. Surv. Indiana, Palæontology, pp. 13–18.

Sept. 1892. Ditto, 18 Rep., pp. 8, 9.

July, 1892. With Faber. Journ. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., xv, p. 87.

Dec. 1894. With W. F. E. Gurley. Bull. Illinois State Mus., v, pp. 5–8.

Dec. 1895. With W. F. E. Gurley. Op. cit., vii, pp. 84–6.

page 75 note 1 Parks, W. A., 1913, Canada Geol. Surv. Guide-book No. 4, p. 132.Google Scholar

page 76 note 1 I do not include Hall's pl. xii, fig. 6, which if correct is almost certainly of a different genus.