Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:17:57.801Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Primitive stalked echinoderms from the Middle Ordovician (Darriwilian) of Bang Song Tho, Kanchanaburi, western Thailand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2017

CHRISTOPHER R.C. PAUL ,
ARTHUR J. BOUCOT ,
STEPHEN K. DONOVAN ,
REN-BIN ZHAN  and
WATTANA TANSATHIEN
CHRISTOPHER R.C. PAUL
Affiliation:
School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
ARTHUR J. BOUCOT
Affiliation:
Deceased, formerly Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA
STEPHEN K. DONOVAN*
Affiliation:
Taxonomy and Systematics Group, Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
REN-BIN ZHAN
Affiliation:
Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Nanjing, People's Republic of China
WATTANA TANSATHIEN
Affiliation:
Bureau of Paleontological Research and Museum, Department of Mineral Resources, Bangkok, Thailand
*
†Author for correspondence: Steve.Donovan@naturalis.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Middle Ordovician (Darriwilian) echinoderm fauna of Bang Mueang Song Tho, western Thailand (Pha Phum group, Bo Ngam Formation(?)), includes rare thecae, and common thecal ossicles and columnals, and is dominated by ‘cystoids’. Cheirocrinid glyptocystitoids include Cheirocystella sp. (= Echinoencrinites sp. aff. E. senckenbergii (von Meyer) sensu Wolfart), ‘Cheirocrinus’ sp. and Cheirocrinidae incertae sedis. Hemicosmitoids are composed of Paracaryocrinites kochi (Wolfart), ‘Paracaryocrinites’ sp. and Polycosmites sp. cf. P. kaekeli Wolfart. The aristocystitid Sinocystis sp. cf. S. loczyi Reed is the only diploporite. Columnals of Bystrowicrinus (col.) sp. are probably crinoidal. The fullest determination of the echinoderm biodiversity of this site has been obtained using all specimens from single ossicles to articulated thecae. The limited taphonomic data suggests that the echinoderm assemblage is parauthochthonous. Other echinoderms described from coeval deposits in this region include Stichocystis thailandica Wolfart; Heliocrinites sp. aff. H. qualus Bather (probably a Lophotocystis Paul); Gomphocystites? sp. indet. (= trilobite?); Codiacystis sp. aff. C. bohemicus (Barrande) (= bryozoan?); Aristocystis [sic] sp. A of Paul; and [non] Incertae sedis sp. C of Paul (may not be an echinoderm).

Keywords

systematicshemicosmitoidsglyptocystitoidscaryocystitidsdiploporitescolumnals
Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 156 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 147 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agematsu, S., Sashida, K., Salyapongse, S. & Sardsud, A. 2006. Ordovician conodonts from the Thong Pha Phum area, western Thailand. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 26, 49–60.Google Scholar
Barrande, J. 1887. Système Silurien du centre de la Bohême. Premier Partie: Recherches paléontologiques. Vol. 7, Classe des Échinodermes. Ordre des Cystidés. Prague, xix+233 pp.Google Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1899. A phylogenetic classification of the Pelmatozoa. Reports of the British Association for the Advancement of Science 68, 916–23.Google Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1906. Ordovician Cystidea from Burma. In The Lower Palaeozoic Fossils of the Northern Shan States, Burma (ed. Reed, F. R. C.), pp. 6–40. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India, Palaeontologia Indica (new series 2) 3.Google Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1918a. Notes on Yunnan Cystidea. I. Sinocystis and Ovocystis. Geological Magazine 55, 507–15.Google Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1918b. Notes on Yunnan Cystidea. II. The species of Sinocystis. Geological Magazine 55, 532–40.Google Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1919a. Notes on Yunnan Cystidea. III. Sinocystis compared with similar genera. Geological Magazine 56, 71–7.Google Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1919b. Notes on Yunnan Cystidea. III. Sinocystis compared with similar genera. Geological Magazine 56, 110–5.Google Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1919c. Notes on Yunnan Cystidea. III. Sinocystis compared with similar genera. Geological Magazine 56, 255–62.Google Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1919d. Notes on Yunnan Cystidea. III. Sinocystis compared with similar genera. Geological Magazine 56, 318–25.Google Scholar
