The Great Fossil Enigma (61 page)

7.
Sweet and Bergström, “Pratt Ferry”; Sweet interview: “And, by golly, we hit it right, we got it right on the nose as far as its age is concerned. We were so pleased with that because it was a good European or Scandinavian fauna.”

8.
Lindström,
Conodonts
, 77ff, 129.

9.
C. B. Rexroad and R. S. Nicoll, “A Silurian conodont with tetanus?”
J. Paleont.
26 (1964): 771–73.

10.
Sweet, pers. comm., 16 July 2010; Sweet interview. The details of their work together is explored more fully in the next chapter

11.
S. M. Bergström and W. C. Sweet, “Conodonts from the Lexington Limestone (Middle Ordovician) of Kentucky and its lateral equivalents in Ohio and Indiana,”
Bull. Am. Paleont.
50, no. 229 (1966): 271–424, 280.

12.
Sweet interview.

13.
G. F. Webers, T. J. M. Schopf, and W. C. Sweet, “Multielement Ordovician conodont species (abstract),”
GSA
Program for
1965, 180–81; G. F. Webers,
The Middle and Upper Ordovician Conodont Faunas of Minnesota
, Minnesota Geological Survey Special Publication SP-4 (1966).

14.
T. J. M. Schopf, “Conodonts of the Trenton Group (Ordovician) in New York, southern Ontario, and Quebec,”
New York State Mus. Sci. Serv. Bull.
405 (1966): 105.

15.
Bergström and Sweet, “Lexington Limestone.”

16.
Sweet, pers. comm., 16 July 2010.

17.
Sweet,
Conodonta
, 38, 6.

18.
Bergström and Sweet, “Lexington Limestone,” 302.

19.
Sweet, pers. comm., 16 July 2010.

20.
C. R. Barnes, “A questionable natural conodont assemblage from Middle Ordovician limestone, Ottawa, Canada,”
J. Paleont.
41 (1967): 1557–60; R. L. Austin and F. H. T. Rhodes, “A conodont assemblage from the Carboniferous of the Avon Gorge, Bristol,”
Palaeont.
12 (1969): 400–405.

21.
F.-G. Lange, “Conodonten-gruppenfunde aus Kalken des Oberdevon,”
Geol. Palaeontol.
2 (1968): 37–57. Also Bergström, pers. comm.

22.
C. A. Pollock, “Fused Silurian conodont clusters from Indiana,”
J. Paleont.
43 (1969): 929–35, submitted for publication in April 1968; T. Mashkova,
“Ozarkodina steinhornensis
(Ziegler) apparatus, its conodonts and biozone,”
Geol. Palaeontol.
1 (1972): 81–90; Walliser interview.

23.
Lane, “Symmetry.”

24.
Sweet and Bergström later claimed that this partly resulted from misidentification. At the time, sorting and breakage were considered the main impediments. The term “multi-element species” was introduced to distinguish these new, hopefully biological, species.

25.
Sweet interview.

26.
J. J. Kohut, “Determination, statistical analysis, and interpretation of recurrent conodont groups in Middle and Upper Ordovician strata of the Cincinnati Region (Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana),”
J. Paleont.
43 (1969): 392–412, 412; J. J. Kohut and W. C. Sweet “The American Upper Ordovician standard. X. Upper Maysville and Richmond conodonts from the Cincinnati region of Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana,”
J. Paleont.
42 (1968): 1457–77. Although both papers were submitted on the same day in 1967, Kohut's single-authored account of his methods did not appear until March 1969. Also
Pander Society Newsletter
2 (6 July 1968).

27.
Huddle reporting in
Pander Society Newsletter
2:10.

28.
Huddle, “Historical introduction,” 8 (see ch. 4, n. 9) 1972. A large number of authors followed Kohut's lead. For example, in September 1969, Ronald Austin was working on the “application of information analysis techniques to conodonts” and Willi Ziegler was working on a statistical analysis of Devonian conodonts.
Pander Society Newsletter
3. Sweet,
Conodonta
, 38, says these authors used slightly different clustering techniques.

29.
W. C. Sweet and S. M. Bergström (eds.),
Symposium on Conodont Biostratigraphy
,
GSA
Memoir 127 (1970). This publication was not distributed until 1971.

30.
Sweet interview.

31.
Rhodes, “Conodont research,” 285; also
Pander Society Newsletter
4:9.

32.
Jeppsson interview; Huddle in
Pander Society Newsletter
5:10; W. C. Sweet and S. M. Bergström, “Multielement taxonomy and Ordovician conodonts,”
Geol. Palaeontol.
1 (1972): 29–42, 32 on strength of interpretations and size of collections.

33.
M. Lindström and W. Ziegler, “Marburg symposium on conodont taxonamy, 1971,”
Geol. Palaeontol.
1 (1972): 1–2, 1.

34.
D. L. Clark, “Early Permian crisis and its bearing on Permo-Triassic conodont taxonomy,”
Geol. Palaeontol.
1 (1972): 147–58, 147; Lindström and Ziegler, “Marburg,” 1.

