New Late Mississippian 

Ostracode Genera and 

Species From Northern 

Alaska

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 711-A
I

1

I
New Late Mississippian 

Ostracode Genera and 

Species From Northern 

Alaska

By I. G. SOHN

A REVISION OF THE P AR A P AR C H I T AC E A

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAI PAPER 711-A

Revision of the Paraparchitacea, and description 

and illustration of new genera and species from 

the Upper Mississippian of the Brooks Range, 

Alaska

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1971
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

W. A. Radlinski, Acting Director

Library of Congress catalog-card No. 70-171218

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 70 cents (paper cover)

Stock Number 2401-1183
CONTENTS

Page

Abstract .................................................................................................................................. Al

Introduction ........................................................................ ...... ........................................ 1

Ecology ............................................................................................................................ 2

Orientation .................................................................................................................... 2

Ontogenetic development .............................................................................................. 2

Dimorphism .................................................................................................................... 3

Reversal of overlap .................................................................................................. . 3

Preservation .................................................................................................................. 3

Published history of the group .................................................................................. 3

Acknowledgments ...................................................... ............................................. . 4

Collection localities ............................................................. ............. ........ . ... ........... 4

Age of the ostracodes .................................................. ......... ............................ .......... 4

Systematic descriptions ..................................................... ................. ..... ..... ..... .. 4

Key to the genera ................................................................................................... .. 4

Class Ostracoda ................................................................................ ................. ..... 5

Order Podocopida .................................................................................................. 5

Suborder unknown .................................................................................... ....... 5

Superfamily Paraparchitacea .................................................................... 5

Family Paraparchitidae .............................................................. ... 5

Genus Paraparchites .................................................................... 5

Genus Shivaella ........................... ................................................ 8

Genus Chamishaella .................................................................... 11

Genus Shishaella .......................................................................... 14

Genus Shemonaella ...................................................................... 16

Order ?Palaeocopida ............................................................................................ 17

Superfamily unknown ......................................................................-... .... 17

Family Coelonellidae ............................................................................ 17

Genus Coelonella .......................................................................... 18

References cited .................................................................................................................... 19

Index ........................................................................................................................................ 23

ILLUSTRATIONS

[Plates follow index]

PLATE 1. Coelonella, Paraparchites.

2. Paraparchites, Coelonella.

3. Shivaella.

4. Shivaella.

5. Chamishaella and Chamishaella ?.

6. Chamishaella.

7. Shishaella.

8. Shishaella.

9. Shemonaella.

Page

FIGURE 1. Stratigraphic ranges of the genera discussed in this study ....................................................................................... Al

2. Muscle-scar pattern inside of left valve of Shishaella marathonensis (Hamilton, 1942) .................................. 5

3. Outline of groove of Chamishaella aenigmatica n. sp., superimposed on the outlines of the next four stages

of growth ...................................................................................................................... ......... .................................. 12

TABLE

Page 

TABLE 1. Greatest length of eggs and adults in living ostracodes ................................................................................ .......... A3

III

A REVISION OF THE PARAPARCHITACEA

NEW LATE MISSISSIPPIAN OSTRACODE GENERA AND SPECIES FROM NORTHERN ALASKA

By I. G. SOHN

ABSTRACT

Collection from the marine Alapah Limestone, Brooks 

Range, Alaska, contain abundant and diversified ostracodes 

and include growth series of several taxa referable to 

Paraparchites. Study of these populations and a review of 

the world literature make it possible to discriminate several 

new genera in this group. I conclude that the ostracodes in 

these genera should be oriented so that the plenate end is 

posterior; that dimorphism is shown in the width of the 

posterior and (or) width below the midheight; that the 

presence or absence of dorsoposterior spines is constant within genera, and that these spines or tubercles, unlike those in 

the Leperditicopida, are not eye tubercles; that adults of some 

genera in the Paraparchitidae may be smaller than instars 

of other genera in this group; and that reversal of overlap 

and hingement is not a taxonomic criterion in this group. The 

presence of a well-developed inner lamella and a cyprid 

adductor muscle-scar pattern in some of the genera remove 

this group from the Palaeocopida as presently defined.

In order to document the above conclusions, several genera 

and species from areas other than Alaska are discussed and 

illustrated. The following are new: Paraparchites kellettae, 

Shivaella n. gen., S. suppetia, S. mertiei, Chamishaella n. 

gen., C. aenigmatica, C. brosgei, Shishaella n. gen., S. williamsae, Shemonaella n. gen., S. dutroi, and Coelonellidae, n. 

fam.

INTRODUCTION

Among the U.S. Geological Survey collections of 

Mississippian (Meramecian) ostracodes from northern Alaska is a sample of a coquina of ostracodes in 

the platy limestone member of the Alapah Limestone, 200 feet above the base of the limestone 

(USGS loc. 13288). This sample contains an abundant and diversified ostracode assemblage that includes growth stages of several taxa referable to the 

Paraparchitacea Scott, 1959 (Devonian-Permian), 

Bairdiacea Sars, 1887 (Late Ordovician-Holocene), 

and the Kloedenellacea Scott, 1961 (Late Ordovician (?)-Permian). Most of the specimens are carapaces; some are steinkerns or single valves. The 

size range of all the specimens is from less than 0.5 

mm (millimeters) to more than 2 mm in greatest 

length. Examination of this collection, of types in the

U.S. National Museum, and of specimens from various collections in the U.S. Geological Survey, 

coupled with information known about Ostracoda, 

makes it possible to propose several criteria pertaining to the classification of the Paraparchitacea. 

These criteria are discussed and are used as a basis 

for the revision of the superfamily Paraparchitacea, 

as well as for the description of new taxa. Figure 

1 shows the stratigraphic ranges of the genera involved in this study.

Because all the genera in the Paraparchitacea are 

not represented in the collections from Alaska, this 

volume is divided into two parts: the first part (this 

report) deals with the Alaskan taxa; the second part 

deals with new species in other areas in the United 

States. In order to document this revision, a few

Permian

(55 m.y.)

Pennsylvanian 

(40 m.y.)

Mississippian

(25 m.y.)

Devonian

(50 m.y.)

w

;g£>

8 El,

e

**<

e

-2

a

1

S

.3co

s

 1

S

§

_w

fc1

!

^

1

-§

a

§

^1 

S! -i 

1

?

S,

i;

i

f00 *

FIGURE 1. Stratigraphic ranges of the genera discussed in 

this study.

Al
A2 A REVISION OF THE PARAPARCHITACEA

species outside Alaska are illustrated and discussed 

in this report.

ECOLOGY

Paraparchites is essentially a marine genus. Species described in taxa of the Paraparchitacea are considered to be of marine origin. There are, however, 

certain records (Coryell and Rogatz, 1932; Mandelstam, 1956, p. 102, 104; Grachevskiy, 1958, p. 1322; 

Cordell, 1956, p. 42; Ferguson, 1962; and Sohn, unpub. data) that suggest a tolerance to brackish or 

hypersaline conditions. Living representatives of the 

superfamily Bairdiacea are restricted to normal 

marine waters; fossil representatives are associated 

with marine fossils. The Kloedenellacea are considered to represent marine environments, although 

some of the genera may have tolerated brackishwater environments. The collection (USGS loc. 

13288) represents an assemblage of animals that 

lived together as an interrelated community. The 

presence of small specimens intermixed with large 

individuals indicates a minimum of sorting and 

transport. Closely related taxa (species or genera) 

occupied approximately the same ecologic niche at 

the same time. The presence of growth stages of 

five species in four genera in the same collection 

supports this conclusion. Paulsen (1962, p. 402, 

409) described two living species of the benthonic 

myodocopid ostracode genus Paraphilomedes Paulsen, 1962, from the same locality. Although these represent a different ostracode suborder, they support 

the thesis that two or more closely related species 

of Ostracoda can coexist in apparently the same ecologic niche.

ORIENTATION

Paraparchites and related genera should be oriented so that the narrower end margin (antiplenate 

end) is posterior. Some species that were referred 

to Paraparchites have a dorsoposterior spine on one 

or both valves. These spines were incorrectly interpreted as ocular nodes or eye tubercles, and the 

valves were oriented with the spines or nodes at the 

anterior. These spines may be long and tapering as 

in Leperditia armstrongiana Jones and Kirkby, 1886 

(=Shivaella, n. gen.), in which they extend laterodorsally (Jones and Kirby, 1886, pi. 7, fig. Ib). The 

broken bases of these spines are preserved on the 

surface of the shell as tubercles. Dorsoposterior 

spines are present in the living myodocopid species 

Paraphilomedes unicornuta Paulsen 1962, P, tricornuta Paulsen, 1962. The function of such spines 

is as yet unknown, although Henningsmoen (1965, 

p. 375-376) suggested that they may serve as buoyancy organs. The posterior position of the spines 

correlates with the orientation deduced from the 

position of the adductor muscle scar, which 

is generally in front of midlength (pi. 7, figs. 24, 

26; pi. 8, fig. 43), and also correlates with the position of greatest width in dorsal outline due to dimorphism (pi. 3, figs. 31, 36).

ONTOGENETIC DEVELOPMENT

The presence or absence of dorsoposterior spines 

is not related to the growth stages in the ontogeny 

of an individual. Harris and Jobe (1956, p. 6) assumed that spines were present in immature stages 

and absent in the adult stages of Paraparchites projectus Harris and Jobe, 1956. A growth series of 

Shivaella suppetia n. sp., which ranges in greatest 

length from 0.54 mm to 1.35 mm in adult males and 

females, shows the dorsoposterior spines in all stages 

of growth, and a growth series of the associated 

Chamishaella brosgei n. sp., which ranges in greatest length from 0.67 mm to 2.42 mm, consistently 

does not have any spines; a similar series of the 

third associated species, Shishaella williamsae n. 

sp., which has a greatest length range of 0.49 mm 

to 2.18 mm, has a spine on the right valve only.

Adults in one taxon may be smaller than instars of 

other taxa. The size of eggs differs in ostracode 

species in the same family, and the first instar is 

approximately the same size as the egg. Egg sizes 

and greatest lengths of the adults of some living 

ostracodes are given in table 1. This table shows that 

the first instar of Azygocypridina sp. is larger than 

the adults of several other ostracode species. Ostracodes more than 2 mm in greatest length are known 

from the Paleozoic through the Holocene. Some taxa 

may reach the large size because of a large growth 

factor (Sohn, 1950; Anderson, 1964); others, because of a large first instar due to large eggs. I do 

not know of any study to determine which of the two 

factors is responsible for the large size (more than 

2 mm) of any ostracode species, or whether the size 

is due to a combination of both factors, but the presence of large individuals does not necessarily mean 

that the youngest instars had to be very small (less 

than 0.5 mm).

The presence of small specimens that have spines 

associated with large specimens that do not have 

spines does not necessarily indicate that the spines 

were lost in the ontogeny of the species. It is equally 

as logical to assume that the small specimens having 

spines belong to a species that has spines in the 

adult stage, and that large specimens not having 

spines had young stages that also did not have 

spines.
NEW LATE MISSISSIPPTAN OSTRACODE GENERA AND SPECIES FROM NORTHERN ALASKA A3

TABLE 1. Greatest length of eggs and 

adults (in mm} in living ostracodes

Size of egg Greatest length 

of adult

Xestoleberis aurantia

(Baird, 1838) 1 .................... 0.10 0.375-0.568

Cyprideis littoralis

(Brady, 1869) 1 .................. .11 .78 - .81

Philomedes globosus

(Liljeborg, 1853P ............ 0.49- .56 1.87 -2.32

Vargula hilgendorfi

(Miiller, 1890 )* ................ .30 3.15

Azygocypridina sp.3.............. 1.00 7.7

!Data from Elofson (1941, p. 361, 378).

2 Original measurements.

3 L. S. Kornicker (oral commun., 1967).

DIMORPHISM

Many of the genera assigned to the Paraparchitacea show dimorphism in the adult stage. Scott (1959, 

p. 673) stated that dimorphism is unknown in 

Paraparchites, but later he suggested (Scott, in 

Moore, 1961, p. Q180): "Dimorphism in the Paraparchitacea may be represented by a slight enlargement of the posterior half of the carapace." Jones 

and Kirkby (1886, p. 255) noted that Leperditia 

scotoburdigalensis (Hibbert, I834:)=Paraparchites, 

Leperditia okeni (Miinster, lSBQ) = lShishaella, 

and "other species" are present in many localities 

as both thin and fat specimens. They regarded the 

thin specimens as males and the fat specimens as 

females. Chizhova (1960, p. 174, 177) suggested 

sexual dimorphism in the Lower Carboniferous 

Paraparchites ventriosus Chizhova, l96Q=Shishaella 

in which the presumed females have a more convex 

ventral margin, a smaller greatest length, a shorter 

hinge margin, and a proportionally greater height 

and are wider in dorsal outline than the presumed 

males. P. humerosus Ulrich and Bassler, 1906, is 

dimorphic in being wider in end view near the 

venter in heteromorphs and narrower in tecnomorphs (pi. 1, figs. 25, 27, 30, 32).

REVERSAL OF OVERLAP

Although reversal of overlap has been used as a 

criterion to distinguish between ostracode genera, 

it is not a taxonomic criterion in the Paraparchitacea. Persansabella Coryell and Sohn, 1938 (Kloedenellacea), was described as differing from Sansabella 

Roundy, 1926, because of reversal of overlap and 

hingement. The type-series of Sansabella amplectens 

Roundy, the type-species of Sansabella, consists of 

50-percent right over left and 50-percent left over 

right overlap; consequently, Persansabella was considered as a synonym of Sansabella in the "Treatise 

on Invertebrate Paleontology" (Sohn, in Moore, 

1961, p. Q187). Antiparaparchites reversus Coryell 

and Rogatz, 1932, and Paraparchites oviformis 

Coryell and Rogatz, 1932, were described from the

same collection, and I agree with Grachevskiy (1958, 

p. 1322) that the two taxa are conspecific.

PRESERVATION

Surface texture in Paraparchitacea may not be of 

taxonomic significance. Punctation, pits, and 

wrinkles on the surface of specimens in Paraparchitacea are probably due to the vagaries of preservation and subsequent extraction of the specimens. 

Species in genera in this superfamily have been 

described as having pits, punctae, or wrinkles, 

whereas the majority of species have smooth carapaces. The presence or absence of surface inequalities depends on the mode of preservation, and specimens in a single taxon from the same collection may 

be either smooth or punctate.

PUBLISHED HISTORY OF THE GROUP

Paraparchites was established by Ulrich and 

Bassler (1906, p. 149) to include the Carboniferous 

species that had been referred to Leperditia Rouault, 

1851. Bassler and Kellett (1934, p. 423-431) referred 22 Carboniferous species to Paraparchites, 

not including subspecies; by now more than 100 

species have been assigned to this genus. Scott 

(1959) redescribed the type-species, P. humerosus 

Ulrich and Bassler, 1906, and established the family 

Paraparchitidae in the superfamily Paraparchitacea. 

He later (Scott, in Moore, 1961, p. Q193) assigned 

the Paraparchitacea to the suborder Kloedenellocopina in the order Palaeocopida. During the interval 

1906 through 1959, the following related genera 

were described:

Antiparaparchites Coryell and Rogatz, 1932 

Pseudoparaparchites Kellett, 1933 

Ardmorea Bradfield, 1935 

Coelonella Stewart, 1936 

Microcoelonella Coryell and Sohn, 1938 

Microparaparchites Croneis and Gale, 1939 

Proparaparchites Cooper, 1941 

Paraparchitella Cooper, 1946 

Samarella Polenova, 1952 

Coeloenellina Polenova, 1952 

Quasiparaparchites Grachevskiy, 1958 

Dorsoobliquella Knupfer, 1967

Scott (in Moore, 1961, p. Q194) referred all but 

the last three named genera to the Paraparchitidae. 

He correctly recognized some of the genera as junior 

synonyms and reduced the preceding list to the 

following five genera: Paraparchites, Paraparchitella, Proparaparchites, Pseudoparaparchites, and 

?Samarella.

Scott (in Moore, 1961, p. Q194) did not illustrate 

Paraparchitella Cooper, 1946. His diagnosis "Like 

Paraparchites except that hinge channel is shallow 

and narrow; greatest width in posterior half; ventral
A4 A REVISION OF THE PARAPARCHITACEA

overlap strong," did not agree with Cooper's (1946, 

p. 121) original conception of this genus. Cooper's 

description of Paraparchitella as having one valve 

overlapping along the venter and the other valve 

overlapping along the dorsum fits my diagnosis of 

the family Rishonidae (Sohn, 1960, p. 76). The typespecies P. ovata Cooper, 1946, (p. 121, pi. 21, figs. 

40-44, misspelled as P. erata Cooper n. sp., on p. 

20) was recorded as having a length of only 0.65 

mm and may represent a juvenile individual. This 

monotypic genus from the Lower Pennsylvanian 

of Illinois has not been recognized since its original 

description; consequently, I tentatively refer this 

taxon to the Rishonidae? Sohn, 1961. I have previously (Sohn, 1960, p. 80) discussed the Devonian 

genus Samarella Polenova, 1952, under the Rishonidae.

Becker (1964, p. 85) disagreed with my assignment of Samarella to the Rishonidae and followed 

Scott (in Moore, 1961) by referring Samarella to 

the Paraparchitidae?. He (Becker, 1964, p. 85) described two Middle Devonian (Eifelian) species: S. 

jubata Becker, 1964, and S. laevinodosa Becker, 

1964. Averjanov (1968, p. 274) described and illustrated the Middle Devonian S. binodosa and S. 

miropolskii, and Groos (1969, p. 55) illustrated 

specimens of S. crassa Polenova, 1962, from Germany. Because Samarella is not present in the Mississippian of Alaska, it is not illustrated or further 

discussed in this study.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to the following for assistance: J. T. 

Dutro, Jr., and W. P. Brosge, U.S. Geological 

Survey, for most of the collections from Alaska. The 

first collection was given to me by A. L. Bowsher, 

formerly with the U.S. National Museum. R. W. 

Harris, University of Oklahoma, loaned the types of 

Paraparchites projectus Harris and Jobe, 1956. 

Roberta C. Wigder drew the original of figure 2, 

and Elinor Stromberg drew figures 1 and 3 and 

composed the plates.

COLLECTION LOCALITIES

USGS

Upper

Paleozoic

loc.

No.

3167

Field 

No.

F-6

Description of locality, stratigraphic 

position, collector, and date

Brooks Range, Chandler Lake 

quadrangle, lat 68°22'30" N., 

long 150°28'25" W., on west slope 

of ridge east of Nanushuk River 

valley, 6,200 feet south of southeast corner of Nanushuk Lake. 

Alapah Limestone, lower part, 

basal 15 feet of brownish-gray 

bioclastic limestone, just above 

brown-weathering zone, 97-113 

feet above base of formation;

USGS

Upper

Paleozoic

loc. Field Description of locality, stratigraphic 

No. No. position, collector, and date

Lithostrotion aff. L. asiaticum 

Zone. Collected by A. L. Bowsher, 

J. T. Dutro, Jr., and C. J. Gudim, 

July 24, 1949.

11810 50ABe-41 Brooks Range, Chandler Lake

quadrangle, lat 68° 17' N., long 

152°37' W., Chandler Lake valley, approximately 10,000 feet S. 

85° E. of Astronomical Point on 

Little Chandler Lake. Composite 

measured section of Lisburne 

Group, Alapah Limestone, about 

1,300 feet above base; Goniatites 

crenistria Zone. Collected by 

W. P. Brosge, 1950.

13288 50ABe-47mf Brooks Range, same area as USGS

loc. 11810. Alapah Limestone, 

about 205 feet above base; Lithostrotion aff. L. asiaticum Zone. 

Collected by W. P. Brosge, 1950. 

5553 ............................. .Fayetteville quadrangle, Sonora

7% -minute quadrangle, Washington County, Ark., Webber 

Mountain, NW%NW% sec. 4, 

T. 17 N., R. 29 W., Fayetteville 

Shale. Collected by R. D. Messier, 1906.

