HATING Being Led to Study the Shells of the Recent Species of the Family
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
148 ON THE GEXERA OF VENERID.E REPRESENTED IN TIIE CRETACEOUS AND OLDER TERTIARY DEPOSITS. By A. J. JUKES-BROWNE, B.A., F.G.S. Head 12th June, 1908. PLATE VI. I. INTRODUCTORY KKMAKKS. HATING being led to study the shells of the recent species of the family Veneridoe, with the view of revising the many generic and subgeneric groups which have been proposed by various writers, and of constructing more satisfactory definitions of them than exist in any current textbooks, I found that it was necessary to include the fossil representatives of the family within the scope of my review. The family doubtless originated during the course of Jurassic time, but it is doubtful whether any representatives of it exist among the Jurassic faunas of England or of Iforthern France. Several genera, however, make their appearance in the Lower Cretaceous rocks of both countries, and a still greater variety of forms is found in the Eocene series. It would be interesting to ascertain whether the Yenerida) developed from one centre, or along two different lines of descent; the possibility of the latter mode of origin being suggested by the great difference which is observable among the Cretaceous representatives. Dosiniopsis, for instance, by its possession of posterior lateral teeth is unquestionably a link between Cyprina and Dosinia, while the Tapcsine genus liaroda, by its elongate shape and by the simplicity of its hinge-teeth, seems to have had a very different origin. "With regard to the later Tertiary species (of Pliocene and Pleisto- cene age), most of them can bo referred without difficulty to recent genera, but some of the Eocene and Cretaceous species exhibit differences which make it necessary to regard them as distinct genera or sub- genera, while at the same time they illustrate the lines along which the recent genera have developed. In this paper I shall concern myself with those species of Cretaceous, Eocene, and Oligocene age which occur within the limits of the Anglo- Parisian region, i.e. in the South of England and the North of France. In our own country palaeontologists have hitherto been content to catalogue the British species under the names of Venus and Cytherea (or Meretrix), and up to about 1885 French palaeontologists were content with the same generic nomenclature, except that Deshayes had described two species of Tapes, several supposed Venerupis, and a shell to which he gave the generic name of Psathura. In 1886, however, the Veneridte of the Parisian Eocene were the subject of careful study and description by JI. Maurice Cossmann, who recognized eleven different genera, of which number three were new, and he also divided his genus Cytherea into five sections or subgenera, and his Venus into three.1 1 Ann. Soc. Roy. 3Ial. Iielg., torn, xxi, p. 104. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mollus/article-abstract/8/3/148/1010827 by Insead user on 07 July 2018 JUKES-BllOWNE : CltETACEOtJS AND EOCENE YENEMDJE. 149 Still more recently Dr. W. H. Dall has investigated the American recent and Tertiary species, and has published a synopsis of the family Veneridce,1 in which ho has redeseribed and defined all the recent and fossil genera. This synopsis is unquestionably the most complete account of the family which has yet been published, and gives now information about some of the generic groups; but it has special reference to American species, and is not an entirely reliable guide with regard to European fossils. lie also makes many altera- tions in the nomenclature, some of which have not gained acceptance in this country. By British conchologists the Veneridai have certainly been much neglected, for no one has published any adequate account of the recent genera since the appearance of Messrs. Adams' "Genera of Kecent Mollusca" in 1858, nor has any critical revision of the fossil repre- sentatives been attempted. My attention was called to the need of such revision by Mr. II. "Woods, who, knowing of my interest in the Yeneridco, sent me some of the specimens which he then had under examination for description in his " Monograph of the Cretaceous Lamellibranchia." I then, for the first time, realized the peculiar characters of certain Cretaceous species, and perceived how greatly most of them differed from any recent shells. Subsequently it becamo evident that it would bo very desirable to compare the Cretaceous and Eocene species, and I put myself in communication with M. Cossmann, who was kind enough to send me specimens from the Parisian Eocene to illustrate the subgeneric groups which ho had proposed in 1886. By kind permission of Dr. Teall I have had the advantage of studying the excellent scries of Eocene and Oligocene Venerida? in the possession of the Geological Survey at the Museum of Practical Geology; through the kindness of Mr. H. Woods I have also been able to examine the fine specimens in the Sedgwick Museum at