35.
Rhodes to “Colleagues,” 4 January 1972, Conodont File, Scott Papers.

36.
R. Melville, “Further proposed amendments to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature,”
Bull. Zool. Nomen.
36:11–14, and Melville's continuing debate in this journal.

37.
From Aldridge's correspondence: Melville to Aldridge, 1 and 30 July 1980, Aldridge to Lennart Jeppsson, 25 August 1980, and Melville to Lennart Jeppsson, 1 September 1980, all in Aldridge Files, Geology Department, University of Leicester, UK (hereafter cited as Aldridge Files); R. W. Huddleston, “Comments on the proposed amendments to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature concerning paranomenclature,”
Bull. Zool. Nomen.
37 (1980): 143–44, and later correspondence in that journal.

38.
Pander Society quoted by Melville
inBull. Zool. Nomen.
38 (1981): 43, 46; Aldridge and von Bitter, “Pander Society,” 3.

39.
Sweet to Melville, 30 September 1980, Aldridge Files.

40.
Melville to Sweet, 10 October 1980, Aldridge Files.

41.
Melville in
Bull. Zool. Nomen.
38 (1981): 42, also 238.

42.
W. C. Sweet and P. C. J. Donoghue, “Conodonts: Past, present and future,”
J. Paleont.
75 (2001): 1174–84.

9. THE PROMISED LAND

1.
Bischoff and Ziegler, “Conodontenchronologie,” 10 (see ch. 6, n. 9); Müller, “Taxonomy, evolution” (see ch. 7, n. 20); M. Lindström, “Conodont provincialism and paleoecology – a few concepts,” in C. R. Barnes (ed.),
Conodont Paleoecology
, 3–9, 3, (see also vii); Lindström interview; Müller, “Zur Kenntnis,” 1334 (see ch. 7, n. 9); K. J. Müller and E. M. Müller, “Early Upper Devonian (Independence) conodonts from Iowa, Part 1,”
J. Paleont.
31 (1957): 1069–1108, 1077; W. Youngquist, R. W. Hawley, and A. K. Miller, “Phosphoria conodonts from southeastern Idaho,”
J. Paleont.
25 (1951): 356–64; Huckriede, “Conodonten” (see ch. 7, n. 27); Müller, “Taxonomy, nomenclature” (see ch. 4, n. 14); Lindström, “Lowermost Ordovician” (see ch. 5, n. 13); Lindström,
Conodonts
(see ch. 6, n. 2), 66–97; M. Lindström, “Two Ordovician conodont faunas found with zonal graptolites,”
Geol. Foren. Stockholm Forhandl.
79 (1957): 161–78.

2.
H. S. Ladd and J. W. Hedgpeth (eds.),
Treatise on Marine Ecology and Paleoecology
,
GSA
Memoir 67; S. P. Ellison Jr., “Economic applications of paleoecology,” in Alan M. Bateman (ed.),
Economic Geology: Fiftieth Anniversary Volume
(Urbana, Ill.: Economic Geology Publishing, 1955), 867–84, 868.

3.
P. E. Cloud Jr., “Paleoecology – retrospect and prospect,”
J. Paleont.
33 (1959): 926–62. On theorizers, Ager,
Principles
, vii (see ch. 7, n. 23).

4.
D. L. Clark, “Paleoecology,” in R. A. Robins et al. (eds.),
Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology
, Part W, Supplement 2 Conodonta (Lawrence: GSA/University of Kansas. 1981).

5.
R. C. Moore, “Modern methods of paleoecology,”
Bull.
AAPG
41 (1957): 1775–1801. See also Ellison, “Economic applications,” 867.

6.
C. B. Rexroad, “Conodonts from the Chester Series in the type area of southwestern Illinois,”
Illinois Geol. Survey Rep. Inv.
199 (1957); Rexroad, “Conodont homeomorphs” (see ch. 7, n. 4); C. B. Rexroad and M. K. Jarrell, “Correlation by conodonts of Golconda Group (Chesterian) in Illinois Basin,”
Bull.
AAPG
45 (1961): 2012–17.

7.
Lindström, “Two Ordovician.”

8.
Sweet, pers. comm., 21 April 2005; W. C. Sweet, C. A. Turco, E. Warner, and L. C. Wilkie, “The American Upper Ordovician Standard 1. Eden conodonts from the Cincinnati region of Ohio and Kentucky,”
J. Paleont.
33 (1959): 1029–68.

9.
Sweet and Bergström, “Pratt Ferry,” 1214 (see ch. 8, n. 5); S. M. Bergström, “Conodont biostratigraphy of the Middle and Upper Ordovician of Europe and Eastern North America,” in W. C. Sweet and S. M. Bergström (eds.),
Symposium on Conodont Biostratigraphy
,
GSA
Memoir 127, 83–161.