Bengtson, P. 1988. Open nomenclature. Palaeontology 31, 223–7.Google Scholar
Bernard, F. 1895. Eléments de Paléontologie. Paris: J.-B. Baillière et Fils, viii+1168 pp.Google Scholar
Bockelie, J. F. 1979. Taxonomy, functional morphology and palaeoecology of the Ordovician cystoid family Hemicosmitidae. Palaeontology 22, 363–406.Google Scholar
Bockelie, J. F. 1981. A re-evaluation of the Ordovician cystoid Stichocystis Jaekel and the taxonomic implications. Geologiska Föreningens i Stockholm Förhandlingar 103, 51–9.Google Scholar
Buch, L. von. 1840. Über Sphaeroniten und einige andere Geschlechter, aus welchen Crinoideen enstehen. Verhandlungen Königlich Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1840, 56–60.Google Scholar
Bunopas, S. 1981. Paleogeographic history of Western Thailand and adjacent parts of Southeast Asia: a plate tectonic interpretation. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand, 810 pp. [Reprinted 1982 as Geological Survey Paper No. 5, Special Issue. Bangkok: Geological Survey Division, Department of Mineral Resources.]Google Scholar
Callaway, C. 1877. On a new area of Upper Cambrian rocks in south Shropshire, with a description of a new fauna. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 33, 652–72.Google Scholar
Chauvel, J. 1941. Recherches sur les Cystoïdes et les carpoïdes Armoricains. Mémoires de la Société Géologique et Minéralogique de Bretagne 5, 1–286.Google Scholar
Chauvel, J. 1966. Échinodermes de l'Ordovicien du Maroc. Paris : Cahiers de Paléontologie. Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 120 pp.Google Scholar
Chauvel, J. 1977. Calix sedgwicki Rouault (Echinoderme Cystoïde, Ordovicien de Massif armoricain) et l'appareil ambulacraire des Diploporites. Comptes Rendus Sommaires de la Société Géologique de France 1977, 314–17.Google Scholar
Chauvel, J. 1978. Complément sur les Echinodermes du Paléozoïque marocain (Diploporites, Eocrinoïdes, Edrioastéroïdés). Notes du Service Géologique du Maroc 39, 27–78.Google Scholar
Chauvel, J. & Le Menn, J. 1979. Sur quelques echinodermes (Cystoïdes et Crinoïdes) de l'Ashgill d'Aragon (Espagne). Géobios 12, 549–87.Google Scholar
Chauvel, J. & Meléndez, J. 1978. Les Echinodermes (Cystoïdes, Asterozoaires, Homalozoaires) de l'Ordovicien moyen des Monts de Tolède (Espagne). Estudios Geologicos Instituto Lucas Mallada 34, 75–87.Google Scholar
Chen, Z. T. & Yao, J. H. 1993. Palaeozoic echinoderm fossils of Western Yunnan, China. Beijing: Geological Publishing House, ii+102 pp.Google Scholar
Department of Mineral Resources. 1992. Commentary on the geologic map of Thailand (1:2,500,000). Bangkok: Department of Mineral Resources, 19 pp.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K. 1983. Tetrameric crinoid columnals from the Ordovician of Wales. Palaeontology 26, 845–9.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K. 1986. Pelmatozoan columnals from the Ordovician of the British Isles. Part 1. Monographs of the Palaeontographical Society, London 138 (568), 1–68.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K. 1991. The taphonomy of echinoderms: calcareous multi-element skeletons in the marine environment. In The Processes of Fossilization (ed. Donovan, S. K.), pp. 241–69. London: Belhaven Press.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K. 1995. Pelmatozoan columnals from the Ordovician of the British Isles. Part 3. Monographs of the Palaeontographical Society, London 149 (597), 115–93.Google Scholar
Donovan, S. K. & Keighley, D. G. 2016. Fossil crinoids from the basal West Point Formation (Silurian), southeastern Gaspé Peninsula, Québec, eastern Canada. Atlantic Geology 52, 189–200.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, M. 1939. Les Cystoïdes de l'Ordovicien Supérieur de Languedoc. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France (séries 5), 9, 117–34.Google Scholar
Eichwald, E. 1856. Beitrag zur geographischen Verbreitung der fossilien Thiere Russlands. Alte Periode. Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou 29, 88–127.Google Scholar
Forbes, E. 1848. On the Cystideae of the Silurian rocks of the British Isles. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of the United Kingdom 2, 483–538.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1997. Late Ordovician trilobites from southern Thailand. Palaeontology 40, 397–449.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. & Cocks, L. R. M. 1998. Biogeography and palaeogeography of the Sibumasu terrane in the Ordovician: a review. In Biogeography and Geological Evolution of SE Asia (eds Hall, R. & Holloway, J. D.), pp. 43–56. Leiden: Backhuys.Google Scholar