Cambridge, and I have to thank Mr. "Woods for other assistance and for advice given during correspondence on the subject. The following is a list of the genera and subgenera which have been recognized as occurring in the Cretaceous and Eocene deposits, or have been proposed for species found therein, including some which are now indicated for the first time:— Dosiniopsis, Conrad. dementia, Gray. Callisla, llorch. Cyprimeria, Conrad. Chionella, Cossmann. Cyclorisma, Dall. Aphrodiiia, Conrad. Tsathura, Deshayes. Hollfusia, Cossmann. Vencrella, Cossmann. Titelina, Cossmann. Mcreimonia, Dall. Tilaria, Roemer. Chiotie, Mcgerle. Atopodonta, Cossmann. Textivenus, Cossmann. Circe, Schumacher. Vencritapcs, Cossmann. Gouldia, Adams. Tapes, Koemer. Simetta, Lint. Baroda, Stoliczka. (?) Plychomya, Agassiz. 1 Proc. U.S. Jfat. Mus., vol. xxvi (1902), pp. 335-412; sec also Trans. Wagner Free Inst. Sc, vol. iii, pt. 6 (1903), "Tertiary Fauna of Florida." Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mollus/article-abstract/8/3/148/1010827 by Insead user on 07 July 2018 150 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3IALAC0L0GICAL SOCIETY. I propose to give some account of all these genera, and to mention the species which have been or can be referred to them. I have not, however, been able to see the Edwards Collection in the British Museum, and cannot therefore include all the species which were named by Edwards, but many of which have never yet been described. Again, there are many fossil shells which were called Venus or Cytherea by the older writers, but which are now known to belong to other genera; consequently it will bo useful in the first placo to give a list of the species which have thus been eliminated from the Ycnerida;, and need not bo considered in the present paper. These are the following :— Venus angulata, Fleming (a Cyprina). V. fenestrata, Forbes (a Cardita). V. lineolata, Sow. (a Cyprina). V. Kysli, Br. & Cora. (an£riphyla). V. lucina, Br. & Corn, (an Eriphyla). V. striato-costata, Forbes (an Astarte). V. suimersa, Sow. (type lost, possibly a Cyprina). V. tenera. Sow. (a Zucina). V. truncate!, Sow. (a Cyprina). V. pectenifera, Sow. (an Anisocardia), Cytherea scutcllaria, Lam. (a Cyprina). II. DESCRIPTION OF GENEBA AND SUBGENEEA. 1. DOSINIOPSIS, Conrad. PI. VI, Fig. 1. This genus was founded in 1864,' the typo being a Lower Eocene fossil to which Conrad gave the name of D. Meelci. The original description was very inadequate, the presence of a posterior lateral tooth not being noticed, and only a left valve being figured. He does, however, mention Cytherea lenticular is, Rogers, as a closely allied species from which D. Meehi differs in being "proportionally more elevated and convex." It was not till 1901 that Conrad's type was well figured by Messrs. Clark & Martin,1 who consider it to be merely a variety of the previously described D. lenticularis of Rogers. They adopt the genus Dosiniopsis, but do not give any definition of it; and they regard D. lenticularis as the type, but do not give any fresh description of it, merely quoting that of Itogers. They state that D. lenticularis "is a moderately thin shell with a weak hinge, while the form described by Conrad is a heavy shell with a broad solid hinge. Every possible gradation between the extremes has been observed." From the figures given by Messrs. Clarke & Martin it is seen that the older and thicker shells (D. Meclci) are as tall as they are broad, while the thinner form (D. lenticularis) is broader than it is high. Although no mention of the posterior lateral tooth is made in the text, it is shown very clearly in the figures, and it is of course more conspicuous in the shells which have a thick hinge-plate than in those with a weak one. 1 Troc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Thilad., 1863, p. 212. 2 Maryland Geological Survey: "The Eocene Deposits of Maryland," p. 171, pi. iixv. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mollus/article-abstract/8/3/148/1010827 by Insead user on 07 July 2018 JUKES-BROWNE : CKETACEOUS AND EOCENE VENERID.E. 151 M. Maurice Cossmann had recognized the existence of species of Dosiniopsis in the Lower Eocene of Prance as far back as 1885,1 hut he only gives a translation of Conrad's description of the typo, and then remarks: "The form of the sinus, the crenulation of the nymph, and the (elongate) lateral tooth appear to mo to justify the creation of a genus and consequently the adoption of Conrad's." No mention is made of a posterior lateral tooth. Dr. "W". II. Dall seems to have been the first to recognize the existence of posterior lateral teeth in Dosinio2)sis.2 He gave a complete fresh generic description, and mentions "the distinct posterior right lateral which fits into an excavated socket in the left valve "; then adding: " This is the only genus of the family with a distinctly developed posterior lateral tooth, and if it were not for the number of cardinals and the presence of a pallial sinus it might be referred to Cyprina." Dr.