AGE OF THE OSTRACODES

USGS collections 3167 and 13288 are from the 

foraminiferal assemblage zone 13 of Armstrong, 

Mamet, and Dutro (1970, p. 691), and USGS collection 11810 is from the next younger zone, 14, in 

the above classification. The stratigraphic correlation of the Alapah Limestone, the invertebrate fossils other than ostracodes, and the geologic framework of the area were discussed by Bowsher and 

Dutro (1957), Gordon (1957), and Yochelson and 

Dutro (1960). Sando, Mamet, and Dutro (1969) 

synthesized the inferred relationships of the Mississippian faunal zones.

Because the ostracodes are newly described, they 

cannot now be used to indicate the age of the rocks. 

Their description, however, makes them usable in 

future work because, according to the above-mentioned references, the age of the collections that contained the ostracodes is equivalent to middle Visean 

of the European stages and the middle Meramecian 

of the mid-continent. They are approximately equivalent to the St. Louis and Ste. Genevieve Limestones.

SYSTEMATIC DESCRIPTIONS

KEY TO THE GENERA

[Those marked with an asterisk are newly described]

1. No posterodorsal spines 

la. Posterodorsal spines ......
NEW LATE MISSISSIPPIAN OSTRACODE GENERA AND SPECIES FROM NORTHERN ALASKA A5

2(1). Overreach above hingeline .................................. 7

2a. No overreach above hingeline ............................ 3

3(2a). Hinge margin channeled ...................................... 4

3a. Hinge margin not channeled .............................. 6

4(3). Ventral overlap broad ....................................Coelonella

4a. Ventral overlap narrow ........................................ 5

5(4a). Large, usually more than 1 mm in

greatest length ....................................Paraparchites

5a. Small, usually less than 1 mm in

greatest length ............. ...................Proparaparchites

6(3a). Bend along ventral margin ...... ....Quasiparaparchites

6a. No bend along ventral margin ................Shemonaella*

7(2). Dorsal margin strongly convex ..........Dorsoobliquella

7a. Dorsal margin straight or gently

curved ................................................. ...Chamlshaella*

8(la). Posterodorsal spine on one valve ........... .....Shishaella*

8a. Posterodorsal spine on both valves .................... 9

9(8a). Spines close to dorsal margin, at or

near posterior margin ....... .....Pseudoparaparchites

9a. Spines below dorsal margin, in front

of posterior margin ....................................Shivaella*

Class OSTRACODA Latreille, 1802 

Order PODOCOPIDA Sars, 1866

The conception of this order is as used by me 

(Sohn, 1961) and not by other paleontologists.

Suborder unknown

Schallreuter (1968, p. 128) assigned the Paraparchitacea to the Platycopina, but the lateral outline, hingement, calcified inner lamella, and adductor 

muscle-scar pattern negates this assignment.

Superfamily PARAPARCHITACEA Scott, 1959

Emended diagnosis. Smooth, subovoid, straightbacked, nonsulcate; ventral margin convex; overlap 

narrow to wide; has ridge and groove hinge, the 

hinge margin either channeled or with overreach of 

smaller valve; dorsoposterior spine on one or both 

valves, or no spines; usually dimorphic in width of 

posterior or of venter.

Discussion. Scott's diagnosis (1959, p. 673), 

"Nonsulcate, nonlobate, nonvelate paleocopes with 

unequal valves, the larger overlapping the smaller 

around all or most of the free margin," was based

FIGURE 2. Muscle-scar pattern of the inside left valve of Shishaella marathonensis (Hamilton, 1942). Permian, Glass 

Mountains, Tex. Figured specimen, 

USNM 168099. X 27.

on external morphology. The presence of a calcified 

inner lamella indicates podocopid affinities. The adductor muscle-scar pattern (fig. 2; pi. 5, figs. 18, 33, 

35, 37, 39; pi. 7, figs. 21, 24-27, 33) suggests affinities 

in the Podocopida with the Cypridacea rather than 

the Cytheracea.

Robinson (1969, pi. 3, figs. 3, 4) illustrated 

similar muscle scars in a left valve of Paraparchites 

sp. from the Lower Limestone Shales (Tournaisian) 

in the Forest of Dean, and in a right valve of Paraparchites cf. P. inornatus (McCoy, 1844) from the 

Scremerston Coal Group (Visean) in Warksburn, 

Northumberland, both in Great Britain. Because the 

complete specimens of both were neither described 

nor illustrated by Robinson, I do not know to which 

genera they belong in the present study. Bless (1967, 

p. 121-123, figs. 34, 35) described and illustrated a 

rounded compound adductor muscle scar of Paraparchites cantelii Bless, 1967, from the Westphalian D 

(Middle Pennsylvanian) of Spain; it consists of 

about 50 individual flecks roughly resembling 

those of Chamishaella illustrated on plate 5, figures 

33, 35, 39, except that Bless neither mentioned nor illustrated the dorsoanterior knob and the accessory 

scars found in the Mississippian specimens. Although Bless stated that P. cantelii has a channeled 

hinge, he did not indicate whether or not the species 

has a dorsal overreach; consequently, the species 

cannot be assigned to Chamishaella.

Family PARAPARCHITIDAE Scott, 1959

Scott's original definition (1959, p. 673):

Nonsulcate, nonlobate, nonvelate, smooth to punctate ostracodes with posterodorsal spine sometimes present; the dorsum is straight to gently convex; the valves are unequal 

with the larger valve overlapping the smaller one along the 

free margin, the valves are subovate to elongate-ovate with 

the ends broadly rounded; the hinge commissure is straight 

or interrupted at ends by faint to moderately strong posterior 

and anterior cardinal indentations where the overlap begins; 

one valve may slightly overreach the other dorsally, but dorsal 

shoulders are of equal height; Dev.-Permian.

This diagnosis was based on the external morphology. In this paper the family diagnosis is considered 

to be the same as the diagnosis of the superfamily. 

The group is probably polyphyletic, and future study 

may disclose that the genera assigned to the Paraparchitidae belong to more than one family.

Genus PARAPARCHITES Ulrich and Bassler, 1906, emend. Scott, 1959

Paraparchites Ulrich and Bassler, 1906, U.S. Natl. Mus. Proc.,

v. 30, p. 149; Scott, 1959, Jour. Paleontology, v. 33,

no. 4, p. 673. 

Antipa,raparchites Coryell and Rogatz, 1932, Am. Midland

Naturalist, v. 13, no. 6, p. 387. Based on reversal of

overlap. 

Ardmorea Bradfield, 1935, Bull. Am. Paleontology, v. 22, no.

73, p. 138. Based on steinkem.
A6 A REVISION OF THE PARAPARCHITACEA

Microcoelonella Coryell and Sohn, 1938, Jour. Paleontology,

v. 12, no. 6, p. 597. Based on a juvenile. 

ICyathus Roth and Skinner, 1930. Cooper, 1941, Illinois State

Geol. Survey Rept. Inv. 77, p. 61.

Type-species (original designation). P. humerosus Ulrich and Bassler, 1906, U.S. Natl. Mus. Proc., 

v. 30, p. 151, pi. 11, figs. 1-4. Scott, 1959, Jour. Paleontology, v. 33, p. 673, pi. 87, figs. 1-7. Scott, in 

Moore, 1961, p. Q193, fig. 135, text-figs, la-f. Lower 

Permian, Manhattan, Kans.

Diagnosis. Lateral outline ovate to elongatedovate; ends broadly rounded; dorsal margin usually 

straight, occasionally gently convex; dorsum incised 

without significant overreach; overlap along free 

margins narrow, there being no significant overlap; 

hinge simple; dimorphic in width; reversal of overlap known; surface smooth, without dorsal spines.

Discussion. The above diagnosis is modified from 

Scott (1959; in Moore, 1961). All species previously 

assigned to Pamparchites that have spines and (or) 

a pronounced overreach along the dorsal or overlap 

along the ventral margins are excluded from this 

genus. The muscle-scar pattern in this genus is 

cyprid.

Antiparaparchites reversus Coryell and Rogatz, 

1932, from the Arroyo Formation (Permian) of 

Texas, the type-species of Antiparaparchites, was 

described as having the overlap reversed from Paraparchites. Paraparchites oviformis Coryell and 

Rogatz, 1932, was described from the same collections. Coryell and Rogatz (1932, p. 387) referred P. 

oviformis to their plate 35, figures 1 and 2, and A. 

reversus to their plate 35, figures 3 and 4. Because of 

a typographical error, the plate on which the specimens are illustrated is numbered 34. The numbering 

of the illustrations is also reversed; figures 1 and 2 

are given as the right and left valve of Paraparchites oviformis (p. 394); they are actually the left 

and right valves (the left overlaps the right along 

the free margins) of Antiparaparchites. Figures 3 

and 4, which are described as left and right valves of 

Antiparaparchites reversus, represent the right and 

left valves of Paraparchites. The sizes of the two 

types confirm this: the length of P. oviformis is 

given as 0.95 mm (p. 387) and the length of A. reversus as 1.17 mm (p. 388). All the illustrations on 

plate 34 are stated to be X 45, and figures 1 and 

2 are larger than figures 3 and 4; figure 1 measures 

47 mm, and figure 3 measures 39 mm. The topotypes illustrated here (pi. 2, figs. 7-10, 13-15) have 

the same relative sizes; A. reversus is larger than P. 

oviformis.

The topotypes are slightly abraded carapaces; 

however, it is not possible to determine from the 

drawings of the types whether they also are slightly 

abraded. Scott (in Moore, 1961, p. Q193) illustrated 

two views of P. reversus (Coryell and Rogatz) as 

figures 135, text figures Ig and Ih, and labeled them 

as left and right valves, respectively. The illustrations are of P. oviformis and are right and left 

views, respectively. Kellett (1937) correctly stated 

that reversal of overlap in this group is not generically or specifically significant. The two species described from the Arroyo Formation of Texas by 

Coryell and Rogatz (1932) are synonyms and are 

referred to P. texanus Delo, 1930.

Only two additional species were described in 

Antiparaparchites: A. ? oblongus Coryell and Rozanski, 1942, and A. wabashensis Payne, 1937. A.? 

oblongus is based on a steinkern of an indeterminable genus, and A. wabashensis belongs to Sansabella Roundy, 1926.

Ardmorea Bradfield, 1935, is monotypic and based 

on A. symmetrica Bradfield, 1935 (p. 138, pi. 13, 

figs. 6a, b), from the Devils Kitchen Member of 

Tomlinson (1928) of the Deese Formation (Pennsylvanian) of Oklahoma. I have examined the holotype and determined it to be a steinkern of Paraparchites:

Scott (1959, p. 673) referred Coelonella Stewart, 

1936, to Paraparchites as a junior synonym. Stewart 

(1936, p. 742, 743) referred two species to Coelonella: the type-species, Isochilinal scapha Stewart, 

1930, and the newly described Coelonella plana Stewart, 1936, both from the Silica Shale (Middle 

Devonian), Lucas County, Ohio. I am grateful to 

Mr. J. J. Burke, curator of the museum at the Ohio 

State University, for lending me the types and illustrated specimens of Coelonella. Additional specimens from the Silica Shale at the U.S. National 

Museum and topotypes collected by Mrs. Ruth E. 

Chilman, Detroit, Mich., were examined, and some 

were sectioned. On the basis of all the material available to me, I conclude that the type-species, Isochilinat scapha Stewart, 1930, is not congeneric with 

Paraparchites and does not belong to the same family as Paraparchites.

Pfibyl (1955, p. 280) considered Coelonella as a 

subgenus of Sansabella Roundy, 1926. On the basis 

of the hinge structures of Sansabella and Coelonella, 

the two genera are not related, and each belongs to 

a different family.

The Devonian genus Coeloenellina Polenova, 1952, 

described from the U.S.S.R., is not considered in this
NEW LATE MISSISSIPPIAN OSTRACODE GENERA AND SPECIES FROM NORTHERN ALASKA A7

study because specimens are not available. A discussion of this genus is in Polenova (1968, p. 10).

The type-species of Microcoelonella is M. scanta 

Coryell and Sohn, 1938, from the Reynolds Limestone of the Bluefield Group in the Mauch Chunk 

Series of Price, Heck, Tilton, and Wells (1939) 

(Upper Mississippian) of West Virginia. The holotype is probably a juvenile, and both the species and 

genus are considered nomina dubia until additional 

material is studied. Species not considered in this 

study because of the unavailability of original 

specimens are: The Devonian Microcoelonella 

optata Polenova, 1955, and M. orthocornis Rozhdestvenskaja, 1959 (misspelled Microcoeloenella) ; the 

Mississippian M. symmetrica Scott, 1942, M. scantiformis Buschmina, 1968, and M. podiakovoensis 

Buschmina, 1968; and the Permian M. longula Chen, 

1958.

Cyathus Roth and Skinner, 1930, was based on a 

single carapace of C. ulrichi Roth and Skinner, 1930 

(p. 347, pi. 28, figs. 5-8), from the McCoy Formation (Pennsylvanian) of Colorado. The holotype 

(USNM 103027) is a steinkern probably of an indeterminable kirkbyid. C. vetustus Cooper, 1941 (p. 

61, pi. 13, figs. 9, 10), from the Paint Creek Formation (Mississippian) is probably a Paraparchites.

Dimorphism in Paraparchites is a vexing problem. 

Briefly, the following opinions have been recorded. 

In their discussion of Leperditia scotoburdigalensw 

(Hibbert, 1836), originally described as Cypris= 

Paraparchites, Jones and Kirkby (1886, p. 255) 

stated:

In many localities where this species occurs there are both 

thin and fat specimens, as in the case of Leperditia Okeni 

and other species; the former we regard as probably males, 

the latter as females, similar differences of carapace being 

well known to mark the sexes in many cases among recent 

Ostracoda.

They illustrated on their plate 7, figures 4a, b, a 

specimen from the Calciferous Sandstones in left 

and dorsal views, but it is not certain from the illustrations whether the greatest width is at the midheight or near the ventral margin. The dorsal outline (fig. 4b) is of a carapace whose greatest width 

is at the approximate midlength and which tapers 

about equally toward both ends. Scott (1959, p. 673), 

in his revised generic description of Paraparchites, 

stated that dimorphism is unknown.

The type-series of P. hvmerosus illustrated by 

Scott consists of: the lectotype, which has a wider 

cross section near the ventral margin and represents 

a female (see this report, pi. 1, figs. 26-28); two 

right valves of adults that are also females, one of 

which is reillustrated (pi. 1, figs. 24, 25); and three

preadult specimens whose narrow ventral margin in 

cross section is similar to the cross section of a carapace (pi. 2, fig. 17) having a greatest length of 1.7 

mm. Among the unillustrated paratypes is a broken 

right valve that was probably 2 mm in greatest 

length and therefore an adult. This specimen, illustrated on plate 1, figures 29 and 30, is narrow near 

the venter and probably represents a male. I do not 

know whether all the species in the genus show a 

similar dimorphism, because most of the described 

species were not illustrated in end view. For this 

reason the statement in the diagnosis, "dimorphic 

in width," does not specify whether it is width of 

posterior or near venter.

Although the Devonian genus Coelonella Stewart, 

1936, is not considered to be a synonym of Paraparchites, plate 2, figure 16, shows a typically paraparchitid cross section of Paraparchites sp. from the 

Manlius Limestone of New York.

Stratigraphic range. Devonian-Permian.

Paraparchites humerosus Ulrich and Bassler, 1906, emend. Scott, 1959

Plate 1, figures 24-32; plate 2, figure 17

Paraparchites humerosus Ulrich and Bassler, 1906 [part], 

U.S. Natl. Mus. Proc., v. 30, p. 151, pi. 11, figs. 1-4. 

"Elendale" Formation, Manhattan, Kans. 

Scott, 1959, Jour. Paleontology, v. 33, no. 4, p. 671-673, 

pi. 87, figs. 1-7. Restudy of the types.

[not] Paraparchites humerosus Ulrich and Bassler. Delo, 

1931, Washington Univ. (St. Louis) Studies, new ser., 

Sci. and Technology, no. 5, p. 42, pi. 4, fig. 1. Pennsylvanian, well in Hamilton County, Kans. Misidentification.

[not] Paraparchites humerosus Ulrich and Bassler. Kellett, 

1933, Jour. Paleontology, v. 7, no. 1, p. 64, pi. 13, figs. 

1-12. Upper Pennsylvanian and Permian of Kansas. 

=P. kellettae, n. sp.

[not] Paraparchites humerosus kansasensis Harris and Lalicker, 1932, Am. Midland Naturalist, v. 13, no. 6, p. 

396, pi. 36, figs, la, b. Wreford Limestone, Cowley 

County, Kans. =P. kansasensis Harris and Lalicker, 

1932.

[not] Paraparchites humerosus spinosus Upson, 1933, Nebraska Geol. Survey Bull. 8, 2d ser., p. 12, pi. 1, figs. 

2a, b. Shale 1 foot above base of Funston Limestone, 

Hooser, Kans. = ?P. kansasensis Harris and Lalicker, 

1932.

[not] Paraparchites humerosus texana Delo, 1930, Jour. Paleontology, v. 4, no. 2, p. 153, pi. 12, fig. 1. Probably 

Permian, well in Menard County, Tex. =Paraparchites 

texanus Delo, 1930.

Discussion. See Scott (1959) for description and 

illustrations of this species and designation of the 

lectotype. This species was discussed herein under 

the genus. Delo's specimen of this species (see preceding synonymy) is, as indicated by Kellett (1933,
A8 A REVISION OF THE PARAPARCHITACEA

p. 65), not conspecific with the type. Because the 

specimen is not available for examination, its affinities are not discussed.

Ulrich and Bassler (1906, p. 151) stated that this 

species is "abundant in the Elendale Formation, 

Manhattan, Kansas, and in yellow shales of the 

Wreford limestone, 6 miles west of Reece, Kansas." 

The cotypes (USNM 35627) are labeled "Elendale," 

a name not listed in the literature and undoubtedly 

an error for the Elmdale Shale. "Elmdale" is an 

abandoned name for a shale overlying the Americus 

Limestone, the basal member of the Foraker Limestone of the Council Grove Group. A single specimen, a crushed valve on yellow shale (USNM 

35657), is from the Wreford Limestone, 6 miles 

west of Reece, Kans. This specimen has the same 

lateral outline as P. humerosus var. spinosus Upson, 

1933, which I questionably refer to P. kansasensis 

Harris and Lalicker, 1932.

Measurements (in mm). 

Greatest Greatest Greatest 

length height width

Paralectotype (pi. 1,

figs. 24, 25) ................................. 2.04 1.33 0.64

Lectotype (pi. 1, figs. 26-28) ...... 1.90 1.30 1.08

Paralectotype (pi. 1,

figs. 29, 30) ....... .......................Broken 1.17 0.58

Paralectotype (pi. 1,

figs. 31, 32) ................................ 1.75 1.15 0.91

Stratigraphic range. Lower Permian, "Elmdale 

Shale" (=Foraker Limestone).

Geographic distribution. Manhattan, Kans.

Paraparchites kellettae Sohn, n. sp.

Plate 2, figures 11, 12

Paraparchites humerosus Ulrich and Bassler. Kellett, 1933,

Jour. Paleontology, v. 7, no. 1, p. 64, pi. 13, figs. 1-12. 

?Paraparchites oviformis Coryell and Rogatz. Upson, 1933,

Nebraska Geol. Survey Bull. 8, 2d ser., p. 13, pi. 1, figs.

3a, b. Shale in Kinney Limestone Member, Matfield

Shale, Gage County, Nebr.

Name. In honor of Betty Kellett (Mrs. E. H. 

Nadeau).

Holotype. USNM 85423.

Paratypes. A growth series of seven additional 

specimens on the same slide.

Type-locality. Kellett's (1933, p. 106) locality 45, 

U.S. Highway 40 opposite cemetery, Fort Riley, 

Geary County, Kans.

Type-level. Fort Riley Limestone, Chase Group, 

Permian.

Diagnosis. End margins unequal, posterior narrower; ventral margin curved.