Frest, T. J. 1975. Caryocrinitidae (Echinodermata: Rhombifera) of the Laurel Limestone of southeastern Indiana. Fieldiana: Geology 30, 81–106.Google Scholar
Gansser, A. & Huber, H. 1962. Geological observations in the Central Elburz, Iran. Schweizerische Mineralogische und Petrographische Mitteilungen 42, 583–630.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Marco, J. C. 2000. Revisión taxonómica de ‘Echinosphaerites’ murchisoni Verneuil y Barrande, 1855 (Echinodermata, Diploporita) del Ordovícico Medio centroibérica (España). Geogaceta 27, 83–6.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Marco, J. C. & Colmenar, J. 2011. Biostratigraphy of the genus Calix (Echinodermata, Diploporita) in the Middle Ordovician of the southern Central Iberian Zone (Spain). In Ordovician of the World (eds Gutiérrez-Marco, J. C., Rabáno, I. & Garcia-Bellido, D.), 189–97. Cuardenos del Museo Geominero 14, Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, Madrid.Google Scholar
Hagen, D. & Kemper, D. 1976. Geology of the Thong Pha Phum area (Kanchanaburi Province, western Thailand). Geologisches Jahrbuch B21, 53–91.Google Scholar
Jaekel, O. 1899. Stammesgeschichte der Pelmatozoen. 1. Thecoidea und Cystoidea. Berlin: Julius Springer, x+442 pp.Google Scholar
Jaekel, O. 1918. Phylogenie und System der Pelmatozoen. Paläontologisches Zeitschrift 3, 1–128.Google Scholar
Kesling, R. V. 1968. Cystoids. In Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part S, Echinodermata 1 (1) (ed. Moore, R. C.), pp. S85–S267. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America; Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Koenen, A. von. 1886. Ueber neue Cystideen aud den Caradoc-schichten der Gegend von Montpellier. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie 2, 246–54.Google Scholar
Lanc, F. A., McDermott, P. D. & Paul, C. R. C. 2015. The identity of the British Ordovician cystoid ‘Hemicosmites rugatus Forbes’. Geological Journal 50, 1–16.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, B. & 11 others. 2013. Palaeobiogeography of Ordovician echinoderms. In Early Palaeozoic Biogeography and Palaeogeography (eds Harper, D. A. T. & Servais, T.), pp. 173–98. Geological Society of London, Memoir no. 38.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, B., Ghobadipou, M. & Nardin, E. 2005. Ordovician echinoderms from the Tabas and Damghan regions, Iran: palaeobiogeographical implications. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France 176, 231–42.Google Scholar
Lóczy, L. von. 1897. Gróf Széchenyi Béla kelet-ázsiai útjának tudományos ered-ménye 1877–1880, III [The scientific results of the voyage of Count Béla Széchenyi in East Asia 1877–1880, Third Volume]. Budapest (in Hungarian).Google Scholar
Lóczy, L. von. 1899a. Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Reise des Grafen Béla Széchenyi in Ostasien 1877–1880, Dritter Band: Die Bearbeitung des gessamelten Materials; Nach dem im Jahre 1897 erschenenen ungarischen Original. Vienna: Hölzel, 523 pp. (Vol. 3; German version)Google Scholar
Lóczy, L. von. 1899b. Beschreibung der fossilen Reste von Wirbelthieren und von Mollusken und die palaeontologisch-stratigraphischen Ergebnisse. In Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Reise des Grafen Béla Széchenyi in Ostasien 1877–1880, Dritter Band: Die Bearbeitung des gessamelten Materials; Nach dem im Jahre 1897 erschenenen ungarischen Original. Sechste Abteilung: Beschreibung der fossilen Thiere und Pflanzen sowie der gesammelten Gesteine. Erster Theil: Die fossile Fauna (ed. Lóczy, L. von), pp. 9–228. Vienna: Hölzel.Google Scholar
Makhlouf, Y., Lefebvre, B., Nardin, E., Nedjari, A. & Paul, C. R. C. 2017 (in press). Lepidocalix pulcher Termier and Termier, 1950 from the Middle Ordovician of northern Algeria: taxonomic revision and palaeoecological implications. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica.Google Scholar
Meléndez, B. 1958. Nuevo Cistideo del Ordoviciense de los Montes de Toledo. Notas y Communicaciones del Instituto Geologico y Minero de España 50, 321–8.Google Scholar
Meyer, H. von. 1826. Beschreibung des Echino-encrinites Senckenbergii, einer neu entdeckten steinerung. Archiv Gesammte Naturlehre 7, 185–92.Google Scholar