10.
Bergström and Sweet, “Lexington Limestone” (see ch. 8, n. 11). Ziegler reviewed this paper in 1966.

11.
Bergström, “Conodont biostratigraphy,” 88. Also contributions in this same volume by Sweet, Ethington, and Barnes (165). Kohut and Sweet, “American Upper Ordovician,” 1460, 1464, 1467 (see ch. 8, n. 26); Webers,
Minnesota
, 18 (see ch. 8, n. 13).

12.
P. C. Sylvester-Bradley, “Dynamic factors in animal palaeogeography,”

in F. A. Middlemiss, P. F. Rawson, and G. Newall (eds.),
Faunal Provinces in Space and Time
, Special Issue 4 (Liverpool: Seel House Press, 1971), 1–18, 16. On agreeing, see Middlemiss and Rawson in same volume (200).

13.
Schopf,
Models
, 10 (see ch. 2, n. 45).

14.
Glenister and Klapper, “Upper Devonian,” 786 (see ch. 7, n. 15).

15.
E. C. Druce, “Devonian and Carboniferous conodonts from the Bonaparte Gulf basin, northern Australia,”
Aust. Bur. Miner. Resour. Geol. Geophys. Bull.
98 (1969): 1–242;
Pander Society Newsletter
34 (2002): 1. Druce ceased working with conodonts in 1979 and became an international figure in the stamp-collecting world.

16.
G. Seddon, “Frasnian conodonts from the Sadler Ridge-Bugle Gap area, Canning basin, Western Australia,”
J. Geol. Soc. Aust.
16 (1970): 723–53.

17.
Pander Society Newsletter
4 (1970): 10.

18.
The back reef proved to begenerally without conodonts.

19.
E. C. Druce, “Upper Paleozoic conodont distribution (abstract),”
GSA
Abstracts with Programs
2 (1970): 386.

20.
G. Seddon, “Devonian biofacies in the Canning Basin, Western Australia (abstract),”
Abstr.
GSA
Proc. 4th Ann. Mtg. N. Cent Sec.
(1970): 404–405; E. Druce, “Upper Paleozoic and Triassic conodont distribution and the recognition of biofacies,” in F. H. T. Rhodes (ed.),
Conodont Paleozoology
,
GSA
Special Paper 141, 191–237, 210.

21.
G. Seddon and W. C. Sweet, “An ecologic model for conodonts,”
J. Paleont.
45 (1971): 869–80.

22.
Druce, “Upper Paleozoic and Triassic,” 211.

23.
W. Ziegler, M. Lindström, and R. McTavish, “Monochloracetic acids and conodonts-a warning,”
Nature
230 (1971): 584–85. This method was based on the use of monochloracetic acid rather than plain acetic acid. See also chapter 12.

24.
G. K. Merrill, “Facies relationships in Pennsylvanian conodont faunas (abstract),”
Texas J. Sci.
14 (1962): 418; G. K. Merrill,
Allegheny (Pennsylvanian) Conodonts (Abstract
),
GSA
Special Paper 115, 147–48 (1967); C. L. Cooper, “Role of microfossils in interregional Pennsylvanian correlations,”
J. Geol.
55 (1947): 261–70, 270; G. K. Merrill, “Pennsylvanian conodont paleoecology,” in F. H. T. Rhodes (ed.),
Conodont Paleozoology
,
GSA
Special Paper 141, 239–74 (244 cites master's student D. A. Drake as first dis covering the relationship). Merrill's two “genera” were
Cavusgnathus
(dominant in shales) and, a “plexus” of similar forms that could be treated as a single biological entity,
Idiognathodus-Streptognathodus.

25.
F. H. T. Rhodes and D. L. Dineley, “Devonian conodont faunas from southwest England,”
J. Paleont.
31 (1957): 353–69, 356; R. L. Ethington, “Conodonts of the Ordovician galena formation,”
J. Paleont.
33 (1959): 257–92, 271; Druce, “Pennsylvanian conodont,” 194.

26.
Harris quoted in J. McPhee,
In Suspect Terrain
(New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1983), 122–23.

27.
J. W. Valentine, “Plate tectonics and shallow marine diversity and endemism, an actualistic model,”
System. Zool.
20 (1971): 253–64; J. W. Valentine and E. M. Moores, “Plate tectonic regulation of faunal diversity and sea-level: A model,
Nature
228 (1970): 657–59.

28.
C. R. Barnes, C. B. Rexroad, and J. F. Miller, “Lower Paleozoic conodont provincialism,” in F. H. T. Rhodes (ed.),
Conodont Paleozoology
,
GSA
Special Paper 141, 157–90.

29.
L. E. FÃ¥hræus, “Conodontophorid ecology and evolution related to global tectonics,” in C. R. Barnes (ed.),
Conodont Paleoecology
, Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 15, 11–26, 12.