Discussion. Kellett adequately described and illustrated an ontogenetic series of this species. Scott 

(1959, p. 672) correctly noted that the orientation of

Kellett's specimens should be reversed 180°. The 

original of Kellett's illustration (1933, pi. 13, figs. 

1, 8) is reillustrated (pi. 2, figs. 11, 12) as the holotype; her remaining seven specimens (USNM 

85423) are here designated as paratypes. Upson 

(1933) illustrated a specimen as P. oviformis Coryell 

and Rogatz that appears to be more closely related 

to this species than to P. texanus Delo, 1930.

Stratigraphic range. Upper Pennsylvanian(?) 

and Lower Permian.

Geographic distribution. Chase, Geary, Lyon,and 

Wabaunsee Counties, Kans., and Gage County, 

Nebr.

Paraparchites texanus Delo, 1930

Plate 2, figures 1, 2, 7-10, 13-15

Paraparchites humerosus var. texana Delo, 1930, Jour. Paleontology, v. 4, no. 2, p. 153, pi. 12, fig. 1. Probably 

Permian, well in Menard County, Tex.

Paraparchites oviformis Coryell and Rogatz, 1932, Am. Midland Naturalist, v. 13, p. 387, pi. 35, figs. 1, 2=pl. 34, 

figs. 3, 4. Arroyo Formation, Tom Green County, Tex.

Antiparaparchites reversus Coryell and Rogatz, 1932, Am. 

Midland Naturalist, v. 13, p. 388, pi. 35, figs. 3, 4=pl. 

34, figs. 1, 2. Same collection as above.

[not] Paraparchites oviformis Coryell and Rogatz. Upson, 

1933, Nebraska Geol. Survey Bull. 8, 2d ser., p. 13, 

pi. 1, figs. 3a, b. ?'Paraparchites kellettae Sohn, n. sp.

Diagnosis. Greatest height at anterior cardinal 

angle; ventral margin truncated upwards from that 

point.

Discussion. Topotypes of Paraparchites oviformis and Antiparaparchites reversus cannot be 

distinguished from the holotype of P. texanus. These 

two species are discussed under the genus.

Measurements (in mm).. 

Greatest Greatest Greatest 

length height width

Holotype (pi. 2, figs. 1, 2) .......... 0.96 0.70 .049

Topotype (pi. 2, figs. 7-10) ........ 1.07 .78 .48

Topotype (pi. 2, figs. 13-15) .... .85 .65 .42

Stratigraphic range. Permian (?), C. Cromwell, 

Winslow 1 well, 600-620 feet; Permian, Arroyo 

Formation.

Geographic distribution. Menard and Tom Green 

Counties, Tex.

Genus SHIVAELLA Sohn, n. gen.

Name. The name Shivaella is feminine.

Type-species. Shivaella suppetia Sohn, n. sp.

Diagnosis. Dorsoposterior spines on both valves; 

lacks a flattened dorsoposterior area that extends 

laterally from the slightly incised hingeline.

Description. The carapace is approximately 1 

mm or larger in greatest length; the dorsal margin 

is straight. The hingeline is slightly incised but lacks 

any significant overreach of either valve, and the
NEW LATE MISSISSIPPIAN OSTRACODE GENERA AND SPECIES FROM NORTHERN ALASKA A9

free margins are curved. The dorsoposterior spines 

are symmetrical in position on both valves. Both 

valves are equally curved from the dorsal margin to 

the ventral margin; consequently, the bases of the 

spines are removed from the hingeline. The hinge 

of the right valve consists of a groove into which 

the left valve fits, and the left valve overlaps the 

right along the free margins. The amount of overlap 

varies with species; some have an incised contact 

margin, while others have a normal overlap of the 

left valve over the right. A narrow calcified inner 

lamella can be seen in silicified valves and on steinkerns. Details of the muscle-scar pattern were not 

discerned.

Discussion. The first species to be described that 

belongs to Shivaella was Leperditia armstrongiana 

Jones and Kirkby, 1886, from the Carboniferous 

Limestone Series of Great Britain. They illustrated 

two specimens (1886, p. 253, pi. 7, figs, la, b): a 

left (right) valve from Storr Moss, Lancashire, 

England (fig. la), and the dorsal view of a cast from 

Law Quarry, Ayrshire, Scotland (fig. Ib). The steinkern clearly shows on both ends the grooves made by 

the calcified part of the inner lamella. Jones and 

Kirkby stated (1886, p. 254): "The spines * * * 

are stout at the base, of considerable length, and 

tapering to a fine point; they are directed outward, 

upward and rather forward [backward]. In casts 

* * * the spines are about one third of the valve 

length." Most of the specimens on hand have rather 

stubby spines, but I have seen one carapace that 

has long curved tapering spines that practically 

touched each other behind the carapace. I have no 

basis for interpreting the function of the spines in 

this genus or in the other genera discussed in this 

paper.

That this genus is dimorphic in width of posterior 

is shown by a growth series of the type-species.

In addition to the species discussed or illustrated 

in this study, the following described species should 

be referred to Shivaella:

Paraparchites armstrongianus (Jones and Kirkby). Pozner, 

1951, p. 23, pi. 1, fig. 7=Shivaella sp. because of more 

subcircular lateral outline.

bucerus Kummerow, 1953, p. 11, pi. 1, fig. 2.

carbonarius (Hall). Gorak, 1967, p. 46, pi. 25, figs. 4a-c 

=S. sp.

longa Chizhova, 1960, p. 175, pi. 3, figs. 2-4.

magnus Kellett, 1933, v. 7, no. 1, p. 65, pi. 13, figs. 13,

23. 38, 39. 

Leperditia microphthalma Eichwald, 1860, p. 1336, pi. 53,

fig. 7. 

Paraparchites oblongus Coryell and Sample, 1932, p. 250, pi.

24. fig. 3=Shivaellat brazoensis (Coryell and Sample, 

1932).

palopintoensis Coryell and Sample, 1932, p. 248, pi. 24, 

fig. 4:=Shivaella! brazoensis (Coryell and Sample, 

1932).

papillatus Ershova, 1968, p. 88, pi. 1, figs, la, b. 

pinguis Green, 1963, p. 126, pi. 8, figs. 1-7. 

quasiporrectus Buschmina, 1968, p. 30, pi. 3, figs. 1, 2. 

Quasiparaparchites redaevkensis Grachevskiy, 1958, p. 1324,

text figs. 2a-d.

Cythere spinigera McCoy, 1844, p. 168, pi. 23, fig. 23. 

IMicrocoelonellat tuberculata Robinson, 1959, p. 443, text 

fig. 2, figs. 3a-c. The reasons for questioning this assignment are the reversed overlap, rounded cardinal 

angles, and elongated lateral outline.

Stratigraphic range. Mississippian-Pennsylvanian.

Shivaella suppetia Sobn, n. sp.

Plate 3, figures 1-38

Name. Suppetia, Latin for help.

Holotype. USNM 168004.

Paratypes. USNM 167995-168003.

Material. More than 75 carapaces in various 

stages of growth.

Type-locality. Top of ridge east of Little Chandler Lake, Brooks Range, Alaska.

Type-level. Platy limestone member of the 

Alapah Limestone, 200 feet above the base of the 

limestone (USGS loc. 13288).

Diagnosis. Posterodorsal spines more than onequarter the greatest length in from posterior margin and about one-eighth the greatest length down 

from dorsal contact; dorsal outline subelliptical; 

greatest width slightly behind midlength.

Description. The lateral outline is subovate; the 

dorsal margin is straight; the anterior margin is 

curved, and it extends farther forward than the 

narrower curved posterior margin extends backward. The cardinal angles are approximately equal. 

The ventral margin is convex; the greatest height is 

slightly behind a line drawn perpendicular to the 

dorsal margin at the anterior cardinal angle. The 

venter is incised, the result being a narrow overlap 

of the left valve over the right. The hingeline is incised, the grooved hinge of the right valve overlapping the dorsal edge of the left. The spines are 

about twice as far in from the posterior margins as 

down from the dorsal margin. Dimorphism is shown 

in width of posterior in dorsal view. Presumed 

heteromorphs have a wider posterior and also are 

slightly wider near the venter in end view.

Measurements (in mm). 

Greatest Greatest 

height

Greatest 

width

Paratype (pi. 3, figs. 1-5) ................ 0.54 0.40 0.37

Paratype (pi. 3, figs. 6-10) .............. .65 .48 .40

Paratype (pi. 3, figs. 11-15) ........... .85 .61 .53
A10 A REVISION OF THE PARAPARCHITACEA

Greatest Greatest 

length height

Greatest 

ividth

Paratype (pi. 3, figs. 16-20) ............ 1.04 0.75 0.67

Paratype (pi. 3, figs. 21-25) ............ 1.03 .76 .63

Paratype (pi. 3, figs. 26-28) ............ 1.03 .76 .65

Holotype (pi. 3, figs. 29-33) .............. 1.35 .99 .76

Paratype (pi. 3, figs. 34-38) ............ 1.31 1.04 .82

Discussion. The presence of spines in all stages 

of growth indicates that in this species spines are 

not associated with sex or maturation. Finding of 

this growth series helped clarify the relationship of 

the genera in the Paraparchitacea, hence the specific name. S. suppetia has spines closer to the dorsal 

margin and has a narrower anterior in dorsal outline than S. pingue (Green, 1963). S. pingue 

(Green, 1963) (Lower Mississippian), and the new 

species S. mertiei (Upper Mississippian) have an 

incised venter in common with S. suppetia; this 

feature may prove to be diagnostic of the Mississippian. I am not segregating this group into a separate supraspecific category because this feature was 

not discussed or illustrated in the descriptions of 

many of the other species that I refer to Shivaella.

Age. Upper Mississippian (Meramecian).

Distribution. In addition to the type-locality a 

few representatives of this species were found at 

USGS locality 11810.

Shivaella mertiei Sohn, n. sp.

Plate 4, figures 17-27

Name. In honor of J. B. Mertie, Jr., U.S. Geological Survey.

Holotype. USNM 168032.

Paratypes. USNM 168025-168031.

Material. Four silicified carapaces and 26 silicified valves in various stages of growth.

Type-locality. West slope of ridge, east of Nanushuk Valley, 6,200 feet south of southeast corner of 

Nanushuk Lake, Brooks Range, Alaska, USNM 

locality 3167.

Type-level. Alapah Limestone, 312 feet above 

base, from basal 15 feet of brown-gray bioclastic 

limestone, just above brown-weathering zone.

Diagnosis. Differs from S. suppetia n. sp. in 

having a straighter ventral margin, a more obtuse 

anterior cardinal angle, in being narrower near the 

venter, and in having the spines slightly closer to 

the dorsal margin.

Description. The lateral outline is subovate; the 

dorsal margin is straight; and the anterior margin 

is gently curved in the upper part and more convex 

in the lower part so that the bend in curvature is at 

or slightly below midheight. The posterior margin is 

curved, about half as broad as the anterior margin,

Greatest 

height

Greatest 

ividth

0.45 0.20

.77 .37

.91 .41

1.20 .89

1.20 .45

1.29 .89

1.45 .55

and joins the ventral margin at about midheight. 

The ventral margin is gently curved; the greatest 

height is slightly in front of a line drawn perpendicular to the dorsal margin at the anterior cardinal 

angle. The venter is incised, but the valves are not 

so wide near the venter as those of S. suppetia. The 

spines are about three times as far in from the 

posterior margin as down from the dorsal margin. 

Measurements (in mm). 

Greatest 

length

Paratype (pi. 4, figs. 19, 20) ........ 0.60

Paratype (pi. 4, fig. 18) ............... .96

Paratype (pi. 4, fig. 17) ................ 1.20

Paratype (pi. 4, figs. 21-24) ........ 1.58

Paratype (pi. 4, fig. 25) ................ 1.61

Paratype (pi. 4, fig. 27) ................ 1.78

Holotype (pi. 4, fig. 26) ................ 1.99

Discussion. Single valves have a narrow calcified 

inner lamella and show the tongue and groove hingement typical of the group. Dimorphism could not be 

determined in this species, possibly because of insufficient material.

Stratigraphic range. Visean, lower Meramecian.

Geographic distribution. Brooks Range, Alaska.

Shivaella nicklesi (Ulrich, 1891)

Plate 4, figures 1-16

Leperditia nicklesi Ulrich, 1891, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. 

History, v. 13, p. 200, pi. 18, figs. la-e. See "Discussion" for locality and age.

Paraparchites nicklesi (Ulrich). Harlton, 1929, Am. Jour. 

Sci., 5th ser., v. 18, p. 255, pi. 1, fig. 1. Fayetteville 

Shale, Girty's type-locality, railroad cut at Fayetteville, Ark.

[not] P. nicklesi (Ulrich). Girty, 1911, U.S. Geol. Survey 

Bull. 439, p. 105, pi. 9, figs. 2-5=Shishaella sp.

[not] P. nicklesi (Ulrich). Croneis, 1930, Arkansas Geol. 

Survey Bull. 3, p. 61, pi. 15, fig. ll=Shishaella cyclopea 

(Girty, 1910).

[not] P. nicklesi (Ulrich). Morey, 1935, Jour. Paleontology, 

v. 9, no. 4, p. 317, pi. 28, fig. 26=genus and species 

indet.

[not] P. nicklesi (Ulrich). Morey, 1936, Jour. Paleontology, 

v. 10, no. 2, p. 115, pi. 17, fig. 26=Shishaella sp.

[not] P. nicklesi (Ulrich). McLaughlin and Simons, 1951, 

Jour. Paleontology, v. 25, p. 517, pi. 76, figs. 9, 10= 

Pseudoparaparchites dornickhillicus (Bradfield, 1935).

[not] P. nicklesi (Ulrich). Green, 1963, Research Council 

Alberta Bull. 11, p. 127, pi. 8, figs. 10, ll=Shishaella 

sp.

Paraparchites projectus Harris and Jobe, 1956 [part], Oklahoma Geol. Survey Circ. 39, p. 6, pi. 1, figs. 7a-d (not 

fig. 6, holotype=Shishaella cyclopea (Girty, 1910)). 

"Manning" horizon (Chester equivalent), Major County, Okla.

Diagnosis. Differs from all other species here assigned to Shivaella in that the greatest height is at 

or slightly in front of midlength, and that the spine
NEW LATE MISSISSIPPIAN OSTRACODE GENERA AND SPECIES FROM NORTHERN ALASKA All

Greatest Greatest

height width

0.62 0.41

1.16 .54

1.18 .75

is somewhat more removed from the posterior than 

from the dorsal margins.

Measurements (in mm). 

Greatest 

length

Topotype (pi. 4, figs. 1-5) ............ 0.81

Lectotype (pi. 4, figs. 10-12) ........ 1.61

Hypotype (pi. 4, figs. 13-16) ........ 1.77

Discussion. A slide (USNM 41844) is labeled 

"Cotypes, Leperditia nicklesi Ulrich, Chester, Grayson Springs Station, Ky." The entry for that number in the U.S. National Museum catalogue is dated 

August 25, 1902, and lists five specimens, cotypes 

figured by Ulrich (1891, pi. 18, figs. la-e). In the 

original publication (Ulrich, 1891, p. 200), however, 

the locality was cited as "Warsaw beds of St. Louis 

group, Columbia, Monroe Co., 111." Because the slide 

labeled "Cotypes" contains five specimens, including 

a right valve that was the original of Ulrich's figure 

la, the conception of the species has to be based on 

these specimens. I therefore designate that specimen USNM 41844A (pi. 4, figs. 10-12) as the 

lectotype and the remaining four specimens three 

right valves, one of which is broken, and a smaller 

left valve as paralectotypes. Some 2 ounces labeled 

"Washings, Chester gr. 1/4 mil. E. Grayson Springs, 

Ky." in the U.S. National Museum was searched, 

and a complete carapace of a young growth stage 

having the two spines was recovered. This specimen, 

probably a topotype, is illustrated (pi. 4, figs. 1-5).

Girty (1911, p. 105) commented that the specimens from the Moorefield Shale, Arkansas, which 

he identified as Paraparchites nicklesi, had the spine 

on the left [right] valve, but the spine was not seen 

on the numerous right [left] valves that he examined. Girty's specimens probably belong to 

Shishaella.

Morey (1935, p. 317) reported three specimens 

from the basal Mississippian of Missouri. Two of 

these did not have a spine; the third, a right valve, 

had a spine. The illustrated specimen does not have 

the same lateral outline as Ulrich's specimens, and 

the spine is not discernible on the illustration. I do 

not know to which genus Morey's specimens belong. 

The following year he (Morey, 1936, p. 115) illustrated the only specimen, a right valve, from the 

lower part of the Chouteau Limestone, Missouri, as 

P. nicklesi. He noted that the position of the spine 

was farther from the anterior [posterior] than most 

individuals of this species. This specimen is not conspecific with Ulrich's specimens, and its generic affinities are undeterminable. As can be seen on the 

probable topotype and Harlton's hypotype (pi. 4, 

figs. 13-16), the venter is not incised in this species.

Stratigraphic range. Chester Series (Upper Mississippian) .

Genus CHAMISHAELLA Sohn, n. gen.

Name. The name Chamishaella is feminine.

Type-species. Chamishaella brosgei Sohn, n. sp.

Diagnosis. Paraparchitidae lacking dorsoposterior spines and having an overreach of smaller valve 

along hingeline.

Description. The carapace is large, smooth, and 

subovate in lateral outline. One valve overlaps 

slightly along the free margins; the other overreaches along the dorsal margin. The subcentral adductor muscle scar apparently consists of a circular 

rosette of small individual scars. The calcified inner 

lamella is of approximately the same width around 

the free margins. Dimorphism is shown in width 

near the venter in end view.

..Discussion. The shell of this genus is relatively 

thick, and the carapace may be more than 2 mm in 

greatest length. In addition to the type species, the 

following species probably belong to Chamishaella:

Paraparchites auriculatus Pozner, 1951, p. 24, pi. 1, fig. 6, 

carbonarius (Hall), emend. Whitfield, 1882, p. 94, pi. 9,

figs. 24-27.

disjunctus Morey, 1935, p. 317, pi. 28, figs. 9, 13. 

?P. emaciatus Scott, 1942, p. 153, pi. 25, fig. 1. This species

may belong to Sansabella Roundy, 1926. 

P. inornatus (McCoy). Gorak, 1964, p. 188, pi. 4, figs, la, b,

2a, b=C. n. sp. aff. C. disjuncta (Morey, 1935). 

suborbiculatus (Miinster). Pozner. 1951, p. 22, pi. 1, figs.

2-5=C. n. sp. 

tumidus Kummerow, 1939, p. 12, figs. 4a-d.

Stratigraphic range. Mississippian (Tournaisian 

through Visean, Lower Namurian( ?)).

Chaniishaella aenigmatica Sohn, n. sp.

Plate 5, figures 1-21, 23-26

Name. Aenigma, puzzling.

Holotype. USNM 168052.

Paratypes. USNM 168045-168051.

Material. Fifteen carapaces, well to poorly preserved.

Type-locality. USGS locality 13288.

Type-level. Platy limestone member of the 

Alapah Limestone, 200 feet above the base.

Diagnosis. Has distinct cardinal angles; overlapping valve invaginated at dorsum; distinct rim 

along free margins of overlapped valve, and shallow 

grooves subparallel to dorsal part of end margins.

Description. The valves are subovate and have 

straight dorsal and convex ventral margins. The 

ends are rounded and truncated near the cardinal 

angles. The greatest convexity of anterior margin is 

at or below midheight; of posterior margin, above
A12 A REVISION OF THE PARAPARCHITACEA

Greatest 

height

0.64 

.85 

1.07 

1.22 

1.42 

1.31+ 

1.40+

Greatest 

width

0.45

.60

.76

.79

.75+

.99 

1.06

midheight. Shallow grooves, which vary in depth 

with individuals, extend downward from the dorsal 

margin subparallel to the truncated parts of the end 

margins. The overlapping valve abuts against a thin 

ridge on the smaller valve along the free margins 

and has a downward bend along the dorsum so that 

the hinge line is invaginated. The smaller valve 

overreaches along the dorsum. 

