Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:14:16.403Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Leymeriaster campestris, a new early Campanian hemiasterid echinoid from southern Limburg, the Netherlands*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2014

R.W.J.M. van der Ham ,
J.W.M. Jagt  and
H.J. Janssens
R.W.J.M. van der Ham*
Affiliation:
Piet Heinstraat 6, NL-2628 RK Delft, the Netherlands
J.W.M. Jagt
Affiliation:
Natuurhistorisch Museum Maastricht, de Bosquetplein 6-7, NL-6211 KJ Maastricht, the Netherlands
H.J. Janssens
Affiliation:
Rijksweg 97, NL-6271 AD Gulpen, the Netherlands
*
*Email: ham@nhn.leidenuniv.nl

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the type area of the Maastrichtian Stage (northeast Belgium, southeast Netherlands), two species of the rare hemiasterid echinoid genus Leymeriaster were known to date. Here we describe a third, L. campestris sp. nov., from the so-called ‘Laagje van Müller’ (Gemmenich Member, Vaals Formation) at Vaals-Eschberg, southern Limburg (the Netherlands), which is of early Campanian age. It differs from its late Maastrichtian congeners in the area, L. maestrichtensis and L. eluvialis, in that the pore pairs in the frontal groove of ambulacrum III are not in small depressions and the adjacent interambulacral margins are not thickened, raised and/or overhanging. It differs from L. maestrichtensis by the lack of a clear notch in the ambitus in ambulacrum III, and from L. eluvialis in the presence of a distinctly longer groove in ambulacrum III. Leymeriaster campestris sp. nov. is the first undoubted species of Campanian Leymeriaster known from northwest Europe.

Keywords

EchinoideaHemiasteridaeLate Cretaceousthe Netherlandsnew species
Type
Research Article
Information
Netherlands Journal of Geosciences , Volume 90 , Issue 2-3 , November 2011 , pp. 179 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © Stichting Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 2011

Footnotes

*

In: Jagt, J.W.M., Jagt-Yazykova, E.A. & Schins, W.J.H. (eds): A tribute to the late Felder brothers – pioneers of Limburg geology and prehistoric archaeology.

