Dictyonema - Rhabdinopora P. LEGRAND Legrand, P.: Dictyonema - Rhabdinopora. Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift, Vol. 65, pp. 224-226. Oslo 1985. ISSN 0029-196X. Erdtmann's recently proposed classification of the Tremadoc dendroid graptolites and, in particular, the splitting of the genus Dictyonema into benthic (Dictyonema) in planktic (Rhabdinopora) forms are discussed. In view of the Jack of significant details concerning structure, especially in the type species, this distinction seems very premature. P. Legrand, Laboratoires Exploration Groupe TOTAL, 218 a 228, avenue du Haut-Leveque, 33605 Pessac Cedex, France. In a recent paper, Erdtmann (1982) proposed a Rhabdinipora for every taxon of the planktic D. reorganization of the classification of Tremadoc flabelliforme group. dendroid graptolites. According to him, the new classification better fits the assumed phylogeny The genus Dictyonema of various taxa. This interesting paper includes such a large The author (Legrand 1978, 1983) has recently number of taxonomic innovations that it is diffi­ pointed out that the type species of Dictyonema cult here to analyse every one. Also, the pro­ Hall, 1851 is Gorgonia retiformis Hall, 1843 des­ posed phylogeny brings up several points to be ignated by Miller in 1889. This choice is very discussed; for example, the position of Bryograp­ unfortunate, as Ruedemann (1947, p. 184) has tus pattens Matthew, the ancestor of the Dictyon­ already pointed out. In fact, this species is rare ema of the D. flabelliforme group (Rhabdinopor­ and many morphological details are unknown. In inae of Erdtmann) is extremely hypothetical. In particular, the proximal part is lacking in the fact, at the type locality of St. John (New Bruns­ lectotype (cf. Hall, 1852, pl. 40, fig. la, repro­ wick), Matthew (1893, 1895) ascribes this species duced by Ruedemann 1908, pl. 3, fig. l) and is to the Dictyonema Zone. The author has sam­ badly preserved in the syntype figured by Hall pled in detail the lower part of this zone in order 1865 (p. 12, fig. 10). It is therefore possible that to study the Cambrian - Ordovician boundary, Gorgonia retiformis might have been a benthic and has never found this species. It is therefore species attached to the substratum. In fact, this very probable that it belongs to the upper part of type species has never been revised and a careful the Dictyonema Zone. Also, it was described in study of the genus should be gin with this species. association with Dictyonema rusticum (?) by Bul­ (1950) man from the material collected by The genus Rhabdinopora Charles Lapworth in the Cape Rosier Section. Finally, a very similar fauna, perhaps even the This genus was created by Von Eichwald in 1855 same (a revision of the species is necessary), was for the species flabelliformis that he first ascribed quoted as being above the D. flabelliforme fauna to the genus Gorgonia (thinking that it was an in the Algerian Sahara (Legrand 1973). In fact, it alcyonarian), then to the genus Fenestella (think­ seems that some reservation must be made as ing it was a bryozoan). A long history ensued for regards the occurrence of Radiograptus before this species (resumed by Erdtmann 1982), with that of Dictyonema of the D. flabelliforme group the names Phyllograptus (Angelin 1854), Grap­ since at Cape Rosier (Gaspesie), its type locality, topora (Salter 1858), Dictyograptus (Hopkinson the species is associated with Anisograptidae & Lapworth 1875), Damesograptus (Jahn 1892) (Bulman 1950). and Dictyodendron (Westergard 1909) succes­ Whatever the case may be, this note examines sively proposed. The assignment to the genus only the problem arising from the restriction by Dictyonema proposed for the first time by Erdtman of the name Dictyonema for the typical Schmidt (1858), was definitely accepted in 1927 benthic species and the resurrection of the genus through the work of Bulman. NORSK GEOLOGISK TIDSSKRIFT 3 (1985) Dictyonema - Rhabdinopora 225 In contrast to the species retiformis, the spe­ 2. Also, it is questionable whether the ecological eies flabelliforme and similar species, subspecies difference between living in the benthic or in or forms are very well known through the studies the pelagic domain is sufficient to distinguish of Bulman (1927a), even if certain problems have two genera. This criterion would be valid if still not been resolved (Legrand 1974). Details of the difference in habitat were reflected by the proximal part, and of budding have been important morphological differences. Howev­ described, as have different aspects of the organs er, this is not the case, since the identity of the that probably enabled the colon y to fix itself to a shape of thecae in the colonies living with rigid or mobile support, or to float (Bulman their proximal part upward (pelagic) or down­ 1927a; Stormer 1933, 1945; Bulman & Stormer ward (fixed colonies) is one of the great prob­ 1971). The prevailing opinion at the present time lems surrounding the interpretation of grapto­ is that the flabelliforme group is a collection of litic