Measurements (in mm). 

Greatest 

length

Paratype (pi. 5, figs. 1, 2) .............. 0.91

Paratype (pi. 5, figs. 3-7) .............. 1.20

Paratype (pi. 5, figs. 8-12) ............ 1.42

Paratype (pi. 5, figs. 13-17) .......... 1.76

Paratype (pi. 5, figs. 18, 19) .......... 1.76

Holotype (pi. 5, figs. 20, 21) .......... 1.80

Paratype (pi. 5, figs. 23-26) .......... 2.15

Discussion. Because of the apparent channeled 

dorsum, I had difficulty in the generic assignment of 

this species. The difference between the invaginated 

dorsum of this species and of species here assigned 

to Paraparchites is: the invagination in C. aenigmatica is caused by a bend in the overlapping valve, and 

the dorsal margin overreaches and then joins the 

groove at the hingeline, whereas both valves in 

species of Paraparchites are of equal height along 

the dorsal margin and contribute equally in the 

formation of the channeled dorsum. The grooves 

subparallel to the end margins at the cardinal angles 

vary in expression with individuals; on one paratype 

(pi. 5, figs. 23-26) they extend downward and join 

subparallel to the ventral margin so that the groove 

known in Conchoprimitia Opik, 1935, is duplicated. 

I do not consider this groove to be of morphological 

significance in Chamishaella. It is either a preservation phenomenon or the result of temporary retention of the valve of the previous instar after molting, as illustrated by Cooper (1945, pi. 57, figs. 7- 

12, 31-36). Figure 3 demonstrates the plausibility of 

the retention of instar interpretation.

FIGURE 3. Outline of grooves of Chamishaella aenigmatica n. sp. (X20). This 

drawing is a composite of the groove on 

the specimen shown on plate 5, figure 1, 

superposed on the grooves of the specimens shown in figures 3, 10, and 20, and 

on the lateral outline of the right valve 

of the specimen shown in figure 20.

One specimen of C. brosgei has a vaguely outlined 

similar groove on the right valve (pi. 6, fig. 13), but 

that species is readily distinguished from C. 

aenigmatica by more elongated lateral outline and 

absence of the incised dorsum. Buschmina (1968, 

p. 37, pi. 4, figs. 1, 2) illustrated the late Tournaisian 

new species Paraschmidtellat belsuensis that also 

has a groove subparallel to the free margins. Buschmina differentiated her species from P. dorsopunctata Swartz, 1936, the type-species of the OrdovicianDevonian genus, on the lateral outline, lack of surface pores, and presence of the subconcentric 

groove. P. belsuensis Buschmina, 1968, does not 

have a channeled hinge and probably belongs to 

Chamishaella.

Stratigraphic range. Upper Mississippian (upper Meramecian).

Geographic distribution. Brooks Range, Alaska.

Chamishaella brosgei Sohn, n. sp.

Plate 6, figures 1-32

Name. In honor of W. P. Brosge, U.S. Geological 

Survey.

Holotype. USNM 168068.

Paratypes. USNM 168061-168067.

Material. Twenty-five carapaces including various stages of growth.

Type-locality. Top of ridge east of Little Chandler Lake, Brooks Range, Alaska.

Type-level. Platy limestone member of the 

Alapah Limestone, 200 feet above the base of the 

limestone (USGS loc. 13288).

Diagnosis. Differs from all other species referred 

to this genus in that the greatest height is at midlength and the ventral margin is evenly rounded.

Description. The carapace is smooth, large, more 

than 2 mm in greatest length, and subcircular in 

lateral outline. The dorsal margin is gently arched 

and overreaches the larger valve in later instars and 

adults. The larger valve overlaps slightly or not at 

all along the free margins where it abuts against a 

narrow selvage. The posterior margin is somewhat 

narrower than the round anterior margin. A subcentral adductor muscle-scar pattern may be discerned in many specimens, particularly the larger 

ones; it apparently consists of a circular rosette of 

minute individual scars. Partially exfoliated specimens indicate that a narrow calcified inner lamella 

is present; it is evidently the same width along all 

the free margins. Dimorphism is shown by greater 

width near the ventral margin in heteromorphs (pi. 

6, figs. 28, 32). These presumed females do not have 

any perceptible overlap along the ventral margin.
NEW LATE MISSISSIPPIAN OSTRACODE GENERA AND SPECIES FROM NORTHERN ALASKA A13

The tecnomorphs and instars are widest in end 

view at or above midheight.

Measurements (in mm). 

Greatest Greatest Greatest 

length height width

Paratype (pi. 6, figs. 1-5) ................ 0.67 0.54 0.37

Paratype (pi. 6, figs. 6-10) .............. 1.00 .71 .55

Paratype (pi. 6, figs. 11-15) ............ 1.05 .72 .59

Paratype (pi. 6, figs. 16-19) ............ 1.54 .98 .80

Paratype (pi. 6, figs. 20-24) ............ 2.00 1.52 1.08

Holotype (pi. 6, figs. 25-28) ............ 2.39 1.71 1.25

Paratype (pi. 6, figs. 29-32) ............ 2.42 1.90 1.21

Discussion. A growth series ranging in greatest 

length from 0.7 mm to 2.42 mm was recovered. 

Those specimens smaller than 1 mm do not have a 

well-defined overreach above the hingeline; the 

larger specimens have a flattened area above the 

hingeline. This species differs from the Visean 

Chamishaella tumida (Kummerow, 1939) in that the 

overreaching dorsal margin is not umbonate and the 

greatest height of the Visean species is in front of 

the midlength. C. brosgei is closest to C. carbonaria 

(Hall, 1858), from which it differs in having a narrower posterior margin, a longer hingeline, and a 

narrower overlap along the ventral margin.

Stratigraphic range. Upper Mississippian (lower 

Meramecian).

Geographic distribution. Brooks Range, Alaska.

Chamishaella sp. aff. Cythere inflata Minister, 1830

Plate 5, figures 32, 33, 36, 37

Cythere inflata Miinster, 1830, [Neues] Jahrb. Mineralogie,

Geognosie, Geologie, u. Petrefaktenkunde, Jahrg. 1, p.

65. Carboniferous limestone, Regnitzlosau near Hof,

northeastern Bavaria. 

Cytherella(l) inflata (Miinster). Jones and Kirkby, 1865,

Annals Mag. Nat. History, 3d ser., v. 15, p. 408, pi. 20,

figs. 8a-c. Carboniferous limestone, at Tragenau near

Hof, Bavaria. 

Jones, Kirkby, and Brady, 1884, London, Palaeontogr.

Soc., p. 74, pi. 7, figs. 2a, b. Carboniferous shales,

Craigenglen, Stirlingshire. 

Paraparchites inflatus (Miinster). Bassler and Kellett, 1934,

Geol. Soc. America Spec. Paper 1, p. 426. See for additional references and occurrences, 

[not] Cythere inflata McCoy, 1844, p. 167, pi. 23, fig. 17.

Homonym, 

[not] Cythere inflata Terquem, 1878, Soc. Geol. France M6m.,

3d ser., v. 1, p. 108, pi. 12, figs. 13a-d. Homonym, 

[not] Cythere inflata Brady, 1890, Royal Soc, Edinburgh

Trans., v. 35, pt. 2, no. 14, p. 498, pi. 2, figs. 8, 9.

Homonym.

Discussion. One carapace missing parts of its 

shells, a second carapace missing one shell, and 

steinkerns of carapaces are available from USGS 

collection 13288. In size and posterior outline these

specimens resemble the steinkern illustrated by 

Jones and Kirkby (1865) but differ in lateral outline 

and dorsal aspect. They are easily differentiated 

from Chamishaellal sp. in lacking the furrow along 

the hingeline that can be seen on a partially exfoliated carapace of Chamishaella^ sp. (pi. 5, figs. 

27-31).

Measurements (in mm). 

Greatest 

length

Greatest 

height

Greatest 

width

Figured specimen

(pi. 5, figs. 32, 33) ...................... 2.24 1.46 1.09

Figured specimen

(pi. 5, figs. 36, 37) ........................ 2.06 1.58 1.5+

Stratigraphic range. Upper Mississippian (lower 

Meramecian).

Geographic distribution. Brooks Range, Alaska.

Chamishaella? sp.

Plate 5, figures 22, 27-31, 34, 35, 38, 39

Specimens that have an inverted heart-shaped 

outline in end view are present in USGS collection 

13288 mostly as steinkerns; some are partially exfoliated carapaces, and there are two complete carapaces. These specimens and similarly shaped steinkerns or exfoliated carapaces such as Leperditia 

bosquetina Jones and Kirkby, 1886, Paraparchites 

galbus Pozner, 1951, Cytherellal inflata (Miinster). 

Jones and Kirkby, 1895, and Paraparchites inflatus 

(Miinster). Kummerow, 1939, may represent an 

undescribed genus. Because the inflated venter would 

indicate heteromorphs and because similar specimens not having an inflated venter, representing 

tecnomorphs, are either not present in the collection 

or were not recognized, the species is not formally 

named and is tentatively referred to Chamishaella.

The specimens illustrated here show the following 

features: (1) Overreach of the right valve (pi. 5, 

figs. 27, 28), (2) a rounded compound muscle-scar 

impression which forms a small node in the dorsoanterior part of the scar (pi. 5, figs. 35, 39) and on 

steinkerns (pi. 5, figs. 22, 23), and (3) a channeled 

venter, as illustrated for Aparchites whiteavesi 

Jones, 1889, by Swartz (1969, pi. 145, figs. 3, 5, 6). 

Chamishaella sp. aff. Cythere inflata Miinster, 1830, 

has a similar adductor muscle-scar impression (pi. 

5, figs. 33, 37). The horizontal pleat along the dorsal 

margin of the left valve (pi. 5, figs. 27, 28), where 

the right valve overreaches and overlaps, may prove 

to be diagnostic of the genus to which these specimens belong.
A14 A REVISION OF THE PARAPARCHITACEA

Measurements (in mm). 

Minimum or Minimum or Minimum or 

greatest greatest greatest 

length height tvidth

Figured carapace

(pi. 5, figs. 27-31) ...................... 1.61 1.26 1.08

Unfigured carapace

(USNM 168057) .......................... 1.57 1.18 1.01

Figured steinkern

(pi. 5, figs. 22, 34, 35) ................ 1.94 1.47 1.20

Figured steinkern

(pi. 5, fig. 38) ............................ 2.07 1.52 1.23

Figured specimen (pi. 5, fig. 39) .... 1.71 1.48 1.13

Stratigraphic range. Mississippian (lower Meramecian).

Geographic distribution. Brooks Range, Alaska.

Genus SHISHAELLA Sohn, n. gen.

Name. The name Shishaella is feminine.

Type-species. Paraparchites nickelsi var. cyclopea Girty, 1910, p. 232; Sohn, 1969, p. 50, pi. 8, figs. 

15-24.

Diagnosis. A single spine on the posterodorsal 

area of overlapped valve.

Description. Large, subovate smooth ostracodes; 

one valve overlaps along the free margins; the other 

may or may not overreach above the hingeline. Ridge 

and groove hinge. The adductor muscle-scar pattern is circular, consists of a number of individual 

scars, and has two elongated mandibular scars (fig. 

2). Narrow calcified inner lamella present. 

Dimorphic in some species in that the heteromorphs 

are somewhat wider near the venter than the tecnomorphs; in other species greater width is near the 

posterior.

Discussion. Species on hand and also some of 

those previously described belong to two groups, one 

having a definite overreach above the hingeline on 

the overlapped valve and one having no overreach. 

These two groups can be easily differentiated by 

specimens that are approximately 0.7 mm or larger 

in greatest length. Because the overreach is either 

poorly defined or missing in younger instars (compare pi. 8, figs. 4, 5, to figs. 24, 25), it is not practical to segregate the two groups into distinct genera. 

The known stratigraphic range of the overreaching 

group is from the Lower Mississippian to the Lower 

Permian, whereas the range of the group having 

no overreach in larger individuals is from the Lower 

Mississippian to the lower Upper Pennsylvanian. 

This suggests that future study may disclose two 

distinct genera that are lumped in this study in 

Shishaella.

Stratigraphic range. Lower Mississippian-Lower Permian.

In addition to the species described or illustrated 

in this paper, the following described forms should 

be transferred to this group:

Paraparchites armstrongianus (Jones and Kirkby). Buschmina, 1968, p. 26, pi. 1, fig. 4,right, dorsal=Shishaella 

sp. 

Paraparchites discoides Kummerow, 1939, p. 12, pi. 1, figs.

5a, b. 

donica Tschernyshev. Buschmina, 1968, p. 28, pi. 1, figs.

1, 3.

gibbus Buschmina, 1968, p. 29, pi. 2, figs. 2, 4. 

harltoni Bradfield, 1935, p. 33, pi. 1, figs. 9a, b. 

inornatus (McCoy). Delo, 1931, p. 42, pi. 4, fig. 2=Shishaella sp.

inornatus (McCoy). Croneis and Gale, 1939, p. 256, pi. 6,

fig. 33=Shishaella juvensis (Croneis and Gale, 1939).

inornatus (McCoy). Cooper, 1941, p. 62, pi. 13, figs. 13,

I4:=Shishaella kinkaidensis (Croneis and Thurman,

1939).

Leperditia juvensis Croneis and Gale, 1939, p. 255, pi. 5, fig.

20. 

Paraparchites kinkaidensis Croneis and Thurman, 1939, p.

301, pi. 7, fig. 22; Cooper, 1941, pi. 13, figs. 20, 21. 

Cypridina laevigata Eichwald, 1857, p. 310. See Rishonal 

laevigata (Eichwald). Sohn (1960, p. l^=Shishaella1. 

Paraparchites laduensis Knight, 1928, p. 234, pi. 31, fig. 7=

IS. claytonensis (Knight, 1928). 

magnus var. uralensis Glebovskaya, 1939, p. 168, 174, pi.

I, figs. 7, 7a. 

nickelsi (Ulrich). Morey, 1936, p. 115, pi. 17, fig. 26=

Shishaella sp. 

nickelsi (Ulrich). Green, 1963, p. 127, pi. 8, figs. 10, 11=

Shishaella sp. 

ILeperditia okeni (Minister). Jones and Kirkby, 1896 [part],

p. 178, pi. 11, figs. 8-11. 

Paraparchites okeni (Minister). Gorak, 1966, p. 100, pi. 46,

fig. 3=Shishaella sp. 

okeni (Mtinster). Kummerow, 1939, p. 10, pi. 1, figs, la,

b=Shishaella sp. 

okeni obliquus (Jones and Kirkby). Kummerow, 1939, p.

II, pi. 1, figs. 2a, l>=Shishaella sp. 

ovatus Cooper, 1941, p. 62, pi. 14, figs. 1, 2. 

porrectus Zanina, 1956, p. 192, pi. 1, figs, la, b. 

porrectus Zanina n. var. Buschmina, 1968, p. 31, pi. 3,

figs. 3, £=Shishaella sp.

productus Green, 1963, p. 125, pi. 8, figs. 14-21. 

rhombicus (Jones and Kirkby). Gorak, 1964, p. 189, pi. 3,

figs. 8a, \)=Shishaellac! sp.

samuela Coryell and Rozanski, 1942, p. 139, pi. 23, fig. 2. 

unicornis Zanina, 1968, p. 171, pi. 1, figs. 4, 5. 

unoculus Buschmina, 1968, p. 26, pi. 1, fig. 5, right,

dorsal. 

schweyeri Glebovskaya, 1939, p. 169, 174, pi. 1, figs. 8,

8a-c (?overlap and spine reversed). 

ventriosus Chizhova, 1960, p. 177, pi. 4, figs. 1, 2. 

P.? sp. Buschmina, 1965, p. 66, pi. 4, figs. 1-3.

Shishaella cyclopea (Girty, 1910)

Plate 7, figures 1-35.

Paraparchites nickelsi var. cyclopea Girty, 1910, New York 

Acad. Sci. Annals, v. 20, no. 3, pt. 2, p. 232.
NEW LATE MISSISSIPPIAN OSTRACODE GENERA AND SPECIES FROM NORTHERN ALASKA A15

Paraparchitest cyclopeus Girty. Sohn, 1969, U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 606, p. 50, pi. 8, figs. 15-24 (see for 

synonymy).

Diagnosis. Strong overreach; spine at approximately one-quarter of greatest length in from posterior margin; subovate lateral outline; swelling near 

dorsal margin of right valve and near ventral margin of left valve.

Description. See Sohn (1969, p. 50).

Measurements (in mm). 

Greatest 

length

Greatest Greatest 

height width

Figured specimen

(pi. 7, figs. 1-4) .......................... 0.47 0.32 0.20

Figured specimen

(pi. 7, figs. 5-8) .......................... .48 .34 .23

Figured specimen

(pi. 7, figs. 9, 10) ........................ .72 .52 .38

Figured specimen

(pi. 7, figs. 19, 20) ...................... .85 .63 .42

Figured specimen

(pi. 7, figs. 11, 12) ...................... .92 .70 .49

Figured specimen

(pi. 7, figs. 13, 14) ...................... 1.22 .94 .62

Figured specimen

(pi. 7, figs. 15-18) ...................... 1.40 1.0 .72

Figured specimen

(pi. 7, figs. 22-25) ...................... 1.71 .95+ .84

Figured specimen

(pi. 7, figs. 29-32) ...................... 1.85 1.35 .93

Figured specimen

(pi. 7, figs. 26-28) ...................... 1.95 1.42

Paralectotype (pi. 7, fig. 35) ........ 3.15 2.27 1.69

Lectotype ............................................ 3.30 2.23 1.69

Discussion. The ontogenetic series illustrated on 

plate 7 shows the spine developed on specimens as 

small as 0.47 mm in greatest length (pi. 7, fig. 2). 

Two topotype carapaces (pi. 7, figs. 26-28, 29-32) 

do not show the diagnostic spine because both are 

partially corroded specimens. Although one carapace (USNM 168106; pi. 7, figs. 29-32) appears to 

be perfect, the shell surface in the area of the spine 

is rough, and this roughening suggests that the 

spine was present. The diagnostic swelling near the 

dorsal margin of the right valve (pi. 7, fig. 30) and 

near the venter on the left valve (pi. 7, fig. 29) attest to the specific identity. The other carapace 

(USNM 168107; pi. 7, figs. 26-28) had parts of the 

shell surface removed on the right valve as evidenced by the darker outline in the lower right area 

of figure 28.

Green (1963, p. 125, pi. 8, figs. 14-21) illustrated 

a growth series of the Early Mississippian Shishaella 

producta (Green, 1963) in which the position of the 

spine is constant in those specimens that range in 

greatest length from 0.53 mm to 2.01 mm. The position of the spine in Shishaella was probably constant 

during the ontogeny of the individual.

The fragment of a large topotype left valve from 

USGS collection 5553 was converted to fluorite in 

order to examine the muscle-scar pattern, but the 

pattern did not show up so clearly as those illustrated on plate 7, figures 21, 24, 25, 27, and 33. Note 

the accessory scars on figure 25 that suggest cyprid 

affinities, similar to the pattern illustrated in text 

figure 2.

Geologic range. Upper Mississippian (lower 

Namurian), Chester Series.

Geographic distribution. Fayetteville Shale and 

Batesville Sandstone, Arkansas; Golconda and Renault Formations, Illinois; and subsurface "Manning Zone," Oklahoma.

Shishaella wilHamsae Sohn, n. sp.

Plate 8, figures 1-5, 11-25, 31-44

Name. In honor of Mrs. Evelyn G. Williams, U.S. 

Geological Survey.

Holotype. USNM 168076.

Paratypes.-USN~M. 168069-168075.

Material. More than 20 carapaces representing 

various stages of growth.

Type-locality. Top of ridge east of Little Chandler Lake, Brooks Range, Alaska.

Type-level. Platy limestone member of the 

Alapah Limestone, 200 feet above the base of the 

limestone (USGS loc. 13288).

Diagnosis. Anterior cardinal angle more obtuse 

than posterior angle; ventral margin convex; spine 

close to dorsal margin.

