| Reference Type | Journal (article/letter/editorial) |
|---|
| Title | Artichthyocrinus, n.g., a Flexible Crinoid from the Carboniferous Limestone of Fife |
|---|
| Journal | Geological Magazine |
|---|
| Authors | Wright, James | Author |
|---|
| Year | 1923 (November) | Volume | 60 |
|---|
| Issue | 11 |
|---|
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) |
|---|
| DOI | doi:10.1017/s0016756800088452 |
|---|
| Generate Citation Formats |
|---|
| Mindat Ref. ID | 280379 | Long-form Identifier | mindat:1:5:280379:5 |
|---|
|
| GUID | 0 |
|---|
| Full Reference | Wright, James (1923) Artichthyocrinus, n.g., a Flexible Crinoid from the Carboniferous Limestone of Fife. Geological Magazine, 60 (11) 481-490 doi:10.1017/s0016756800088452 |
|---|
| Plain Text | Wright, James (1923) Artichthyocrinus, n.g., a Flexible Crinoid from the Carboniferous Limestone of Fife. Geological Magazine, 60 (11) 481-490 doi:10.1017/s0016756800088452 |
|---|
| In | (1923, November) Geological Magazine Vol. 60 (11) Cambridge University Press (CUP) |
|---|
| Abstract/Notes | In the Transactions of the Edinburgh Geological Society (vol. x, 1912, p. 49, pl. v, f. 8) I gave a figure of an Ichthyocrinid which occurred in No. 1 Bed, Invertiel, along with other members of the family, all of which were referred to ? Forbesiocrinus. In the spring of 1913 I had the pleasure of sending my specimens of flexible crinoids to the eminent crinoid authority, Dr. Frank Springer, of the United States Museum, Washington, who was then engaged on a comprehensive study of the group. For some reason or other I did not forward this particular specimen, probably because I did not think it well enough preserved (No. 939, Fig. 3 of present paper). The other Ichthyocrinids from Invertiel were referred by Springer to his new species Amphicrinus scoticus. It so happens that No. 939 was the only specimen of its kind which I had at that time cleaned and mounted in my collection, although as the sequel will show it is evident that I had found several others in the field, but had erroneously laid them aside as Amphicrinus scoticus. This is a mistake which could easily be made, since I was not then fully aware of the special characters which distinguished A. scoticus. |
|---|
These are possibly similar items as determined by title/reference text matching only.