paleobiology and evolution. The solution planktonic species. of this anomaly, which we can call the Dic­ tyonema paradox, has been discussed by Kirk (1969, 1972) and concerns the mobility of Dictyonema- Rhabdinopora graptolites and her interpretation of Dictyon­ ema flabelliforme floating with its sicula The extensive vertical range of Dictyonema (Up­ downward and in the same position as the per Cambrian to Carboniferous) has encouraged fixed species. numerous workers to subdivide the genus. In This plasticity of behaviour sugge�ts a mi­ view of the Jack of clear and accurate morpho­ nor difference between the animals of the two logical features to permit a subdivision, Bul­ environments. Also, to our knowledge, a pro­ man (1927b) distinguished between Cambrian liferation of supposed fixed Dictyonema by (including Tremadoc species), Ordovician and the budding of new rhabdosomes has never Silurian Dictyonema. Now Erdtmann (1982), us­ been observed. This indicates a more or less ing a phylogenetic hypothesis that still requires pelagic phase during the larva! or juvenile confirmation, proposes to restrict the name Dic­ stage. tyonemafor benthic forms and Rhabdinopora for Therefore, should we consider the possibil­ planktic forms. ity of classifying juvenile stages and adult This subdivision appears improbable for the stages in a different genera and in different following reasons: families? l. A good taxonomy must be based on facts, i.e. morphological characters and not on the in­ Conclusion terpretation of these facts which deprives it of all stability. The distinction between the Only the concept of species is natura!. The genus benthic and pelagic Dictyonemais based, with is a more or less artificial human invention; every very few exceptions, on the interpretation of discussion about the genus is therefore relatively morphological details of the proximal part. academic. It is not by creating a new taxonomy For example, is the difference between the that we can further our knowledge of Dictyon­ "fibrous holdfast structures" that would have ema, but rather by patient collecting and the been utilised to fix the benthic species on a detailed study of well preserved specimens. Fur­ soft substrace, and the "bundled nemetic fi­ thermore hetter material of the type species is bres" that the supposed pelagic species exhib­ needed as a first step. it, sufficient to distinguish two genera from different families? Manuscript received July 1984 The author has been fortunate with samples Manuscript revised December 1984 from the Sahara, to be able to compare the appearance of specimens surrounded by ma­ trix with those isolated from the matrix and has shown how much the reality was different References from what was apparent. Thus, extremely l. precise and detailed observations are required Angelin, N. P. 1854: Paleontologica Scandinavica Crustacea formationis transitionis. T. O. Weigel, Lipsiae, 92 pp. before one can evaluate details of the proxi­ Bulman, O. M. B. 1927a: Remarks on the attachment of mal ends and possible holdfasts. Dictyonemaflabelliforme (Eichw.). Geo/. Mag. 66, 492-495. 226 Note NORSK GEOLOGISK TIDSSKRIFT 3 (1985) Bulman, O. M. B. 1927: A monogrpah of British dendroid Legrand, Ph. 1974: Development of rabdosomes with four graptolites. Palaeontogr. Soe. Monogr. Part 1-ll-lll-IV, 97 primary branches in the group Dietyonema flabelliforme PP· (Eichwald). Spee. Pap. Palaeontology 13, 19-34. Bulman, O. M. B. 1950: Graptolites from the Dietyonema Legrand, Ph. 1978: A propos de l'utilisation de la zone a shales of Quebec. Quat. J. Geo/. Soe. London. 106(1), 63- Dietyonemaflabel/iforme (E. Eichwald) pour la definition de 99. la limite Cambrien - Ordovicien. Working group on the Bulman, O. M. B. & Størmer, L. 1971: Buoyancy structures in Cambrian - Ordovician Boundary. 10. rhabdosomes of Dietyonema flabelliforme (Eichwald). Nor. Legrand, Ph. 1983: Gorgonia flabelliformis Eichwald, 1940 Geo/. Tidsskr. 51, 25-31. (Graptolithina) comments on the application for a neo type Eichwald, E. v 1855: Beitrag zur geographischen Verbreitung designation by use of the plenary powers. ZN. (S) 1770. der fossilen Thiere Russlands. Alte Periode. Bull. Soe. Imp. Bull. Zool. Nom. 40, 20-23. Nat. Moseow, 28, 433-466. Matthew, G. F. 1893: Illustrations of the fauna of the St. John Erdtmann, B. D. 1982: A reorganization and proposed phylo­ group. Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada. IV, 95-109. genetic classification of planktic Tremadoc (earl y Ordovi­ Matthew, G. F. 1895: Two new Cambrian graptolites with cian) dendroid graptolites. Nor. Geo/. Tidsskr. 62, 121-144. notes on other species of graptolitidae of that age. Trans. Kirk, N. H. 1%9: Some thoughts on the ecology, mode of life New York Aead. Se. XIV, 262-273. and evolution of the Graptolithina. Proe. Geo/. Soe. I659, Miller, S. A. 1889: North Ameriean Geology and Paleontology. 273-292. Cincinnati. Kirk, N. H. 1972: More thoughts on the automobility of the Ruedemann, R. 1908: Graptolites of New York. Part Il. New graptolites. J. Geo/. Soe. London. 128, 127-139.