Description. The lateral outline is subcircular, 

the greatest height being at approximate midlength 

and greatest width posterior to midlength. The dorsal margin is straight, and the anterior cardinal 

angle is more obtuse than the posterior angle. Large 

specimens have a slight but definite overreach of 

the right valve along the hinge margin. The overlap of the left valve is relatively narrow and slightly 

wider along the ventral than along the end margins. 

The dorsoposterior spine is a distance of one to two 

times the diameter of its base down from the dorsal 

margin, and about twice that distance in from the 

posterior margin. Partially exfoliated specimens do 

not have a list on the free margin of the right valve.

Measurements (in mm). 

Greatest Greatest Greatest 

length height ^mdth

Paratype (pi. 8, figs. 1-5) ................ 0.49 0.35 0.26

Paratype (pi. 8, figs. 11-15) ............ .91 .67 .45

Paratype (pi. 8, figs. 16-20) ............ 1.25 .93 .66

Paratype (pi. 8, figs. 21-25) ............ 1.40 1.05 .68

Paratype (pi. 8, figs. 31-35) ............ 1.73 1.19 .85

Holotype (pi. 8, figs. 36-40) ............ 1.81 1.38 1.01

Paratype (pi. 8, figs. 41-44) ............ 2.18 1.62 1.04
A16 A REVISION OF THE PARAPARCHITACEA

Discussion. The new species resembles Shishaella 

harltoni (Bradfield, 1935) from the Lower Pennsylvanian of Oklahoma, in the position of the spine but 

differs in having a more rounded ventral margin. 

Some individuals have the spine closer to the dorsal 

margin than others (pi. 8, figs. 24, 34, 39), and this 

difference is probably due to individual variation. 

Dimorphism is possibly indicated by greater width 

near the posterior in dorsal outline as shown on 

plate 8, figures 37, 39, 32, 34, 42. Chizhova (1960, 

p. 177, pi. 4, figs, la-c) illustrated the male of S. 

ventriosa (Chizhova, 1960) which is more elongated 

and which has a straighter ventral margin than the 

female. S. cf. S. williamsae (pi. 8, figs. 6, 26) bears 

a similar relation to £. williamsae but is not considered to be the male of S, williamsae because specimens considered to be males of this new species are 

present in the collection (pi. 8, figs. 31, 41).

Stratigraphic range. Upper Mississippian (lower 

Meramecian).

Geographic distribution. Brooks Range, Alaska.

Shishaella cf. S. williamsae Sohn, n. sp.

Plate 8, figures 6-10, 26-30

Rare specimens that differ from S. williamsae in 

lateral outline because the ventral margin is less 

convex were found in the same collection. The reason for not considering these as the male dimorphs 

was previously discussed.

Measurements (in mm). 

Greatest 

length

Greatest 

height

Greatest 

ividth

Figured specimen

(pi. 8, figs. 6-10) ........................ 0.79 0.55 0.40

Figured specimen

(pi. 8, figs. 26-30) ...................... 1.35 .99 .67

Stratigraphic range. Upper Mississippian (lower 

Meramecian).

Geographic distribution. Brooks Range, Alaska.

Genus SHEMONAELLA Sohn, n. gen.

Name. The name Shemonaella is feminine.

Type-species. Shemonaella dutroi Sohn, n. sp.

Diagnosis. Unspined Paraparchitidae not having 

an incised dorsum.

Description. The carapace is smooth, and it is 

subovate to elongate-ovate in lateral outline; the 

cardinal angles are obtuse. One valve overlaps 

slightly along the free margins where it may abut 

against a narrow flange; the overlapped valve may 

be slightly higher along the hinge margin and may 

not have any pronounced overreach. The hinge of the 

overlapping valve consists of a ridge that fits into a 

groove of the opposing valve. There is a calcified 

inner lamella along the free margins. Dimorphism 

in greater width of posterior or near the venter is

shown by some of the species including the typespecies.

Discussion. The genus is established for those 

species assigned to Paraparchites that do not have 

an incised hinge margin, pronounced overreach, or 

posterodorsal spines. Because most of the previously 

described species that lack the above structures were 

inadequately described or illustrated, they cannot 

be assigned with any degree of certainty to Shemonaella.

Grachevskiy (1958, p. 1323) described the Visean 

genus Quasiparaparchites in the Leperditellidae for 

two new species: Q. malinovskensis, the type-species, 

and Q. radaevkensis. Both were described from the 

Malinovka Formation in the Kuibyshev Trans-Volga 

region. Q. radaevkensis Grachevskiy, 1958, has dorsoposterior spines on both valves; consequently, it is 

here referred to the new genus Shivaella. Q. malinovkensis appears to differ from Shemonaella in 

having a pronounced ventral bend on the overlap 

valve and a transversely striate or denticulate structure on the corresponding area of the smaller valve. 

Because this species was illustrated by only left and 

dorsal views, it is not possible to determine whether 

it is congeneric with Shemonaella. Future study may 

demonstrate that Shemonaella is a junior synonym 

of an emended conception of Quasiparaparchites 

Grachevskiy, 1958.

In addition to the new species, the following species either belong to or may belong to Shemonaella:

Lepeditia okeni var. acuta Jones and Kirkby, 1865, p. 406,

pi. 20, figs. 4a, b.

Cythere amygdalina McCoy, 1844, p. 165, pi. 23, fig. 8. 

IParaparchitesI ardmorensis Bradfield, 1935, p. 34, pi. 1,

figs. 7a, b. Based on an internal mold. 

Paraparchites big snowy ensis Scott, 1942, p. 154, pi. 25, figs.

6, 7. 

ILeperditia bosquetiana Jones and Kirkby, 1886, p. 254, pi. 7,

figs. 2a-c. 

Leperditia compressa Jones and Kirkby, 1886, p. 256, pi. 7,

figs. 7a, b.

?Paraparchites galbus Pozner, 1951, p. 25, pi. 2, figs. 1-3. 

ICytherella(l) inflata (Miinster). Jones and Kirkby, 1865,

p. 408, pi. 20, figs. 8a-c. See Schmidt, 1939, p. 383. 

Cythere inornata McCoy, 1844, p. 167, pi. 23, fig. 18. 

[not] Paraparchites inornatus (McCoy). Pozner, 1951, p. 23,

pi. 1, figs. la-c. 

Paraparchites karagandensis Buschmina, 1959, p. 190, pi. 1,

figs. 4a-c. 

maccoyanus Schmidt, 1939, p. 383, new name for Cythere

inflata McCoy, 1844 not Miinster, 1830. 

nicklesi (Ulrich). Green, 1963, p. 127, pi. 8, figs. 10, 11. 

Leperditia oblonga Jones and Kirkby, 1865, p. 407, pi. 20,

fig. 5. 

Paraparchites oskolensis Samoilova and Smirnova, 1962, p.

83, pi. 13, figs. 2a, b. Middle Devonian.
NEW LATE MISSISSIPPIAN OSTRACODE GENERA AND SPECIES FROM NORTHERN ALASKA A17

Leperditia parallela Jones and Kirkby, 1865, p. 407, pi. 20,

figs. 6a, b.

rhombica Jones and Kirkby, 1896, p. 185, pi. 12, fig. 6. 

Proparaparchites sibiricus Buschmina, 1968, p. 33, pi. 4, fig. 7.

Left, dorsal. 

ILeperditia subaequalis Reed, 1927, p. 72, pi. 10, figs. 18,

18a, b. 

Paraparchites symmetricus Kummerow, 1953, p. 11, pi. 1, figs.

3a, b. 

ukrainica (Tschernichev). Buschmina, 1959, p. 191, pi.

1, figs, la, b.

Stratigraphic range. Middle Devonian (?), Mississippian-Pennsylvanian.

Shemonaella dutroi Sohn, n. sp.

Plate 9, figures 1-44

Name. In honor of J. T. Dutro, Jr., U.S. Geological Survey.

Holotype. USNM 168090.

Paratypes. USNM 168080-168089.

Material More than 50 carapaces and steinkerns, some broken.

Type-locality. USGS locality 13288.

Type-level. Platy limestone member of the 

Alapah Limestone, 200 feet above the base.

.Diagnosis .^Elongated-subovate; posterior margin only slightly shorter than anterior margin; 

greatest height approximately in anterior third of 

greatest length; hinge long, more than two-thirds of 

greatest length; ventral margin evenly convex.

Description. The carapace is elongated-subovate 

in lateral view and has an evenly curved ventral 

margin; the end margins are of approximately equal 

convexity, the posterior margin only slightly shorter. 

The hinge is slightly more than two-thirds the greatest length, which is approximately at midheight. 

Dorsal outline lanceolate; heteromorphs wider in 

posterior. End view of heteromorphs wider below 

midheight; tecnomorphs and juveniles wider above 

midheight. The left valve overlaps the right along 

the venter where it abuts against a ridge formed by 

the sharp bending of the right valve along the free 

margin.

Measurements (in mm). 

Greatest Greatest Greatest 

length height width

Paratype (pi. 9, figs. 1-5) .............. 0.71 0.54 0.43

Paratype (pi. 9, figs. 6-10) ............ .82 .58 .47

Paratype (pi. 9, figs. 11-15) .......... .88 .59 .41

Paratype (pi. 9, figs. 16-20) .......... 1.31 .81 .61

Paratype (pi. 9, figs. 21-25) .......... 1.48 .97 .73

Paratype (pi. 9, figs. 26-30) .......... 1.85 1.23 .92

Paratype (pi. 9, figs. 31-35) .......... 1.94+ 1.24 .93

Paratype (pi. 9, figs. 36-38) .......... 1.87+ 1.22 .96

Paratype (pi. 9, fig. 39) .................. 2.0+ 1.28+ 1.05+

Holotype (pi. 9, figs. 40-44) ............ 2.29+ 1.48 1.19

Discussion. This species differs from Leperditia 

okeni (Minister). Jones and Kirkby, 1865, in that 

the ventral margin is not truncated posteriorly. 

Most of the specimens referred to Leperditia okeni, 

and later to Paraparchites okeni (Minister, 1830) 

are misidentified as to species, and some as to genus. 

The unraveling of that taxon is beyond the scope 

of this paper. The new species differs from all the 

other species referred to this genus in elongatesubovate lateral outline.

The shell of this species must have been relatively 

thin because most of the specimens look like either 

steinkerns or subinternal molds. Only one broken 

specimen (pi. 9, fig. 39), a carapace missing most of 

its ventroanterior, has undoubted shell material.

Stratigraphic range. Upper Mississippian (lower 

Meramecian).

Geographic distribution. Brooks Range, Alaska.

Order 7PALAEOCOPIDA Henningsmoen, 1953

Because there is no evidence to remove Coelonella 

Stewart, 1936, from the Palaeocopida, it is tentatively retained in that order.

Superfamily unknown 

Family COELONELLIDAE Sohn, n. Cam.

Diagnosis. Smooth, asymmetrical, elongated, has 

channeled dorsum, broad ventral overlap, and nonarticulated hingement consisting of the inbending 

and internal curving for a short distance laterally 

towards the valve walls of the shell on both valves 

below the dorsum.

Description. The carapace is small, about 1 mm 

or less in greatest length, subovate; it has unequally 

rounded end margins, a straight dorsal margin, and 

convex to gently curved ventral margin. The dorsum 

is channeled, usually long, formed by the downward 

bend of both valves at the dorsal margin, and 

bounded on each end by the overlapping end margins of the larger valve. The hinge is neither denticulated nor ridged and grooved. The valves continue 

curving laterally for a short distance below the channeled dorsum internally toward the inside surface 

of each valve, so that the continuation of the convex 

outside surfaces of the valves barely touch to form 

the floor of the dorsal channel (pi. 1, fig. 23; pi. 2, 

figs. 3-6).

Discussion. The edentulous, nonarticulated 

hingement of the nominate genus has, so far as I 

know, not yet been recorded in the Ostracoda. It is 

sufficiently distinct to warrant the establishment of 

the new family. Dissociated valves are rare and 

suggest a strong ligament in conjunction with the 

overlap to prevent disarticulation. I do not know
A18 A REVISION OF THE PARAPARCHITACEA

how the ligament functioned or where it was attached. The muscle-scar pattern is as yet unknown, 

nor have I been able to recognize dimorphism in 

Coelonella, the only known genus in this family.

Genus COELONELLA Stewart, 1936

Coelonella Stewart, 1936, Jour. Paleontology, v. 10, no. 8,

p. 742. 

Sansabella (Coelonella) Pribyl, 1955, Czechoslovakia,

Ustredni ustavu geologichy, Sbornik, v. 21, p. 280.

Type-species (original designation). Isochilinal 

scapha Stewart, 1930, Ohio Jour. Sci., v. 30, no. 1, 

p. 57, pi. 1, figs. 11, 12. Silica Shale (Middle Devonian), Ohio.

Diagnosis. Small, asymmetrical, elongated; has 

channeled dorsum and broad ventral overlap; hingement coelonellid.

Discussion. A cross section of a topotype carapace of Coelonella scapha (Stewart, 1936) disclosed 

a hingement unlike any previously described in 

Ostracoda. The dorsal margins bend down to form 

the invaginated dorsum and then continue to bend 

into the body of the carapace, touching each other 

without any apparent ridge and groove contact (pi. 

2, figs. 3-6). The ventral overlap is broad, and the 

contact is straight, an additional feature that distinguishes this genus from Microcheilinella Geis, 

1933, in which the contact is sigmoid. There are indications that the contact area between the overlapping valves may be fluted subparallel to the free 

margins.

The Devonian genus Coeloenellina Polenova, 1952 

(type-species C. parva Polenova, 1952) was described in the Leperditellidae (Polenova, 1952, p. 

66) as having a groove along the hinge of the right 

valve for the reception of the dorsal margin of the 

left valve. According to the original description, this 

genus is smaller than Coelonella; its greatest length 

is 0.37 mm as compared with 0.8 mm and longer for 

Coelonella. Polenova (1968, p. 10-15) reassigned 

Coeloenellina to the Aparchitidae and described 

species having a greatest length of 0.73-0.82 mm. 

In addition, she transferred species previously referred to Coelonella, including some of those listed 

below, to Coeloenellina. Because the hingement of 

the species Polenova (1968) referred to Coeloenellina and the hingement of those described by her in 

Coelonella are as yet unknown, it is impossible to 

determine the correct generic assignment. The following species were described in Coelonella:

Coelonella bergica Krommelbein, 1954, p. 256, pi. 2, figs, llad. Givetian, northwestern Germany.

bijensis Rozhdestvenskaja, 1959, p. 131, pi. 2, figs. a-d. 

Eifelian, western Bashkir, U.S.S.R.

Sansabella (C.) devonica P&byl, 1955, p. 281, pi. 1, figs. 3-10,

pi. 3, figs. 13-15. Lower Devonian, Bohemia. 

Coelonella gabdjukovensis Rozhdestvenskaja, in Abushik and 

others, 1960, p. 287, pi. 58, figs. 5a, b. Eifelian, southern 

Urals, U.S.S.R.

granulifera Stewart and Hendrix, 1945, p. 100, pi. 11, 

figs. 3-5. Olentangy Shale (Upper Devonian), Delaware County, Ohio.

punctulifera Stewart and Hendrix, 1945, p. 101, pi. 11, 

figs. 6-8. Olentangy Shale (Upper Devonian), Delaware County, Ohio. 

reversa Egorova, 1966, VNII, p. 168, pi. 1, figs. 1-3.

Givetian, Russian platform. 

testata Polenova, 1955, p. 202, pi. 3, figs. 5a-c. Middle

Devonian, Volga-Ural region.

Stratigraphic range. Lower through Upper 

Devonian.

Coelonella plana Stewart, 1936

Plate 1, figures 1-8

Coelonella plana Stewart, 1936, Jour. Paleontology, v. 10, no.

8, p. 743, pi. 100, figs. 3, 4. Silica Shale, Lucas County,

Ohio. 

Leperditia(l) subrotnnda(l) Ulrich. Stewart, 1930, Ohio

Jour. Sci., v. 30, no. 1, p. 57, pi. 1, fig. 10. Silica Shale,

Lucas County, Ohio.

Discussion. The holotype, here illustrated on 

plate 1, figures 1-3, is a squashed carapace missing 

the ventroanterior part of the margin. Stewart 

(1936, pi. 100, fig. 3) indicated the missing part by 

a dashed line on her drawing. I have two collections 

of carapaces from the type-locality; one by C. L. 

Cooper, the other donated by Mrs. Ruth E. Chilman. The holotype is recorded as 0.88 mm long and 

0.70 mm high.

Measurements (in mm). 

Greatest Greatest Greatest 

length height width

Figured specimen

(pi. 1, figs. 4-6) .......................... 0.84 0.57 0.34

Figured specimen

(pi. 1, figs. 8 and 9) .................... .76 .55 .33

Stratigraphic range. Middle Devonian. 

Geographic distribution. Known from Lucas 

County, Ohio.

Coelonella scapha (Stewart, 1930)

Plate 1, figures 9-23; plate 2, figures 3-6

Isochilinal scapha Stewart, 1930, Ohio Jour. Sci., v. 30, no. 1, 

p. 57, pi. 1, figs. 11, 12. Silica Shale, Lucas County, 

Ohio.

Coelonella scapha (Stewart). Stewart, 1936, Jour. Paleontology, v. 10, no. 8, p. 742, pi. 100, figs. 1, 2. 

Kesling and Weiss, 1953, Michigan Univ., Mus. Paleontology Contr., v. 11, no. 3, p. 67, pi. 5, figs. 13-16. 

Norway Point Formation, Michigan.

Discussion. The holotype and subsequently illustrated specimen are abraded carapaces. A topotype 

carapace collected by C. L. Cooper was sectioned, and
NEW LATE MISSISSIPPIAN OSTRACODE GENERA AND SPECIES FROM NORTHERN ALASKA A19

the section is illustrated (pi. 2, fig. 6). This specimen illustrates the diagnostic hinge of the genus. In 

addition, specimens donated by Mrs. Ruth E. Chilman to the U.S. National Museum were examined. 

This suite contains some younger growth stages, and 

some of the specimens are illustrated (pi. \, figs. 

9-18, 23; pi. 2, figs. 3-5). Because most of the specimens are either squashed or somewhat abraded, 

definite dimorphism cannot be determined. There is, 

however, a suggestion of dimorphism in that some 

individuals are more slender in dorsal outline.

Measurements (in mm). 

Greatest 

length

Greatest 

height

Greatest 

width

Figured specimen

(pi. 1, figs. 9, 10) ........................ 0.69 0.34 0.36

Figured specimen

(pi. 1, figs. 11, 12) ...................... .72 .42 .39

Figured specimen

(pi. 1, figs. 13-15) ...................... 1.08 .63 .50

Figured specimen

(pi. 1, fig. 23) .............................. .91 .54 .28

Peel specimen (pi. 2, figs. 3-5) .... ...... .63 .50

Thin section (pi. 2, fig. 6) ............ ...... .63 .53

Stratigraphic range. Middle Devonian. 

Geographic distribution. Described from Lucas 

County, Ohio, identified from Alpena County, Mich.

REFERENCES CITED

Abushik, A. F., and others, 1960, Novye Paleozoiskie ostrakody Russkoi i Sibirskoi platform, Urala i Pechorskoi 

gryady. Novye vidy drevnikh rastenii i bespozvonochnykh SSSR: Vses. Nauchno-Issled. Geol. Inst. 

(VSEGEI), Ministerstva Geologii i Okrany Nedr SSSR, 

pt. 2, Moscow, p, 280-366, pis. 57-69.

Anderson, F. WM 1964, The law of ostracod growth: Palaeontology, v. 7, pt. 1, p. 85-104, 1 fig.

Armstrong, A. K., Mamet, B. L., and Dutro, J. T., Jr., 1970, 

Foraminiferal zonation and carbonate facies of Carboniferous (Mississippian and Pennsylvanian) Lisburne 

Group, central and eastern Brooks Range, Arctic Alaska: 

Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 54, no. 5, p. 

678-698, 4 figs.

