Welcome to the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology!
Please enter a genera name to retrieve more information.
Rhabdoglyphus
Classification
Phylum:
Trace Fossils and Problematica
Class:
Trace Fossils
Formal Genus Name and Reference:
Rhabdoglyphus VASSOEVICH, 1951, p. 61
Type Species:
*R. grossheimi, M
Images
(Click to enlarge in a new window)
Fig. 61,3. R. grossheimi, U.Cret., Caucasus, X1 (Vyalov, 1971)
Synonyms
Geographic Distribution
USSR(Azerbaidj.)
Age Range
Beginning Stage in Treatise Usage:
Cret.(Cenoman.)
Beginning International Stage:
Cenomanian
Fraction Up In Beginning Stage:
0
Beginning Date:
100.5
Ending Stage in Treatise Usage:
Cret.(Cenoman.)
Ending International Stage:
Cenomanian
Fraction Up In Ending Stage:
100
Ending Date:
93.9
Description
Cylindrical tubes consisting of short, closely spaced, invaginated "calyces," some with short branches; preserved in convex hyporelief. [Trail of uncertain origin; considered post-depositional by KSl4ZKIEWICZ (1970, p. 315-316). FUCHS (1895, p. 391) described "Rhabdoglyphen" from Austrian flysch deposits, several of his forms similar to paper bags packed one inside anotlIer.] [FOOTNOTE in Treatise entry: This trace fossil has a somewhat confused nomenclatural history. HANTZSCHEL (1965, p. 78) felt that an adequate description of Rhabdoglyphus had not been provided by V" SSOEVICH in either 1951 or 1953. He therefore claimed that the conditions of availability for the name had subsequently been met by BOUCEK & ELIAS (1962, p. 146) nearly a decade later. However, after inspection of a rare copy of VASSOEVICH (1951), kindly lent to us by M. KSIAZKIEWICZ, it was found that an adequate descrip· tion appears in the explanations of Plate V, figure 3 and Plate VI, figures 3 &: 4, both on p. 219. BOUCEK &: ELIAS seem to have only expanded the rlescription of Rhabdo· glyphus VASSOEVICH and complicated matters by figuring specimens much different from the material described by VASSOEVICH originally. This has been pointed out by KSIAZKIEWICZ (1970, p. 286-287). As a resuIt, the figured specimens of BOUCEK &: ELIAS have been mistakenly considered Rhabdog/yphus by HANTZSCHEL (1965, p. 75: 1966, p. 15) and OSGOOD (1970, p. 369). VYALOV (1971, p. 90) finally clarified matters by introducing the new name Fustiglyphus for the material figured by BOOCEK at ELlAS and restricting the name Rhabdoglyphus to the material described by VASSOEVICH (see Fustiglyphus, p. W64). -- CURT TEICHERT, W.G. HAKES.)
References
Museum or Author Information
Classification
Phylum:
Trace Fossils and Problematica
Class:
Trace Fossils
Formal Genus Name and Reference:
Rhabdoglyphus VASSOEVICH, 1951, p. 61
Type Species:
*R. grossheimi, M
Images
(Click to enlarge in a new window)
Fig. 61,3. R. grossheimi, U.Cret., Caucasus, X1 (Vyalov, 1971)
Synonyms
Geographic Distribution
USSR(Azerbaidj.)
Age Range
Beginning Stage in Treatise Usage:
Cret.(Cenoman.)
Beginning International Stage:
Cenomanian
Fraction Up In Beginning Stage:
0
Beginning Date:
100.5
Ending Stage in Treatise Usage:
Cret.(Cenoman.)
Ending International Stage:
Cenomanian
Fraction Up In Ending Stage:
100
Ending Date:
93.9
Description
Cylindrical tubes consisting of short, closely spaced, invaginated "calyces," some with short branches; preserved in convex hyporelief. [Trail of uncertain origin; considered post-depositional by KSl4ZKIEWICZ (1970, p. 315-316). FUCHS (1895, p. 391) described "Rhabdoglyphen" from Austrian flysch deposits, several of his forms similar to paper bags packed one inside anotlIer.] [FOOTNOTE in Treatise entry: This trace fossil has a somewhat confused nomenclatural history. HANTZSCHEL (1965, p. 78) felt that an adequate description of Rhabdoglyphus had not been provided by V" SSOEVICH in either 1951 or 1953. He therefore claimed that the conditions of availability for the name had subsequently been met by BOUCEK & ELIAS (1962, p. 146) nearly a decade later. However, after inspection of a rare copy of VASSOEVICH (1951), kindly lent to us by M. KSIAZKIEWICZ, it was found that an adequate descrip· tion appears in the explanations of Plate V, figure 3 and Plate VI, figures 3 &: 4, both on p. 219. BOUCEK &: ELIAS seem to have only expanded the rlescription of Rhabdo· glyphus VASSOEVICH and complicated matters by figuring specimens much different from the material described by VASSOEVICH originally. This has been pointed out by KSIAZKIEWICZ (1970, p. 286-287). As a resuIt, the figured specimens of BOUCEK &: ELIAS have been mistakenly considered Rhabdog/yphus by HANTZSCHEL (1965, p. 75: 1966, p. 15) and OSGOOD (1970, p. 369). VYALOV (1971, p. 90) finally clarified matters by introducing the new name Fustiglyphus for the material figured by BOOCEK at ELlAS and restricting the name Rhabdoglyphus to the material described by VASSOEVICH (see Fustiglyphus, p. W64). -- CURT TEICHERT, W.G. HAKES.)