Jean-Louis Dommergues, Christian Meister
Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 58 (4), 837-854, (1 December 2013) https://doi.org/10.4202/app.2011.0148
KEYWORDS: Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea, stratigraphy, Paleobiogeography, taxonomy, character, homology, ontogeny, Adaptation, Jurassic
This paper discusses the phyletic interpretation of the genus Phricodoceras and its taxonomic classification at the subfamily, family, and superfamily levels from an historical and critical perspective. First a review of the latest find ings on this taxon is presented and the grounds for the attribution of Phricodoceras to the Schlotheimiidae (Psiloceratoidea) are summarized and illustrated. This review is a synthesis grounded on evolutionary (e.g., heterochronies, innovations), eco-ethological (e.g., assumed shell hydrodynamic capacities) and spatio-temporal pat terns (e.g., bio-chronostratigraphy, palaeobiogeography). Then, the main stages of understanding the taxonomy of Phricodoceras since the early nineteenth century are reviewed. Two main taxonomic concepts alternate over time. The first is based on the “overall resemblance” of Phricodoceras to some coeval Eoderoceratoidea leading to the genus be ing included in its own family or subfamily (e.g., Phricodoceratinae) among the Eoderoceratoidea. The second hypoth esis, recently confirmed by the discovery of an intermediate form (i.e., Angulaticeras spinosus), clearly includes Phricodoceras within the Schlotheimiidae (Psiloceratoidea). Comparison of these two very different conceptions re veals how “overall resemblance” can be misleading and shows that the discovery of intermediate forms is often the key to phyletic reconstructions in ammonites.