Averjanov, V. I., 1968, Novye zhivetskie samarelly vostoka 

Russkoi platformy, in Markovskii, B. P., ed., Novye 

vidy drevnikh rastenii i bespozvonochnykh SSSR: Vses. 

Nauchno-Issled. Geol. Inst. (VSEGEI), no. 2, pt. 2, p. 

274, pis. 63, 64.

Bassler, R. S., and Kellett, Betty, 1934, Bibliographic index 

of Paleozoic Ostracoda: Geol. Soc. America Spec. Paper 

1, 500 p.

Becker, Gerhard, 1964, Palaeocopida (Ostracoda) aus dem 

Mitteldevon der Sotenicher Mulde (N-Eifel) : Senckenbergiana Lethaea, v. 45, no. 1-4, p. 43-94, pis. 6-15.

Bless, M. J. M., 1967, On the marine beds of some cyclothems 

in the central Carboniferous basin of Asturias with 

especial reference to their ostracode-fauna: Spain Inst. 

geol. minero, Notas y commun. 99-100, p. 91-134.

Bowsher, A. L., and Dutro, J. T., Jr., 1957, The Paleozoic 

section in the Shainin Lake area, central Brooks Range,

Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 303-A, 39 p., 6

pis., 4 figs. 

Bradfield, H. H., 1935, Pennsylvanian ostracodes of the Ardmore Basin, Oklahoma: Bull. Am. Paleontology, v. 22,

no. 73, 172 p., 13 pis. 

Brady, G. S., 1890, On ostracodes collected by H. B. Brady,

Esq., LL.D., F.R.S., in the South Sea Islands: Royal Soc.

Edinburgh Trans., v. 35, pt. 2, no. 14, p. 489-525, 4 pis. 

Buschmina, L. S., 1959, Kamennougol'nye ostrakody iz uglenosnoi tolshchi tsentral'nogo Kazakhstana: Akad. Nauk

SSSR, Lab. Geologii Uglya, Trudy, no. 9, p. 174-252, 10

pis. 

 1965, Ostrakody abyshevskogho gorizonta (Nizhnii

Karbon) Kuzbasa,m Sokolov, B. S., ed., Stratigrafiya i

paleontologiya Paleozoya Aziatskoi chasti SSSR: Akad.

Nauk SSSR, Sibirskoye Otdeleniye, Inst. Geol. i Geofiziki,

Moscow, Izdat. "Nauka," p. 64-98, pis. 1-8.

1968, Rannekamennougol'nye ostrakody Kuznetskogho

Basseina: Akad. Nauk SSSR, Sibirskoye Otdeleniye, Inst. 

Geol. i Geofiziki, Moscow, Izdat. "Nauka," 128 p., 25 pis.

Chen, T. C., 1958, Permian ostracods from the Chihsia Limestone of Lungtan, Nanking: Acta Palaeont. Sinica, v. 6, 

no. 2, p. 215-257, pis. 1-8. (In Chinese and English.)

Chizhova [Tschigova], V. A., 1960, Vozrastnoe sootnoshenie 

Rakovskikh i Nizhnemalinovskikh otlozhenii KamskoKinePskoi Vpadiny po dannym izucheniya ostrakod: 

Vses. Neftegaz. Nauchno-Issled. Inst. (VNII) Trudy, 

no. 30, p. 169-233, 13 pis.

Cooper, C. L., 1941, Chester ostracodes of Illinois: Illinois 

State Geol. Survey Rept. Inv. 77, 101 p., 14 pis.

 1945, Moult stages of the Pennsylvanian ostracode 

Ectodemites plummeri: Jour. Paleontology, v. 19, no. 4, 

p. 368-375, pi. 57.

1946, Pennsylvanian ostracodes of Illinois: Illinois

State Geol. Survey Bull. 70, 177 p., 21 pis., 36 figs., range 

chart.

Cordell, R. J., 1956, Strawn ostracodes in field trip area, 

southwest Parker County, Texas, in Society Econ. Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Permian Basin Sec., 

[Guidebook] Symposium of the Fort Worth Basin area 

and field study of the Hill Creek beds of the lower 

Strawn, southwestern Parker County, Texas, spring 

meeting and field symposium, May 11-12, 1956: Fort 

Worth, Tex., p. 42-50.

Coryell, H. N., and Rogatz, Henry, 1932, A study of the 

ostracode fauna of the Arroyo formation, Clearfork 

group of the Permian in Tom Green County, Texas: Am. 

Midland Naturalist, v. 13, no. 6, p. 378-394, pis. 34, 35.

Coryell, H. N., and Rozanski, George, 1942, Microfauna of 

the Glen Dean limestone: Jour. Paleontology, v. 16, no. 

2, p. 137-151, pis. 23, 24.

Coryell, H. N., and Sample, C. H., 1932, Pennsylvanian Ostracoda A study of the ostracode fauna of the East Mountain Shale, Mineral Wells formation, Mineral Wells, 

Texas: Am. Midland Naturalist, v. 13, no. 5, p. 245-281, 

pis. 24-26.

Coryell, H. N., and Sohn, I. G., 1938, Ostracoda from the 

Mauch Chunk (Mississippian) of West Virginia: Jour. 

Paleontology, v. 12, no. 6, p. 596-603, pi. 69.

Croneis, C. G., 1930, Geology of the Arkansas Paleozoic area, 

with special reference to oil and gas possibilities: Arkansas Geol. Survey Bull. 3, 457 p., 45 pis., 30 figs.
A20 A REVISION OF THE PARAPARCHITACEA

Croneis, C. G., and Ga*t, A. S., Jr., 1939, New ostracodes 

from the Golconda formation [111.] : Denison Univ. Bull., 

v. 38, no, 10 (Sci. Lab. Jour., v. 33, art. 5), 1938, p. 251- 

295, pis. 5, 6.

Croneis, C. G., and Thurman, F. A., 1939, New ostracodes 

from the Kinkaid formation: Denison Univ. Bull., v. 38, 

no. 10 (Sci. Lab. Jour., v. 33, art. 6), 1938, p. 297-330, 

pis. 7, 8.

Delo, D. M., 1930, Some Upper Carboniferous Ostracoda from 

the shale basin of western Texas: Jour. Paleontology, v. 

4, no. 2, p. 152-178, pis. 12, 13.

 1931, Pennsylvanian Ostracoda from Hamilton County, Kansas: Washington Univ. (St. Louis) Studies, new 

ser., Sci. and Technology, no. 5, p. 41-51, pi. 4.

Egorova, L. N., 1966, Chernoyarskie sloi Russkoy platformy: 

Vses. Neftegaz. Nauchno-Issled* Inst. (VNII), Trudy, 

no. 45, p. 159-189, pis. 1-6.

Eichwald, Edouard von, 1857, Beitrag zur geographischen 

Verbreitung der fossilen Thiere Russlands, Alte Periode: 

Soc. Imperiale Naturalistes Moscou Bull., v. 30, no. 4, 

p. 305-354.

 1860, Lethaea Rossica, ou Paleontologie de la Russe 

[Part] 1, Premiere section de 1'ancienne periode: Atlas 

periode ancienne, p. 1328-1350, pis. 52, 53. Stuttgart.

Elofson, Olof, 1941, Zur Kenntnis des marinen Ostracoden 

Schwedens mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung des Skageraks [Marine Ostracoda of Sweden with special consideration of the Skagerak] : Zool. Bidrag Uppsala, v. 19, 

p. 215-534. (Translated from the German by Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 1969, 286 p.)

Ershova, T. V., 1968, K mikrofaunisticheskoi kharakteristike 

verkhnevizeiskikh otlozhenii (podzony Cl\g?) severozapadnoi chasti Dneprovsko-Donetzkoi Vpadiny: Paleont. 

Sbornik, no. 1, pt. 5, p. 87-95, 2 pis.

Ferguson, Laing, 1962, The palebecology of a Lower Carboniferous marine transgression: Jour. Paleontology, v. 36, 

p. 1090-1107, 6 figs.

Girty, G. H., 1910, New genera and species of Carboniferous 

fossils from the Fayetteville shale of Arkansas: New 

York Acad. Sci. Annals, v. 20, no. 3, pt. 2, p. 189-238.

 1911, The fauna of the Moorefield shale of Arkansas: 

U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 439, 148 p., 15 pis.

Glebovskaya, E. M., 1939, Verkhnepaleozoiskie ostrakody Severnogo Urala: U.S.S.R. Neft. Geol.-Razv. Inst., Trudy, 

ser. A, no. 115, p. 165-176, 2 pis.

Gorak, S. V., 1964, Verkhnevizeiskie i nizhnenamyurskie ostrakody nekotorykh rayonov severo-zapadnogho sektora 

Bol'shogho Donbassa, in Aisenverg, D. E., ed., Materialy 

k faune verkhnegho Paleozoya Donbassa: Akad. Nauk 

Ukrainskoi SSR, Inst. Geol. Nauk, Trudy, ser. Stratigrafii i Paleontologii, no. 48, p. 154-204, pis. 1-4.

 1966, Ostrakody, in Aisenverg, D. E., ed., Fauna 

nisnov Turne (zony CM) Donetskogo Basseina [The 

fauna of the lowest part of Tournaisian (Zone Ci*a) in 

the Donetz Basin] : Akad. Nauk Ukrainskoi SSR, Inst. 

Geol. Nauk, p. 90-115, pis. 45, 46. Naukova Dumka, 

Kiev.

 1967, [Ostracoda of the Visean part of the suite 

C/(A) of the Donetz Basin], in Dunaeva, N. N., ed., 

[Fauna of the lower Visean deposits of [the] Greater 

Donbass]: Akad. Nauk Ukrainskoi SSR, Inst. Geol. 

Nauk, p. 43-96, pis. 25-30. Naukova Dumka, Kiev. (In 

Russian.)

Gordon, Mackenzie, Jr., 1957, Mississippian cephalopods of 

northern and eastern Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. 

Paper 283, 61 p., 6 pis., 26 figs.

Grachevskiy, M. M., 1958, Novyi rod ostrakod iz Malinovskikh sloev Kuibyshevskogo Zavolzhya [A new ostracode 

genus from the Malinovsky layers of Kuiybyshev Zavolzhie]: Akad. Nauk SSSR-, Doklady, v. 120, no. 6, p. 

1322-1325, 1 pi.

Green, Robert, 1963, Lower Mississippian ostracodes from 

the Banff Formation, Alberta: Research Council Alberta 

Bull. 11, 237 p., 17 pis., 23 figs.

Groos, Helga, 1969, Mitteldevonisch Ostracoden zwischen 

Ruhr und Sieg (Rechtsrheinisches Schiefergebirge) : 

Gottingen Univ. Geol. Palaont. Inst., Gottinger Arb. Geol. 

Palaont. v. 1, 110 p., 20 pis.

Hamilton, I. B., 1942, Ostracodes from the Upper Permian 

of Texas: Jour. Paleontology, v. 16, no. 6, p. 712-718, 

pi. 110.

Harlton, B. H., 1929, Some Upper Mississippian (Fayetteville) and Lower Pennsylvanian (Wapanucka-Morrow) 

Ostracoda of Oklahoma and Arkansas: Am. Jour. Sci., 

5th ser., v. 18, p. 254-270, 2 pis.

Harris, R. W., and Jobe, T. C., 1956, Chester Foraminifera 

and Ostracoda from the Ringwood Pool of Oklahoma: 

Oklahoma Geol. Survey Circ. 39, 41 p., 4 pis.

Harris, R. W., and Lalicker, C. G., 1932, New Upper Carboniferous Ostracoda from Oklahoma and Kansas: Am. Midland Naturalist, v. 13, no. 6, p. 396-409, pis. 36, 37.

Henningsmoen, Gunnar, 1965, On certain features of palaeocope ostracodes: Geol. Foren. Stockholm Forh., v. 86, 

pt. 4, no. 519, p. 329-394, 16 figs.

Jones, T. R., 1889, Notes on the Paleozoic bivalved Entomostraca No. XXVII, On some North-American (Canadian) species: Annals and Mag. Nat. History, ser. 6, 

v. 3, p. 373-387, pis. 16, 17.

Jones, T. R., and Kirkby, J. W., 1865, Notes on the Paleozoic 

bivalved Entomostraca No. V, Miinster's species from 

the Carboniferous limestone: Annals and Mag. Nat. History, ser. 3, v. 15, p. 404-410, pi. 20.

 1886, Notes on the Paleozoic bivalved Entomostraca 

No. XXII, On some undescribed species of British Carboniferous Ostracoda: Annals and Mag. Nat. History, 

ser. 5, v. 18, p. 249-269, pis. 6-9.

 1895, Notes on Paleozoic bivalved Entomostraca 

No. XXXII, Some Carboniferous Ostracoda from Yorkshire: Annals and Mag. Nat. History, ser. 6, v. 16, p. 

452-460, pi. 21.

1896, On Carboniferous Ostracoda from Ireland:

Royal Soc. Dublin Sci. Trans., ser. 2, v. 6, p. 173-204, 

pis. 11, 12.

Jones, T. R., Kirkby, J. W., and Brady, G. S., 1884, A monograph of the British fossil bivalved Entomostraca from 

the Carboniferous formations: London, Palaeontographical Soc., p. 57-92, pis. 6, 7.

Kellett, Betty, 1933, Ostracodes of the Upper Pennsylvanian 

and the Lower Permian strata of Kansas Part 1, The 

Aparchitidae, Beyrichiidae, Glyptopleuridae, Kloedenellidae, Kirkbyidae, and Youngiellidae: Jour. Paleontology, 

v. 7, no. 1, p. 59-108, pis. 13-16.

 1937, Carboniferous ostracodes A correction: Jour. 

Paleontology, v. 11, no. 1, p. 80.

Kesling, R. V., and Weiss, Martin, 1953, Ostracods from the
NEW LATE MISSISSIPPIAN OSTRACODE GENERA AND SPECIES FROM NORTHERN ALASKA A21

Norway Point formation of Michigan: Michigan Univ., 

Mus. Paleontology Contr., v. 11, no. 3, p. 33-76, 5 pis.

Knight, J. B., 1928, Some Pennsylvanian ostracods from the 

Henrietta formation of eastern Missouri: Jour. Paleontology, v. 2, no. 3, p. 229-267, pis. 30-34.

Kniipfer, Jiirgen, 1967, Zur Mikrofauna aus dem unteren Teil 

des Zechsteins von Riigen: Freiberger Forschungshefte, 

no. C213, p. 72-99, 5 pis.

Krommelbein, Karl, 1954, Ein Ostracoden-fauna aus der 

Riff-Einlagerung im Plattenkalk der Paffrather Mulde 

(Givetium, Bergisches Land) : Senckenbergiana, v. 34, 

no. 4-6, p. 247-258, 2 pis.

Kummerow, E. H. E., 1939, Die Ostracoden und Phyllopoden 

des deutschen Unterkarbons; die Fauna des deutschen 

Unterkarbons, 4. Teil: Preussische Geol. Landesanst. 

Abh., new ser., no. 194, 107 p., 7 pis., 20 figs.

 1953, Uber oberkarbonische und devonische ostracoden 

in Deutschland und in der Volksrepublik Polen: Geologie, 

Jahrg. 2, Beiheft 7, 75 p., 7 pis.

Liljeborg, Wilhelm, 1853, De crustaceis ex ordinibus tribus 

Cladocera, Ostracoda et Copepoda, in Scania occurrentibus: Lund, Sweden, Berlingska Boktryckeriet, 219 p., 26 

pis.

McCoy, Frederick, 1844, a synopsis of the characters of the 

Carboniferous limestone fossils of Ireland: Dublin, 207 

p., 29 pis.

McLaughlin, K. P., and Simons, M. E., 1951, Upper Paleozoic 

microfossils from Stevens County, Washington: Jour. 

Paleontology, v. 25, p. 514-519, pi. 76.

Mandelstam, M. I., 1956, Ostrakody Uglonosnykh otlozheniy 

Kuznetskogno Basseina, in Yavorsky, V. I., ed., Atlas 

rukovodiashchikh form iskopaemykh fauny i flory Permskikh otlozheniy Kuznetskogo Basseyna: Vses. NauchnoIssled. Geol. Inst. (VSEGEI), Ministerstva Geologii i 

Okhrany Nedr SSSR, Moscow, p. 58-109, pis. 9-19.

Moore, R. C., ed., 1961, Treatise on invertebrate paleontology, 

Part Q, Arthropoda 3, Crustacea, Ostracoda: New York 

and Lawrence, Kans., Geol. Soc. America and Univ. 

Kansas Press, 442 p., 334 figs.

Morey, P. S., 1935, Ostracoda from the basal Mississippian 

sandstone in central Missouri: Jour. Paleontology, v. 9, 

no. 4, p. 316-326, pi. 28.

 1936, Ostracoda from the Chouteau formation of

Missouri: Jour. Paleontology, v. 10, no. 2, p. 114-122,

pi. 17. 

Miiller, G. W., 1890, Neue Cypridiniden: Zool. Jahrb., Abtheihmg fiir Systematik Geographie u. Biologie der

Thiere, v. 5, p. 211-252, pis. 25-27. 

Miinster, G. von, 1830, Ueber einige fossile Arten Cypris und

Cythere:[Neues] Jahrb. Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie,

u. Petrefaktenkunde, Jahrg. 1, 1830, p. 60-67. 

Opik, Armin, 1935, Ostracoda from the lower Ordovician

Megalaspis-limestone of Estonia and Russia: Tartu

Univ., Geol. Inst. Pub. 44, 13 p., 2 pis. 

Paulsen, E. M., 1962, Ostracoda-Myodocopa, [Part] 1 Cypridiniformes-Cypridinidae: Dana Rept. 57,414 p., 181 figs.

Copenhagen, Denmark, Carlsberg Found. 

Payne, K. A., 1937, Pennsylvanian Ostracoda from Sullivan

County, Indiana: Jour. Paleontology, v. 11, no. 4, p. 276-

288, pis. 38^0. 

Polenova, E. N., 1952, Ostrakody verknei chasti Zhivetskogo

Yarusa Russkoi platformy [Ostracoda from the upper

part of the Givetian formation of the Russian platform] ,

in Mikrofauna SSSR, Sbornik V: Vses. Neft. NauchnoIssled. Geol.-Razv. Inst. (VNIGRI), Trudy, new ser., no. 

60, p. 65-156, 15 pis.

 1955, Ostrakody Devona Volgo-Uralskoi Oblasti [Ostracodes of the Devonian in the Volga-Ural Region], in 

Bykova, E. V., and Polenova, E. N., eds., [On the Foraminifera, Radiolaria and Ostracoda in the Devonian of 

the Volga-Ural region]: Vses. Neft. Nauchno-Issled. 

Geol.-Razv. Inst. (VNIGRI), Trudy, new ser., no. 87, p. 

191-287, 15 pis.

1968, Ostrakody nizhnegho Devona Salaira Tomchumishkiy Gorizont: Akad. Nauk SSSR, Sibirskoe Otdelenie, Inst. Geol. i Geofiziki, 154 p., 26 pis.

Pozner, V. M., 1951, [Lower Carboniferous Ostracoda of the 

western part of the Moscow Kettle Valley]: Vses. Neft. 

Nauchno-Issled. Geol.-Razv. Inst. (VNIGRI), Trudy, new 

ser., no. 56, p. 5-108, 21 pis.

Pribyl, Alois, 1955, Nove poznatky o skorepatcich (Ostracoda) 

z ceskeho devonu a jejich stratigrafickem vyznamu [A 

contribution to the study of ostracodes of the Bohemian 

Devonian and their stratigraphic significance] : Czechoslovakia Ustredni ustav geologichy Sbornik, v. 21, 1954, 

Paleont., p. 161-301, 5 pis.

Price, P. H., Heck, E. T., Tilton, J. L., and Wells, Dana, 

1939, Greenbrier County: West Virginia Geol. Survey 

[Rept.], 846 p.

Reed, F. R. C., 1927, Palaeozoic and Mesozoic fossils from 

Yun-nan: India Geol. Survey Mem., Palaeontologica Indica, new ser., v. 10, no. 1, 331 p., 20 pis.