Miller, S. A. 1891. Palaeontology. Advanced sheets from Annual Report, Indiana Department of Geology and Natural Resources 17, 611–705.Google Scholar
Nardin, E., Göncüoğlu, M. C. & Lefebvre, B. 2014. First report of sphaeronitid blastozoans (Echinodermata) in the Middle Ordovician of the Taurides, Turkey. Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 23, 444–51.Google Scholar
Neumayr, M. 1889. Die Stämme des Thierreiches. Wirbellose Thiere. Vienna and Prague, vi+603 pp. [Not seen.]Google Scholar
Noetling, F. 1890. Field notes from the Shan Hills (upper Burma). Records of the Geological Survey of India 23, 78–9. [Not seen.]Google Scholar
Ogg, J. G., Ogg, G. & Gradstein, F. M. 2008. The Concise Geological Time Scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 177 pp.Google Scholar
Parsley, R. L. 1990. Aristocystites, a recumbent diploporid (Echinodermata) from the Middle and Late Ordovician of Bohemia, ČSSR. Journal of Paleontology 64, 278–93.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1968a. Macrocystella Calloway, the earliest glyptocystitid cystoid. Palaeontology 11, 580–600.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1968b. Morphology and function of dichoporite pore-structures in cystoids. Palaeontology 11, 697–730.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1969. Thomacystis, a unique new hemicosmitid cystoid from Wales. Geological Magazine 106, 190–6.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1972a. Cheirocystella antiqua, gen. et sp. nov. from the Lower Ordovician of western Utah, and its bearing on the evolution of the Cheirocrinidae (Rhombifera: Glyptocystitida). Brigham Young University Geology Studies 19, 15–63.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1972b. Morphology and function of exothecal pore-structures in cystoids. Palaeontology 15, 1–28.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1973. British Ordovician Cystoids. Part 1. Monographs of the Palaeontographical Society, London 127 (536), 1–64.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1976. Palaeogeography of primitive echinoderms in the Ordovician. In The Ordovician System: Proceedings of a Palaeontological Association Symposium, Birmingham, September 1974 (ed. Bassett, M. G.), pp. 553–74. Cardiff: University of Wales Press and National Museum of Wales.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 1984. British Ordovician cystoids. Part 2. Monographs of the Palaeontographical Society, London 136 (563), 65–152.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. 2017. Testing for homologies in the axial skeleton of primitive echinoderms. Journal of Paleontology 91, 582–603.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C., Donovan, S. K., Muir, L. A., Botting, J. P., Lin, J.-P. & Yuandong, Z. 2016. Primitive Ordovician (Floian) echinoderms from Sandu, Guizhou Province, South China, and their significance. Geological Journal 51, 143–56.Google Scholar
Paul, C. R. C. & Rozhnov, S. V. 2016. Revision of Scoliocystis (Rhombifera: Echinoencrinitidae) and related cystoid genera. Paleontological Journal 50, 255–75.Google Scholar
Phillips, J. & Salter, J. W. 1848. Palaeontological Appendix. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of the United Kingdom 2, 331–86.Google Scholar
Prokop, R. J. 1965. Hippocystis sculptus (Barrande, 1887) in the Bohemian Middle Ordovician (Cystoidea). Zvlášstní Otisk Věstníku Ústředního Ústavu Geologického 90, 303–6.Google Scholar
Quenstedt, F. A. 1874. Die Asteriden und Encriniden nebst Cystideen und Blastoiden. Petrefactenkunde Deutschlands 4, 742 pp. Leipzig. [Not seen.]Google Scholar
Reed, F. R. C. 1906. The Lower Palaeozoic fossils of the Northern Shan States, Burma. With a section of Ordovician cystidea by F. A. Bather [q.v.]. Palaeontologica Indica (series 2), Memoir 3, 158 pp.Google Scholar
Reed, F. R. C. 1917. Ordovician and Silurian fossils from Yun-nan. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India, Palaeontologia Indica (new series 6) 3, iii+69 pp.Google Scholar
Regnéll, G. 1945. Non-crinoid Pelmatozoa from the Paleozoic of Sweden. A taxonomic study. Meddelanden från Lunds Geologisk-Mineralogiska Institutionen 108, 255 pp.Google Scholar
Renard, H. 1968. Contribution à la révision des Cystoïdes de l'Ashgill de la Montagne Noire. Ph.D. thesis, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France. Published thesis.Google Scholar
