Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Recurso digital |
| Lenguaje: | |
| Publicado: |
Zenodo
2024
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14703325 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
Tabla de Contenidos:
- <p><b><i>Cryptoplax pritchardi</i> Hall, 1905</b></p><p><i>Cryptoplax pritchardi</i> Hall, 1905: 391, pl. 30, figs 1–6.— Ashby, 1925: 183, pl. 18, figs 11, 12, pl. 19, figs 13–16; Ashby and Cotton, 1939: 217, pl. 19, fig. 19; Cotton and Godfrey, 1940: Fig. 581; Cotton, 1964: Fig. 131.</p><p><i>Cryptoplax gatliffi</i> Hall, 1905: 392, pl. 30 figs 7–9.— Ashby, 1925: 184, pl. 18, figs 10a, b.</p><p><i>Distribution</i>. Otway Basin: Grange Burn Formation (type). <i>Age</i>: early Pliocene.</p><p><i>Remarks</i>. Ashby and Cotton (1939) concluded that <i>C. gatliffi</i> was a synonym of <i>C. pritchardi</i> because all the sculpture had been worn off and that the lobe-shaped plate said to be present in the former and absent in the latter was in fact present in all valves. The type specimen of <i>C. gatliffi</i> was said to be Clifton Bank on Muddy Creek, thus from the Miocene Muddy Creek Formation, whereas the type specimen of <i>C. pritchardi</i> was from McDonalds Bank on Muddy Creek, thus from the Pliocene Grange Burn Formation further upstream, so the specimen could have been washed downstream. No other specimens seem to have been found in the Muddy Creek Formation, so Ashby and Cotton’s opinion on the synonymy is accepted pending further specimens from the Muddy Creek Formation being found in situ.</p>