Robinson, J. E., 1959, The ostracod fauna of the shale facies 

of the Cawdor limestones, north end of Cawdor quarry 

[Derbyshire] : Geol. Soc. London Quart. Jour., v. 114, pt. 

4, p. 435-448, 2 figs.

 1969, The history of Bernix tatei Jones 1844, in Neale, 

J. W., ed., The taxonomy, morphology and ecology of 

Recent Ostracoda: Edinburgh, Oliver and Boyd, p. 14- 

20, 4 pis.

Roth, Robert, and Skinner^ John; 1930, The fauna of the McCoy formation, Pennsylvanian, of Colorado: Jour. Paleontology, v. 4, no. 2, p. 332-352, 4 pis., 1 fig.

Roundy, P. V., 1926, The micro-fauna, in Roundy, P. V., 

Girty, George H., and Goldman, Marcus I., Mississippian 

formations of San Saba County, Texas: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 146, pt. 2, p. 5-23, pis. 1-4.

Rozhdestvenskaja, A. A., 1959, Ostrakody terrigenoy tolshchi 

Devona zapadnoi Bashkirii i ikh stratigraficheskoe znachenie, in Tschibrikova, E. V., and Rozhdestvenskaja, A. 

A., eds., Materialy po paleontologii i stratigrafii Devonskikh i bolee drevnikh otlozhenii Bashkirii: Moscow, 

Akad. Nauk SSSR, Bashkirkskii Filial, p. 117-245, 30 pis.

Samoilova, R. B., and Smirnova, R. F., 1962, K novom Dizigopleurella i novykh vidakh ostrakod iz devonskikh otlozhenii Russkoi Platformy [On the new genus Dizigopleurella and some new ostracode species from the Devonian 

deposits of the Russian platform] : Paleont. Zhur., 1962, 

no. 1, p. 79-88, pis. 12-14.

Sando, W. J., Mamet, B. L., and Dutro, J. T., Jr., 1969, Carboniferous megafaunal and microfaunal zonation in the 

northern Cordillera of the United States: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 613-E, 29 p., 1 pi., 7 figs.

Schallreuter, Roger, 1968, Ordovizische Ostracoden mit geradem Schlossrand und konkaven Ventralrand: Ernst Mo-
A22 A REVISION OF THE PARAPARCHITACEA

itz-Amdt-Universitat Greifswald, Wiss. Zeitschr., Jahrg.

17, Math.-naturwiss. Reihe no. 1-2, p. 127-152, 26 figs. 

Schmidt, E. A., 1939, Angeborene und Erworbene Homonymie: Senckenbergiana, v. 21, no. 5-6, p. 378-386. 

Scott, H. W., 1942, Ostracodes from the upper Mississippian

of Montana: Jour. Paleontology, v. 16, no. 2, p. 152-163,

pis. 25, 26.

 1959, Type species of Paraparchites Ulrich and Bassler: Jour. Paleontology, v. 33, no. 4, p. 670-674, pi. 87.

Sohn, I. G., 1950, Growth stages in fossil ostracodes: Am. 

Jour. Sci., v. 248, no. 6, p. 427-434, 1 fig.

 1960, Paleozoic species of Bairdia and related genera: 

U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 330-A, 105 p., 6 pis., 15 

figs. [1961]

 1961, Aechminella, Amphissites, Kirkbyella, and related genera: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 330-B, p. 

107-160, pis. 7-12 [1962]

1969, Revision of some of Girty's invertebrate fossils

from the Fayetteville Shale (Mississippian) of Arkansas

and Oklahoma Ostracodes: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof.

Paper 606-F, p. 41-55, pis. 6-8. 

Stewart, G. A., 1930, Additional species from the Silica shale

of Lucas County, Ohio: Ohio Jour Sci., v. 30, no. 1, p.

52-58, pi. 1. 

 1936, Ostracodes of the Silica shale, Middle Devonian

of Ohio: Jour. Paleontology, v. 10, no. 8, p. 739-763, pis.

100-102. 

Stewart, G. A., and Hendrix, W. E., 1945, Ostracoda of the

Olentangy shale, Franklin and Delaware Counties, Ohio:

Jour. Paleontology, v. 19, no. 2, p. 96-115, pis. 11-12. 

Swartz, F. M., 1936, Revision of the Primitiidae and Beyrichiidae, with new Ostracoda from the Lower Devonian

of Pennsylvania: Jour. Paleontology, v. 10, no. 7, p. 541-

586, pis. 78-89.

 1969, Ordovician ostracode Aparchites whiteavesi 

Jones (1889), and problems of relationships: Jour. Paleontology, v. 43, no. 5, p. 1237-1244, pi. 145.

Terquem, M. 0., 1878, Les Foraminiferes et les Entomostraces-Ostracodes du Pliocene superieur de 1'Ile de Rhodes 

Deuxieme section, Ostracodes: Soc. Geol. France Mem., 

3d ser., v. 1, p. 81-135, pis. 10-14.

Tomlinson, C. W., 1928, Oil and gas geology of Carter County: Oklahoma Geol. Survey Bull. 40-Z, 78 p.

Ulrich, E. 0., 1891, Carboniferous species, Part 3 of New and 

little known American Paleozoic Ostracoda: Cincinnati 

Soc. Nat. History, Jour. v. 13, p. 200-211, pis. 11-18.

Ulrich, E. 0., and Bassler, R. S., 1906, New American Paleozoic Ostracoda Notes and descriptions of upper Carboniferous genera and species: U.S. Natl. Mus. Proc., 

v. 30, p. 149-164, pi. 11.

Upson, M. E., 1933, The Ostracoda of the Big Blue series in 

Nebraska: Nebraska Geol. Survey Bull. 8, 2d ser., 54 p., 

4 pis.

Whitfield, R. P., 1882, On the fauna of the Lower Carboniferous limestones of Spergen Hill, Ind., with a revision 

of the descriptions of its fossils hitherto published and 

illustrations of the species from the original type series: 

Am. Mus. Nat. History Bull., v. 1, no. 3, p. 39-97, pis. 6-9.

Yochelson, E. L., and Dntro, J. T., Jr., 1960, Late Paleozoic 

Gastropoda from northern Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey 

Prof. Paper 334-D, p. 111-147, pis. 12-14, figs. 23-29,

Zanina, I. E., 1956, Ostrakody vizeyskogo yarusa Podmoskovnogo basseyna: Mikrofauna SSSR, Sbornik VIII: Vses. 

Neft. Nauchno-Issled. Geol.-Razv. Inst. (VNIGRI), 

Trudy, new ser., no. 98, p. 185-310, 8 pis.

 1968, Rannekamennougol'nye ostrakody R. Olenek: 

Vses. Paleontol. Obshchestva Ezhegodnik, v. 18, p. 170- 

187, 3 pis.
INDEX

[Italic page nnmbers indicate major references and descriptions]

Page 

A

Acknowledgments ............................................ A^

acuta, Leperditia okeni ................................ 16

aenigmatica, Chamishaella .............. 11, 12; pi. 5

Age of the ostraeodes .................................... 4

amplectens, Sansabella ................................ 3

amygdalina, Cythere .................................... 16

Antiparaparchites ........................................ 3, 5, 6

oblongus .................................................... 6

reversus .................................................... 3, 6, 8

wabashensis .............................................. 6

Aparchites whiteavesi .................................. 13

Ardmorea ........................................................ 3, 5, 6

symmetrica ................................................ 6

ardmorensis, Paraparchites ........................ 16

armstrongiana, Leperditia .......................... 2, 9

armstrongianus, Paraparchites .................. 9, 14

aurantia, Xestoleberis .................................. 3

auriculatus, Paraparchites ....................... .. 11

Azygocypridina sp ........................................ 2, 3

B

belsuensis, Paraschmidtella ........................ 12

bergica, Coelonella ........................................ 18

bigsnoivyensis, Paraparchites .................... 16

bijensis, Coelonella ........................................ 18

....................... 4

....................... 16

........................ 13

....................... 9

2, 11, 12, 13; pi. 6

....................... 9

binodosa, Samarella ........

bosquetiana, Leperditia 

bosquetina, Leperditia .. 

brazoensis, Shivaella ......

brosgei, Chamishaella ....

bucerus, Paraparchites ..

C

cantelii, Paraparchites .................................. 5

carbonaria, Chamishaella ............................ 13

carbonarius, Paraparchites ........................ 9, 11

Chamishaella ...................................... 5, 11, 12, 13

aenigmatica ................................ 11, 12; pi. 5

brosgei .............................. 2, 11, 72, 13; pi. 6

carbonaria ................................................ 13

disjuncta .................................................... 11

tumida ........................................................ 13

sp .......................................................... 73; pi. 5

claytonensis, Shishaella ................................ 14

Coelonella ............................................ 3, 5, 6, 7, IS

bergica ......... .............. ............................. 18

bijensis ............................................ ......... 18

gabdjukovensis ........................................ 18

granulifera ................................................ 18

plana ................................................ 6, IS; pi. 1

punctulifera .............................................. 18

reversa ...................................................... 18

scapha .......................................... 7S; pis. 1, 2

testata ........................................................ 18

(Coelonella) devonica, Sansabella ............ 18

Coeloenellina ................................................ 3, 6, 18

parva .......................................................... 18

Collection localities ........................................ 4

compressa, Leperditia .................................. 16

Conchoprimitia ................................................ 12

crassa, Samarella .......................................... 4

Page 

Cyathus .............................................................. A6, 7

ulrichi ........................................................ 7

vetustus ...................................................... 7

cyclopea, Paraparchites nicklesi ................ 14

Shishaella .................................... 10, 14; pi. 7

cyclopeus, Paraparchites .............................. 15

Cyprideis littoralis ........................................ 3

Cypridina laevigata ...................................... 14

Cypris ................................................................ 7

Cythere amygdalina ...................................... 16

inflata .......................................... 13, 16; pi. 5

inornata .................................................... 16

spinigera .................................................. 9

Cytherella in-ftata ........................................ 13, 16

D

devonica, Sansabella (Coelonella) ............ 18

Dimorphism ...................................................... 3

discoides, Paraparchites .............................. 14

disjuncta, Chamishaella ............................ 11

disjunctus, Paraparchites ............................ 11

donica, Paraparchites .................................. 14

dornickhillicus, Pseudoparaparchites ........ 10

Dorsoobliquella ................................................ 3, 5

dorsopunctata, Paraparchites .................... 12

dutroi, Shemonaella ......................... 16, 77; pi. 9

E

Ecology .................................

emaciatus, Paraparchites 

erata, Paraparchitella .....

gabdjukovensis, Coelonella .......................... 18

galbus, Paraparchites ................................ 13, 16

gibbus, Paraparchites .................................. 14

globosus, Philomedes .................................... 3

Goniatites crenistria Zone .......................... 4

granulifera, Coelonella ................................ 18

H

harltoni, Paraparchites ................................ 14

Shishaella .................................................. 16

hilgendorfi, Vargula ...................................... 3

humerosus, Paraparchites .... 3, 6, 7, 8; pis. 1, 2

kansasensis, Paraparchites .. ............. 7

spinosus, Paraparchites ...................... 7, 8

texana, Paraparchites .......................... 7, 8

I

inflata, Cythere ................................ 15, 16; pi. 5

Cytherella ................................................ 13, 16

inftatus, Paraparchites ................................ 13

inornata, Cythere ............................................ 16

inornatus, Paraparchites ................ 5, 11, 14, 16

Introduction .................................................... 1

Isochilina scapha ............................................ 6, 18

jubata, Samarella .......................................... 4

juvensis, Leperditia ...................................... 14

Shishaella .................................................. 14

Page

K

kansasensis,Paraparchites ............................ A7

Paraparchites humerosus .................... 7

karagandensis, Paraparchites .................... 16

kellettae, Paraparchites ............................ 8; pi. 2

Key to the genera ........................................ 4

kinkaidensis, Paraparchites ........................ 14

Shishaella .................................................. 14

laduensis, Paraparchites ............................ 14

laevigata, Cypridina .................................... 14

Rishona ...................................................... 14

laevinodosa, Samarella ................................ 4

Leperditia ........................................................ 3

armstrongiana ........................................ 2, 9

bosquetiana .............................................. 16

bosquetina ................................................ 13

compressa .................................................. 16

juvensis ...................................................... 14

microphthalma ........................................ 9

nicklesi .................................................... 10, 11

oblonga ...................................................... 16

ofcem ................................................ 3, 7, 14, 17

acuta .................................................. 16

parallela .................................................... 17

rhombica .................................................. 17

scotoburdigalensis .................................. 3, 7

subaequalis ................................................ 17

subrotunda ...........................

Lithostrotion asiaticum Zone 

littoralis, Cyprideis ...................

longa, Paraparchites ...............

longula, Microcoelonella .........

M

maccoyanus, Paraparchites ........................ 16

magnus, Paraparchites ................................ 9

uralensis, Paraparchites ........................ 14

malinovskensis, Quasiparaparchites ........ 16

marathonensis, Shishaella .......................... 5

mertiei, Shivaella .................................... 10; pi. 4

Microcheilinella ...................

Microcoelonella .....................

longula ...........................

optata .............................

orthocornis .....................

podiakovoensis .............

scanta .............................

symmetrica ...................

tuberculata .....................

Microparaparchites .............

microphthalma, Leperditia 

miropolskii, Samarella .......

N

nicklesi, Leperditia ................................... 10, 11

Paraparchites ............................ 10, 11, 14, 16

Shivaella ............................................ 70; pi. 4

cyclopea, Paraparchites ........................ 14

A23
A24 INDEX

o

obliguus, Paraparchites okeni .................... A14

oblonga, Leperditia ...................................... 16

oblongus, Antiparchites .............................. 6

Paraparchites .......................................... 9

okeni, Leperditia ................................ 3, 7, 14, 17

Paraparchites ........................................ 14, 17

acuta, Leperditia .................................... 16

obliquus, Paraparchites ........................ 14

Ontogenetic development ............................ 2

optata, Microcoelonella ................................ 1

Orientation ........................................................ 2

orthocornis, Microcoelonella ........................ 7

oskolensis, Paraparchites ............................ 16

ovata, Paraparchitella .................................. 4

ovatus, Paraparchites .................................. 14

oviformis, Paraparchites .......................... 3, 6, 8

palopintoensis, Paraparchites .................... 9

papillatus, Paraparchites ............................ 9

parallela, Leperditia .................................... 17

Paraparchitella ................................................ 3, 4

erata .......................................................... 4

ovata .......................................................... 4

Paraparchites .......................... 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 16

ardmorensis .............................................. 16

armstrongianus ...................................... 9, 14

aMricMZafws ................................................ 11

bigsnowyensis .......................................... 16

bucerus ...................................................... 9

cantelii ...................................................... 5

carbonarius .............................................. 9, 11

cyclopeus .................................................. 15

discoides .................................................... 14

disjunctus .................................................. 11

donica ........................................................ 14

dorsopunctata .......................................... 12

emaciatus .................................................. 11

galbus ...................................................... 13, 16

Sibbws ........................................................ 14

harltoni ...................................................... 14

humerosus ........................ 3, 6, 7, 8; pis. 1, 2

kansasensis ........................................ 7

spinosus ............................................ 7, 8

texana ................................................ 7, 8

inflatus .............................. ....................... 13

inornatus ...................................... 5, 11, 14, 16

kansasensis ................................................ 1

karagandensis .......................................... 16

kellettae ................................................ S; pi. 2

kinkaidensis .............................................. 14

laduensis .................................................... 14

longa .......................................................... 9

maccoyanus .............................................. 16

magnus ...................................................... 9

uralensis ............................................ 14

nicklesi ........................................ 10, 11, 14, 16

cyclopea ............................................ 14

oblongus .................................................... 9

okeni ........................................................ 14, 17

obliguus .. ................................................... 14

oskolensis ............................ ..................... 16

ovatus ........................................................ 14

oviformis ................................................ 3, 6, 8

palopintoensis .......................................... 9

papillatus .................................................. 9

pinguis ...................................................... 9

porrectus .................................................... 14

	Page 

Paraparchites Continued

productus .................................................. A14

projectus .............................................. 2, 4, 10

quasiporrectus .......................................... 9

reversus ...................................................... 6

rhombicus .................................................. 14

samuela ...................................................... 14

schweyeri .................................................. 14

suborbiculatus .......................................... 11

symmetricus ............................................ 17

texonws .......................................... 6, 7,S; pi. 2

tumidus ...................................................... 11

ukrainica .................................................. 17

unicornis .................................................... 14

unoculus .................................................... 14

ventriosus ................................................ 3, 14

sp ................................................................ 5, 14

Paraphilomedes tricornuta .......................... 2

Mnicornwta .................................................. 2

Paraschmidtella belsuensis .......................... 12

parva, Coeloenellina ...................................... 18

Persansabella .................................................... 3

Philomedes globsus ........................................ 3

pingue, Shivaella ............................................ 10

pinguis, Paraparchites ................................ 9

plana, Coelonella ................................ 6, iS; pi. 1

podiakovoensis, Microcoelonella ................ 7

porrectus, Paraparchites ............................ 14

Preservation .................................................... 3

producta, Shishaella ...................................... 15

productus, Paraparchites ............................ 14

projectus, Paraparchites ........................ 2, 4, 10

Proparaparchites ............................................ 3, 5

sibiricus .................................................... 17

Pseudoparaparchites ...................................... 3, 5

dornickhillicus .......................................... 10

Published history of the group ................ 3

punctulifera, Coelonella .............................. 18

Q

Quasiparaparchites ................................... 3, 5, 16

malinovskensis .......................................... 16

redaevkensis ............................................ 9

quasiporrectus, Paraparchites .................... 9

R

redaevkensis, Quasiparaparchites ............ 9

References cited .............................................. iS

reverse, Coelonella .......................................... 18

Reversal of overlap ...................................... 3

reversus, Antiparaparchites .................... 3, 6, 8

Paraparchites .......................................... 6

rhombica, Leperditia .................................... 17

rhombicus, Paraparchites ............................ 14

Rishona laevigata .......................................... 14

Samarella ......................................................... 3, 4

binodosa .................................................... 4

crassa ........................................................ 4

jubata ........................................................ 4

laevinodosa ................................................ 4

miropolskii ................................................ 4

samuela, Paraparchites ................................ 14

Sansabella .................................................... 3, 6, 11

amplectens ................................................ 3

(Coelonella) .............................................. 18

devonica ............................................ 18

Page 

scapha, Coelonella .......................... A18; pis. 1, 2

Isochilina .................................................. 6, 18

sconto, Microcoelonella ................................ 6

schiveyeri, Paraparchites .............................. 14

scotoburdigalensis, Leperditia .................... 3, 7

Shemonaella ...................................................... 5, is

dwtrot ............................................ 16, *7; pi. 9

Shishaella ................................................ 3, 5, 11, i4

claytonensis ............................................. 14

cyclopea ........................................ 10, i4; pi. 7

harltoni ...................................................... 16

juvensis ...................................................... 14

kinkaidensis .............................................. 14

marathonensis ............................................ 5

producta .................................................... 15

ventriosa .................................................... 16

williamsae ................................ 2, i5, iS; pi. 8

sp .............................................................. 10, 14

Shivaella ........................................ 2, 5, S, 9, 10, 16

brazoensis .................................................. 9

mertiei ................................................ 10; pi. 4

nicklesi ................................................ 10; pi. 4

pingue ........................................................ 10

suppetia ................................ 2, 8, 9, 10; pi. 3

sp ................................................................ 9

sibiricus, Proparaparchites .......................... 17

spinigera, Cythere .......................................... 9

spinosMs, Paraparchites humerosus .......... 7, 8

subaequalis, Leperditia .................................. 17

suborbiculatus, Paraparchites .................... 11

SM&rotwndo, Leperditia ................................ 18

suppetia, Shivaella .................... 2, 8, 9, 10; pi. 3

symtnetrica, Ardmorea ................................ 6

Microcoelonella ........................................ 1

symmetricus, Paraparchites ........................ 17

Systematic descriptions ................................ ^

testata, Coelonella .......................................... 18

texana, Paraparchites humerosus ............ 7, 8

texanus, Paraparchites .................... 6, 7, S; pi. 2

tricornuta, Paraphilomedes .......................... 2

tuberculata, Microcoelonella ........................ 9

tumida, Chamishaella .................................... 13

tumidus, Paraparchites ................................ 11

U

ukrainica, Paraparchites ............................ 17

ulrichi, Cyathus .............................................. 1

unicornis, Paraparchites .............................. 14

ttnicorrmta, Paraphilomedes ........................ 2

unoculus, Paraparchites ............ ................ 14

uralensis, Paraparchites magnus .............. 14

VarswZo hilgendorfi, ........................................ 3

ventriosa, Shishaella ...................................... 16

ventriosus, Paraparchites ............................ 3, 14

vetustus, Cyathus ............................................ 1

W

wabashensis, Antiparchites ........................ 6

whiteavesi, Aparchites .................................. 13

williamsae, Shishaella .................. 2, i5, i6; pi. 8

X

Xestoleberis aurantia

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1971 O - 437-657
PLATES 1-9

Contact photographs of the plates in this report are available, at cost, from U.S. 