Rouault, M. 1851. Mémoire sur le terrain Paléozoïque des environs de Rennes. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France (séries 2) 8, 358–99. [Not seen.]Google Scholar
Rozhnov, S. V., Minjin, C. & Kushlina, V. B. 2009. Discovery of Rhombifera (Echinoderms) in the Ordovician of Mongolia. Paleontological Journal 43, 1425–31.Google Scholar
Salter, J. W. 1866. On the fossils of North Wales. [Appendix.] In The Geology of North Wales (ed. A. C. Ramsey), pp. 483–538. Memoir of the Geological Survey of the United Kingdom 3.Google Scholar
Say, T. 1825. On two genera and several species of Crinoidea. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia 4, 289–96.Google Scholar
Siriphakdi, K., Salyapongs, S. & Suteetorn, V. 1985. Geological Map of Thailand, scale 1:250,000, Sheet Tavoy (ND47-6). Bangkok: Geological Survey Division, Department of Mineral Resources.Google Scholar
Speyer, S. E. 1991. Trilobite taphonomy: a basis for comparative studies of arthropod preservation, functional anatomy and behaviour. In The Processes of Fossilization (ed. Donovan, S. K.), pp. 194–219. London: Belhaven Press.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J. 1975. The ‘arms’ of Caryocrinites, a rhombiferan cystoid convergent on crinoids. Journal of Paleontology 49, 1062–73.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J. & Kolata, D. R. 1982. ‘Rhomb-bearing’ camerate. In Echinoderm Faunas from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma (ed. Sprinkle, J.), pp. 206–11. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph 1.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J. & Wahlman, G. P. 1994. New echinoderms from the early Ordovician of West Texas. Journal of Palaeontology 68, 324–38.Google Scholar
Stiller, F. & Lin, J.-P. 2015. The earliest scientific descriptions of Chinese fossil echinoderms in a late nineteenth-century publication by Lajos Lóczy (Ludwig von Lóczy). Palaeoworld, 24, 369–82.Google Scholar
Stukalina, G. A. 1980. [New results on Ordovician crinoids of Central Kazakhstan.] Ezhegodnik Vsesoyuznogo Paleontologicheskogo Obshchestv a, 23, 216–43. [Not seen.]Google Scholar
Sun, Y. C. 1936. On the occurrence of Aristocystis faunas in China. Bulletin of the Geological Society of China 15, 477–88.Google Scholar
Sun, Y. C. 1948. The early occurrence of some Ordovician and Silurian cystoids from Western Yunnan and its significance. Palaeontological Novitates 1, 1–9.Google Scholar
Termier, H. & Termier, G. 1950a. Contribution à l’étude des faunes paléozoïques de l'Algérie. Bulletin du Service de la Carte Géologique de l'Algérie 79, 1–83.Google Scholar
Termier, H. & Termier, G. 1950b. Paléontologie marocaine. 2 Invertébrés de l’Ère Primaire. Annélides, arthropods, echinoderms, conularides et graptolithes. Notes et Mémoires du Service Géologique du Maroc 79, 279 pp.Google Scholar
Tillman, C. G. 1967. Triamara cutleri, a new cystoid from the Osgood Formation (Silurian) of Indiana. Journal of Paleontology 41, 222–6.Google Scholar
Torsvik, T. H. & Cocks, L. R. M. 2013. New global palaeogeographical reconstructions for the Early Palaeozoic and their generation. In Early Palaeozoic Biogeography and Palaeogeography (eds Harper, D. A. T. & Servais, T.), pp. 5–24. Geological Society of London, Memoir no. 38.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O. & Kirk, E. 1921. Amecystis, a new genus of Ordovician Cystidea. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 34, 147–8.Google Scholar
Verneuil, E. & Barrande, J. 1855. Description des fossils trouvés dans les terrains silurien et dévonien d'Almadén, d'une partie de las Sierra Morena et des Montagnes de Tolède. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France (série 2) 12, 964–1025.Google Scholar
Warn, J. & Strimple, H. L. 1977. The disparid inadunate superfamilies Homocrinacea and Cincinnaticrinacea (Echinodermata: Crinoidea), Ordovician-Silurian, North America. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 72 (296), 5–138.Google Scholar
Wolfart, R. 2001a. West Thailand in the Ordovician World. Geologisches Jahrbuch B94, 5–34.Google Scholar
Wolfart, R. 2001b. Trilobita from the Kanchanaburi Region (Arenig) and from the Thong Pha Phum Region, Middle to Late Ordovician. Geologisches Jahrbuch B94, 35–118.Google Scholar
Wolfart, R. 2001c. Cystoidea and Crinoidea from the Thong Pha Phum Region, Middle to Early Late Ordovician. Geologisches Jahrbuch B94, 181–229.Google Scholar