References

Agassiz, L., 1840. Catalogus systematicus ectyporum echinodermatum fossilium musei neocomiensis, secundum ordinem zoologicum dispositus. Olivier Petitpierre (Neuchâtel): 1–20.Google Scholar
Agassiz, L. & Desor, E., 1847. Catalogue raisonné des espèces, des genres, et des familles d'échinides. Annales des Sciences naturelles (Zoologie) (3)7: 129–168; (3)8: 5-35, 355-380.Google Scholar
Beissel, I., 1886. Der Aachener Sattel und die aus demselben vorbrechenden Thermalquellen. J.A. Mayer (Aachen): 1–338.Google Scholar
Clark, H.L., 1917. Hawaiian and other Pacific echini. Spatangina. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College 46: 81–283.Google Scholar
Cotteau, G.H. & Triger, J., 1857–1869. Échinides du département de la Sarthe, considérés au point de vue zoologique et stratigraphique. J.-B. Baillière et fils (Paris): xv + 1–458.Google Scholar
Debey, M.H., 1849. Entwurf zu einer geognostisch-geogenetischen Darstellung der Gegend von Aachen. Boisserée (Aachen): 1–67.Google Scholar
d'Orbigny, A., 1855. Paléontologie Française. Terrains Crétacés 6, Échinodermes. V. Masson (Paris): 129–256.Google Scholar
Felder, W.M., 1980. Krijt. In: Kuyl, O.S. (ed.): Toelichtingen bij de geologische kaart van Nederland, 1:50.000, blad Heerlen. Rijks Geologische Dienst (Haarlem): 31–53.Google Scholar
Felder, W.M., 1987. Een oude fossielvindplaats in de Formatie van Vaals herontdekt. Sprekende Bodem 31: 38–39.Google Scholar
Felder, W.M. & Bosch, P.W., 2000. Geologie van Nederland, deel 5. Krijt van Zuid Limburg. Nederlands Instituut voor Toegepaste Geowetenschappen TNO (Delft/Utrecht): 1–192.Google Scholar
Fischer, A.G., 1966. Spatangoida. In: Moore, R.C. (ed.): Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part U3(2). Geological Society of America (Boulder)/The University of Kansas Press (Lawrence): U543-U633.Google Scholar
Goldfuss, A., 1829. Petrefacta Germaniae tam ea, quae in museo universitatis regiae Borussicae Fridericiae Wilhelmiae Rhenanae servantur quam alia quae cunque in museis hoeninghausiano, muensteriano aliisque extant, iconibus et descriptionibus illustrata. Abbildungen und Beschreibung der Petrefacten Deutschlands und der angränzenden Länder, unter Mitwirkung des Herrn Grafen Georg zu Münster. Arnz & Co. (Düsseldorf): 77–164, pls 26-50.Google Scholar
Holzapfel, E., 1887–1889. Die Mollusken der Aachener Kreide, I. Abtheilung, Cephalopoden und Glossophora; II. Lamellibranchiata. Palaeontographica 34: 39–180; 35: 159-268.Google Scholar
Jagt, J.W.M., 1999. Late Cretaceous-Early Palaeogene echinoderms and the K/T boundary in the southeast Netherlands and northeast Belgium – Part 1: Introduction and stratigraphy. Scripta Geologica 116: 1–57.Google Scholar
Jagt, J.W.M., 2000a. Late Cretaceous-Early Palaeogene echinoderms and the K/T boundary in the southeast Netherlands and northeast Belgium – Part 4: Echinoids. Scripta Geologica 121: 181–375.Google Scholar
Jagt, J.W.M., 2000b. Late Cretaceous-Early Palaeogene echinoderms and the K/T boundary in the southeast Netherlands and northeast Belgium – Part 3: Ophiuroids. With a chapter on: Early Maastrichtian ophiuroids from Rügen (northeast Germany) and Møn (Denmark) by Manfred Kutscher and John W.M. Jagt. Scripta Geologica 121: 1–179.Google Scholar
Kennedy, W.J. & Jagt, J.W.M., 1995. Lower Campanian heteromorph ammonites from the Vaals Formation around Aachen, Germany, and adjacent parts of Belgium and the Netherlands. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abhandlungen 197: 275–294.Google Scholar
Lambert, J., 1911. Étude sur les échinides crétacés de Rennes-les-Bains et des Corbières. Bulletin de la Société d'Études scientifiques de l'Aude 22: 1–120.Google Scholar
Lambert, J. & Thiéry, P., 1909–1924. Essai de nomenclature raisonnée des échinides. L. Ferrière (Chaumont): iii + 1–607.Google Scholar
Meijer, M., 1955. Sur un échinide peu connu du Maestrichtien du Limbourg hollando-belge. Hemiaster (Leymeriaster) maestrichtensis Schlueter. Natuur-historisch Maandblad 44: 74–77.Google Scholar
Müller, J., 1847. Monographie der Petrefacten der Aachener Kreideformation. Erste Abtheilung mit 2 lithografirten Tafeln. Henry & Cohen (Bonn): 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, J., 1851. Monographie der Petrefacten der Aachener Kreideformation. Zweite Abtheilung mit 4 lithografirten Tafeln. Henry & Cohen (Bonn): 1–88.Google Scholar
Müller, J., 1859. Monographie der Petrefacten der Aachener Kreideformation. Supplementheft zur ersten und zweiten Abtheilung mit zwei in Stein radirten Tafeln. J.A. Mayer (Aachen): 1–32.Google Scholar
Néraudeau, D., 1990. Ontogenèse, paléoécologie et histoire des Hemiaster, échinides irréguliers du Crétacé. Université de Bourgogne (Dijon): 1–194. (unpublished PhD thesis).Google Scholar
Néraudeau, D., 1994. Hemiasterid echinoids (Echinodermata: Spatangoida) from the Cretaceous Tethys to the present-day Mediterranean. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 110: 319–344.Google Scholar
Pomel, A., 1869. Revue des échinodermes et de leur classification pour servir d'introduction à l'étude des fossiles. Deyrolle (Paris): 1–67.Google Scholar
Pomel, A., 1883. Classification méthodique et genera des échinides, vivants et fossiles. A. Jourdan (Alger): 1–131.Google Scholar
Schins, W., 2008. Het Fenomeen Felder. De geologische passie van twee Limburgse mijnwerkers. Nederlandse Geologische Vereniging, Afdeling Limburg (Valkenburg aan de Geul): 1–254.Google Scholar
Schlüter, C., 1883. Die regulären Echiniden der norddeutschen Kreide. I. Glyphostoma (Latistellata). Abhandlungen der königlich preussischen geologischen Landesanstalt 4: iv + 1–72.Google Scholar
Schlüter, C., 1897. Ueber einige exocyclische Echiniden der baltischen Kreide und deren Bett. Zeitschrift der deutschen geologischen Gesellschaft 49: 18–50.Google Scholar
Schlüter, C., 1899. Ueber einige von Goldfuss beschriebene Spatangiden, II. Stück. Zeitschrift der deutschen geologischen Gesellschaft 51: 104–124.Google Scholar
Smith, A.B. & Jeffery, C.H., 2000. Maastrichtian and Palaeocene echinoids: a key to world faunas. Special Papers in Palaeontology 63: 1–406.Google Scholar
Smith, A.B. & Wright, C.W., 2003. British Cretaceous echinoids. Part 7, Atelostomata, 1. Holasteroida. Monograph of the Palaeontographical Society London 156 (619): 440–568.Google Scholar
Smith, A.B. & Wright, C.W., 2008. British Cretaceous echinoids. Part 8, Atelostomata, 2. Spatangoida (1). Monograph of the Palaeontographical Society London 162 (630): 569–635.Google Scholar
Tanaka, K., 1984. Hemiasterid echinoids from the Upper Cretaceous of Japan. Transactions and Proceedings of the Palaeontological Society of Japan 135: 427–444.Google Scholar
Van Birgelen, M., 1989. Ophiura fürstenbergii Müller 1847, na 140 jaar opnieuw gevonden. Sprekende Bodem 33: 17–18.Google Scholar
Van der Ham, R.W.J.M., 1995. Hemiaster (Leymeriaster) eluvialis, a new echinoid from the late Maastrichtian of NE Belgium and SE Netherlands. Bulletin de l'Institut des Sciences naturelles de Belgique, Sciences de la Terre 65: 153–164.Google Scholar
Van der Ham, R.W.J.M. & Jagt, J.W.M., 1998. Late Cretaceous hemiasterid echinoids from the Maastrichtian type area. In: Mooi, R. & Telford, M. (eds): Echinoderms: San Francisco. A.A. Balkema (Rotterdam/Brookfield): 857–862.Google Scholar
Woodward, S., 1833. An outline of the geology of Norfolk. Longman & Co. (London): 1–55.Google Scholar