Geological Survey Library, Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225.
PLATE 1

[Magnification X 30; photographs by R. H. McKinney]

FIGURES 1-8. Coelonella plana Stewart, 1936 (p. A18).

1-3. Right, dorsal, and left views of carapace. Holotype, Ohio State Univ. No. 18171. Silica Shale, Zone 3, 

Middle Devonian, quarry at Silica, Lucas County, Ohio.

4-6. Right, dorsal, and left views of carapace. Figured specimen, USNM 168091. Silica Shale, Zone 1, 

same quarry as above. C. L. Cooper collection 675-1, collected by G. A. Stewart, October 1941.

7, 8. Right and dorsal views of carapace. Figured specimen, USNM 168092. Silica Shale, units 9 and 11, 

North Quarry, Medusa Portland Cement Company, Lucas County, Ohio. Collected by Mrs. Ruth E. Chilman. 

9-23. Coelonella scapha (Stewart, 1930) (p. A18).

9,10. Dorsal and left views of carapace of a young instar. Figured specimen, USNM 168093. Same collection and locality as figures 7 and 8.

11,12. Left and right views of a slightly larger carapace. Figured specimen, USNM 168094. Same collection and locality as figures 7 and 8.

13-15. Left, ventral and dorsal views of adult carapace. Figured specimen, USNM 168095. Same collection 

and locality as figures 7 and 8.

16-18. Ventral, right lateral, and dorsal views of adult carapace. Figured specimen lost. Same collection and 

locality as figures 7 and 8.

19-22. Left, dorsal, right, and ventral views of abraded carapace. Holotype, Ohio State University No. 16538. 

Silica Shale, Zone 3, quarry at Silica, Lucas County, Ohio.

23. Inside view of left valve that shows deep invagination of hinge margin. Figured specimen, USNM

168096. Silica Shale, unit 9, quarry at Silica, Lucas County, Ohio. Collected by Mrs. Ruth E. Chilman. 

24-32. Paraparchites humerosus Ulrich and Bassler, 1906 (p. A7).

24. 25. Lateral and anterior views of right valve of a female. Paralectotype, USNM 137564. The edge of 

the smaller specimen nested inside can be seen in figure 25. This specimen is the original of Scott (1959, 

pi. 87, fig. 1). Elmdale Shale of former usage (Permian) near Manhattan, Kans.

26-28. Left, anterior, and dorsal views of a female carapace. Lectotype, USNM 35627. Illustrated by Scott 

(1959, pi. 87, figs. 3, 4). Same collection and locality as figures 24 and 25.

29, 30. Right and anterior views of a broken valve of tecnomorph. Paralectotype, USNM 167975. Same collection and locality as figures 24 and 25.

31, 32. Left and posterior views of carapace of a tecnomorph. Paralectotype, USNM 137564b. This specimen was illustrated in dorsal view by Scott (1959, pi. 87, fig. 7). Same collection and locality as figures 24 

and 25.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 711-A PLATE 1

COELONELLA, PARAPARCHITES
PLATE 2

[Except where noted, magnification X 30; photographs of specimens by R. H. McKinney; photographs of

sections by D. H. Massie]

FIGURES 1, 2, 7-10,13-15. Paraparchites texanus Delo, 1930 (p. A8).

1, 2. Left and dorsal views of carapace. Holotype, USNM 

81799. Probably Permian, well in Menard County, Tex.

7-10. Dorsal, right, left, and ventral views of carapace. 

Topotype of Antiparaparchites reversus Coryell and Rogatz, 1932, USNM 167983. Arroyo Formation, Tom 

Green County, Tex.

13-15. Right, dorsal, and left views of carapace. Topotype 

of P. oviformis Coryell and Rogatz, 1932, USNM 167984. 

Same collection as figures 7-10. 

3-6. Coelonella scapha (Stewart, 1930) (p. A18).

3-5. Two acetate peels and a polished surface of a carapace X 150. Figured specimen, USNM 168097. Silica 

Shale, units 9 and 11, north quarry, Medusa Portland 

Cement Company, Lucas County, Ohio. Collected by 

Mrs. Ruth E. Chilman.

6. Thin section of a carapace, X 150. Topotype, USNM 

168098. Silica Shale, Zone 1, quarry at Silica, Lucas 

County, Ohio. C. L. Cooper colln. 675-1, collected by 

G. A. Stewart, October 1941. 

11,12. Paraparchites kellettae Sohn, n. sp. (p. A8).

Right view and anterior of carapace illustrated by Kellett 

(1933, pi. 13, figs. 1, 8) as P. humerosus (Ulrich and 

Bassler). Holotype, USNM 85423. Fort Riley Limestone, Geary County, Kans.

16. Paraparchites sp. (p. A7).

Thin section of a carapace X 150. Figured specimen, 

USNM 167985. Manlius Limestone, large quarry near 

railroad, 1.0 mile southeast of Munnsville, Munnsville 

quadrangle, New York. Collected by J. M. Berdan, USGS 

locality 5209-SD.

17. Paraparchites humerosus Ulrich and Bassler, 1906 (p. A7). 

Thin section of a paratype X 25. Paratype, USNM 167986. 

"Elmdale Shale" (Lower Permian), Manhattan, Kans.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 711-A PLATE 2

PARAPARCHITES, COELONELLA
PLATE 3

[Magnification approximately X 30; photographs by R. H. McKinney]

FIGURES 1-38. Shivaella suppetia Sohn, n. sp. (p. A9).

1-25. Right, dorsal, left, ventral, and posterior views of five growth 

stages, showing the ontogenetic development. Paratypes, USNM 

167995-167999. Platy limestone member of the Alapah Limestone, 

Little Chandler Lake, Brooks Range, Alaska. USGS locality 13288.

26-28. Left, dorsal, and ventral views of a preadult individual. Paratype, USNM 168000. Same collection and locality as figures 1-25.

29-33. Posterior, right, dorsal (anterior to the left), ventral (anterior 

to the right), and left views of presumed female. Holotype, USNM 

168004. Same collection and locality as figures 1-25.

34-38. Posterior, right, dorsal, ventral, and left views of presumed 

adult male. Paratype, USNM 168001. Same collection and locality 

as figures 1-25.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 711-A PLATE 3

SHIVAELLA
PLATE 4

[Magnification approximately X 30; except where noted, photographs by R. H. McKinney]

FIGURES 1-16. Shivaella nicklesi (Ulrich, 1891) (p. A10).

1-5. Left, ventral, dorsal, right, and posterior views of a young instar. 

Topotype, USNM 168033. Chester Series, % mile east of Grayson 

Springs, Ky.

6-9. Left, dorsal, right, and posterior views of a carapace, paratype 

of Paraparchites projectus Harris and Jobe (1956, pi. 1, figs. 

7a-c), University of Oklahoma collection MC 7A. "Manning" horir- 

'zon (Dpper Mississippian), well in Major County, Okla.

10 12. Dorsal, lateral, and posterior views of right valve. Lectotype, 

USNM 41844A. Chester Series, Grayson Springs Station, Ky.

13-16. Left, dorsal, right, and posterior views of a carapace illustrated by Harlton (1929, pi. 1, fig. 1) as Paraparchites nicklesi 

(Ulrich). Figured specimen, USNM 79357. Fayetteville Shale, 

Girty's type-locality, railroad cut at Fayetteville, Ark. 

17-27. Shivaella mertiei Sohn, n. sp. (p. A10).

17. Lateral view of a silicified left valve representing an immature 

instar. Paratype, USNM 168026. Alapah Limestone, Nanushuk 

Valley, Brooks Range, Alaska.

18. Lateral view of right valve of an instar younger than illustrated 

in figure 17. Paratype, USNM 168027. Same collection and locality 

as figure 17.

19. 20. Dorsal and lateral views of a left valve of a very young instar. 

Paratype, USNM 168025. Same collection and locality as figure 17. 

Photographs by N. W. Shupe.

21-24. Right, dorsal, ventral, and posterior views of a carapace. 

Paratype USNM 168028. Same collection, locality, and photographer as figures 19, 20.

25. Lateral view of a left valve. Paratype, USNM 168029. Same 

collection and locality as figure 17.

26. Lateral view of a right valve. Holotype, USNM 168032. Same 

collection and locality as figure 17.

27. Lateral view of left valve of carapace. Paratype, USNM 168030. 

Same collection and locality as figure 17.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 711-A PLATE 4

SHIVAELLA
PLATE 5

[Magnification approximately X 20; photographs by R. H. McKinney]

FIGURES 1-21,23-26. Chamishaella aenigmatica Sohn, n. sp. (p. All).

1, 2. Right and dorsal views of a carapace, young instar. 

Paratype, USNM 168045. Alapah Limestone (lower Meramecian), Chandler Lake quadrangle, Alaska.

3-7. Right, dorsal, left, ventral, and posterior views of a 

carapace, larger instar. Paratype, USNM 168046. Same 

collection and locality as figures 1 and 2.

8-12. Left, dorsal, right, ventral, and posterior views of a 

carapace, larger instar than above. Paratype, USNM

168047. Same collection and locality as figures 1 and 2. 

13-17. Right, dorsal, left, ventral, and posterior views of a 

carapace, larger instar than above. Paratype, USNM

168048. Same collection and locality as figures 1 and 2.

18,19. Right and dorsal views of a partially exfoliated carapace that shows the location of the muscle-scar impression. 

Paratype, USNM 168049. Same collection and locality 

as figures 1 and 2.

20,21. Right and posterior views of a carapace, heteromorph. Holotype, USNM 168052. Same collection and 

locality as figures 1 and 2.

23-26. Right, dorsal, left, and ventral views of a carapace, 

probably a tecnomorph larger than the holotype. Note 

partially exfoliated left valve exposing the amount of 

overlap along the venter and the rim along the venter of 

the right valve. Paratype, USNM 168050. Same collection and locality as figures 1 and 2. 

22,27-31,34,35,38,39. Chamishaellal sp. (p. A13).

27-31. Dorsal, left, ventral, right, and posterior views of 

carapace. Figured specimen, USNM 168053. Same collection and locality as figures 1 and 2.

22, 34, 35. Posterior, ventral, and right views of a steinkern 

of a larger carapace. Figured specimen, USNM 168054. 

Same collection and locality as figures 1 and 2.

38. Right view of a steinkern. Figured specimen, USNM 

168055. Same collection and locality as figures 1 and 2.

39. Left view of a carapace whose valve has been removed; 

limestone matrix adheres at the venter. Figured specimen, 

USNM 168056. Same collection and locality as figures 

1 and 2. 

32, 33, 36, 37. Chamishaella sp. aff. Cythere inflata Mimster, 1830 (p. A13).

32,33. Ventral and right views of a partially exfoliated 

carapace. Figured specimen, USNM 168058. Same collection and locality as figures 1 and 2.

36, 37. Dorsal and right views of a partially exfoliated carapace. Figured specimen, USNM 168059. Same collection 

and locality as figures 1 and 2.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 711-A PLATE 5

CHAMISHAELLA AND CHAMISHAELLA1
PLATE 6

[Magnification approximately X 20; photographs by R. H. McKinney]

FIGURES 1-32. Chamishaella brosgei Sohn, n. sp. (p. A12).

1-15. Left, ventral, dorsal, right, and posterior views of three carapaces, young stages of growth. Paratypes, USNM 168061-168063. 

Platy limestone member of the Alapah Limestone, Little Chandler 

Lake, Brooks Range, Alaska. USGS locality 13288.

16-19. Left, ventral, right, and posterior views of carapace, slightly 

larger growth stage, figure 17 partially exfoliated on anterior part 

of venter. Paratype, USNM 168064. Same collection and locality 

as figures 1-15.

20-24. Left, dorsal, ventral, right, and anterior views of carapace 

representing a still larger growth stage, partially exfoliated on 

anterior part of venter in figure 22. Paratype, USNM 168065. 

Same collection and locality as figures 1-15.

25-28. Left, dorsal, right, and posterior views of carapace, presumed 

adult female. Holotype, USNM 168068. Same collection and locality 

as figures 1-15.

29-32. Left, ventral, right, and posterior views of carapace, presumed adult male. Paratype, USNM 168066. Same collection and 

locality as figures 1-15.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 711-A PLATE 6

CHAMISHAELLA
PLATE 7

[Magnification approximately X 20; photographs by R. H. McKinney]

FIGURES 1-35. Shishaella cyclopea (Girty, 1910) (p. A14).

1-4. Left, dorsal, right, and posterior views of a carapace, very young instar. Topotype, USNM 168100.

Fayetteville Shale, Washington County, Ark. USGS locality 5553. 

5-8. Left, dorsal, right, and posterior views of a carapace, approximately the same growth stage as above.

Topotype, USNM 168101. Same collection and locality as figures 1-4. 

9, 10. Right and dorsal views of carapace of a larger instar. Figured specimen, USNM 153785. The same

illustrations as by Sohn (1969, pi. 8, figs. 15, 16). Black limestone near base of Fayetteville Shale, 20

feet above top of Boone Formation, Washington County, Ark. 

11, 12. Right and dorsal views of a larger instar. Figured specimen, USNM 153786. The same illustrations

as by Sohn (1969, pi. 8, figs. 17, 18). Same collection and locality as figures 9 and 10. 

13, 14. Right and dorsal views of a carapace, larger instar. Topotype, USNM 168102. Same collection and

locality as figures 1-4. 

15-18. Posterior, right, dorsal, and left views of a carapace either the same or the next larger instar than

figures 13 and 14. Topotype, USNM 168103. Same collection and locality as figures 1-4. 

19, 20. Right and dorsal views of a carapace. Probably the same growth stage as figures 9 and 10. Topotype, USNM 168104. Same collection and locality as figures 1-4. 

21. Interior of a fragment of a right valve; note hinge and muscle scars. Topotype, USNM 168108. Same

collection and locality as figures 1-4. 

22-25. Right, dorsal, left, and inside fragment of shell removed from left of a carapace; note muscle scar

on mold and on shell. Still larger instar. Topotype, USNM 168105. Same collection and locality as figures

1-4. 

26-28. Left, inside of part of left valve, and right valve of a carapace. Note hinge impression and muscle

scar in figure 26 and hinge and muscle scar in figure 27. Topotype, USNM 168107. Same collection and

locality as figures 1-4. 

29-32. Left, right, dorsal, and posterior views of a carapace. Note ventral bulge in figures 29 and 32.

Topotype, USNM 168106. Same collection and locality as figures 1-4.

33. Inside of a fragment of a left valve that was converted to fluorite. Note hinge and dorsoanterior overlap. Topotype, USNM 168109. Same collection and locality as figures 1-4.

34. Right view of a valve in matrix. Holotype of Paraparchites projectus Harris and Jobe, 1956. "Manning" horizon (Chester), discovery well in Ringwood Oil Pool, core 6801-20 feet, Major County, Okla. 

University of Oklahoma collection MC 6A.

35. Posterior view of carapace. Paralectotype, USNM 153788. Other views were illustrated by Sohn (1969, 

pi. 8, figs. 22-24) . Same collection and locality as figures 1-4.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 711-A PLATE 7

SHISHAELLA
PLATE 8

[Magnification approximately X 20; photographs by R. H. McKinhey]

FIGURES 1-5. Shishaella williamsae Sohn, n. sp. (p. A15).

Right, ventral, left, dorsal, and posterior views of a carapace of a 

very young individual. Paratype, USNM 168069. Alapah Limestone, Brooks Range, Alaska, USGS locality 13288. 

6-10. Shishaella cf. S. williamsae Sohn (p. A16).

Right, ventral, left, dorsal, and posterior views of a young instar. 

Figured specimen, USNM 168077. Same collection and locality as 

figures 1-5. 

11-25. Shishaella williamsae Sohn, n. sp.

Right, ventral, left, dorsal, and posterior views of three carapaces 

representing two growth stages. Paratypes, USNM 168070-168072. 

Same collection and locality as figures 1-5. Note the groove in 

figure 16 that corresponds in size to the specimen represented by 

figure 11. 

26-30. Shishaella cf. S. williamsae Sohn (p. A16).

Right, ventral, left, dorsal, and posterior views of carapace. Figured 

specimen, USNM 168078. Same collection and locality as figures 

1-5. 

31-44. Shishaella williamsae Sohn, n. sp.

31-35. Right, ventral, left, dorsal, and posterior views of presumed 

adult male carapace. Paratype, USNM 168073. Same collection 

and locality as figures 1-5.

36-40. Right, ventral, left, dorsal, and posterior views of presumed 

adult female carapace. Holotype, USNM 168076. Same collection as 

figures 1-5.

41-44. Right, ventral, left, and posterior views of a partially exfoliated presumed male carapace. Paratype, USNM 168074. Same 

collection and locality as figures 1-5.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 711-A PLATE

SHISHAELLA
PLATE 9

[Magnification approximately X 20; photographs by R. H. McKinney]

FIGURES 1-44. Shemonaella dutroi Sohn, n. sp. (p. A17).

I-5. Right, dorsal, left, ventral, and posterior views of a carapace 

from which some shell material appears to have been removed, 

very young instar. Para type, USNM 168080. Alapah Limestone, 

Chandler Lake quadrangle, Alaska, USGS locality 13288.

6-10. Right, dorsal, left, ventral, and posterior views of a carapace 

having the same preservation as figures 1-5, slightly larger instar. 

Paratype, USNM 168081. Same collection and locality as figures 

1-5.

II-15. Right, dorsal, left, ventral, and posterior views of a carapace 

of a slightly larger instar than figures 6-10; note crushed ventroanterior in figure 13. Paratype, USNM 168082. Same collection 

and locality as figures 1-5.

16-20. Right, dorsal, left, ventral, and posterior views of a carapace 

of a still larger instar. Paratype, USNM 168083. Same collection 

and locality as figures 1-5.

21-25. Right, dorsal, left, ventral, and posterior views of a carapace 

representing either the same or the next instar illustrated in figures 16-20. Paratype, USNM 168084. Same collection and locality 

as figures 1-5.

26-30. Right, dorsal, left, ventral, and posterior views of a carapace, 

possibly an adult tecnomorph. The shell appears to be missing 

along the venter of figure 29. Paratype, USNM 168085. Same 

collection and locality as figures 1-5.

31-35. Right, dorsal, left, ventral, and posterior views of a broken 

carapace, missing its shell, possibly a heteromorph. Paratype, 

USNM 168086. Same collection and locality as figures 1-5.

36-38. Left, dorsal, and right views of a carapace missing the posterior. Paratype, USNM 168087. Same collection and locality as 

figures 1-5.

39. Dorsal view of a broken carapace of an adult heteromorph having 

the shell preserved. Paratype, USNM 168088. Same collection and 

locality as figures 1-5.

40-44. Right, dorsal, ventral, left, and posterior views of a broken 

carapace of a heteromorph. Holotype, USNM 168090. Same collection and locality as figures 1-5.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 711-A PLATE 9

SHEMONAELLA