PALEONTOLOGIC TERMINOLOGY 

F OR TAXONOMIC PAPERS, rules of the zoologic 

and botanic sciences with regard to priorities and 

other legalities require that fossils be described with 

scrupulous attention to detail. Clarity and brevity are 

the goals of descriptive paleontology, as well as of all 

good scientific writing, but clarity should never be 

sacrificed for the sake of brevity. 

Every species description should contain (1) a brief 

diagnosis, (2) a full morphologic description, (3) an 

indication of the types and other specimens used for 

the description, plus their repositories, (4) accurate 

information about the locality from which the fossils 

came, including stratigraphic and geographic detail, 

(5) comparison with other similar species, and (6) 

remarks on variability of features. Discussions should 

include significant results regarding phylogeny, ontogeny, functional morphology, paleoecology, and 

biostratigraphy. 

If a species has been described before, give a synonymy to show the history of usage of names applied to 

the taxon. If the species is new, give the etymology 

of the name, plus the type locality. 

Species are illustrated, as completely as feasible, 

with photographs, line drawings, and charts showing 

morphologic variations. 

Descriptive morphologic terms vary from phylum 

to phylum, and some words have different meanings 

in different fossil groups. For example, the term 

"septum" refers to entirely different structures in 

the foraminifers, corals, brachiopods, cephalopods, 

ostracodes, and mammals. Proper terminology can 

be learned from recent pertinent monographs, the 

"Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology" (Moore, 

various dates), and other similar sources. 

A sample format for species description: 

Generic assignment, describer's name, date 

Species name 

Plates and figures of illustrations 

synonymy 

Diagnosis 

Description 

Material, including types, with museum numbers and 

indication of repository 

Measurements, with charts and graphs showing 

variability, where practicable 

Occurrence 

Discussion and comparison 

Generic descriptions are similar to specific ones. 

Special emphasis is placed on an accurate diagnosis 

and an unambiguous designation of the type species. 

Suprageneric assignments should be given where they 

are not obvious or redundant. 

In paleontologic writing, the history of usage of a 

name is given in a synonymy. Several styles may be 

used, depending on what the writer wishes to emphasize. Generic synonymies usually first list former 

usages of the genus in the sense of the writer and 

then list synonyms, incorrect usages, questionable 

assignments, and errors. All are in chronologic order. 

A similar style may be used for species synonymies, 

although a strictly chronologic listing, with correct 

and incorrect references in their proper order, is 

becoming more generally accepted. 

In the past, bibliographic references customarily 

were given for each item in a synonymy, generally 

because they were not given at the end of the paper. 

It is now more common for synonymies to be condensed and for full references to be given in the 

bibliography. 

The basic requirement for a synonymy is that it 

clearly express the history of usage of the name given 

to a taxon and present the writer's conclusions about 

the validity of the name. Because this aspect of 

paleontologic writing often is troublesome to writer 

and editor alike, examples of several generic 

synonymy styles are given: 

1 The complete form, including reasons for some of 

the assignments (although it is not essential to 

give the reasons): 

Genus PARQPARCHITES Ulrich and Bassler, 1906, emend. 

Scott, 1959 

Paraparchites Ulrich and Bassler, 1906, Proceedings of the 

National Museum, v. 30, p. 149. Scott, 1959, Journal of 

Paleontology, v. 33, no. 4, p. 673. 

Antiparaparchites Coryell and Rogatz, 1932, American 

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

of overlap. 

Ardwea Bradfield, 1935, Bulletins of American Paleontology, 

v. 22, no. 73, p. 138. Based on steinkern. 

MicrocoeloneUa Coryell and Sohn, 1938, Journal of Paleontology, v. 12, no. 6, p. 597. Based on juvenile. 

?Cyathus Roth and Skinner, 1930, Cooper, 1941, Illinois State 

Geological Survey Report of Investigations 77, p. 61. 

100 Paleontologic terminology 
2. Condensed format; full reference to each paper 

given in the bibliography: 

Genus DERBYIA Waagen, 1884 

Derbyia Waagen, 1884, p. 576, 591; Hall and Clarke, 1892, p. 

261; Schellwien, 1900, p. 10; Girty, 1909, p. 181; Dunbar 

and Condra, 1932, p. 75; Sokolskaya, 1960, p. 209. 

Derbyinu Grabau, 1931a, p. 259, 262 (GraubaueUina Licharew, 

1934). 

Grabauellina Licharew, 1934a, p. 507. 

Derbyaemha Licharew, 1934a, p. 507. 

Plicatoderbya H. D. Thomas, 1937, p. 13-18. 

3. A strictly chronologic format: 

Genus SYRINGAXON Lindstrom, 1882 

1882. Syringazon LindstrBm, p. 20. 

1900. Laccqphyllum Simpson, p. 201. 

1902. Nichelsonia Pocta, p. 184. Cited in plate explanations 

Alkynia (Nichlsonia). 

1928. LaccophyUum Simpson. Grabau, p. 82. 

1928. AUqnia Pocta (Nichelsonian Pocta). Grabau, p. 82. 

1935. Syringazon Lindstr6m. Butler, p. 117. 

1938. Syringm LindstrBm (in part). Prantl, p. 21. 

1940. Syringmon LindstrBm. Lang, Smith, and Thomas, p. 

129. 

1949. Syringaxon LindstrBm. Stumm, p. 10. 

1956. Syringazon LindstrBm. Hill, p. F258. 

1962. Syringazon LindstrBm (in part), Flugel and Free, p. 224. 

Similarly, species synonymies can use several styles. 

Two of these follow, the first according to usage of 

names and the second according to chronology of 

references: 

Pentagonia unisulcata (Conrad) 

Atrypa unislllcata Conrad, 1841, p. 56. 

At- uniangulata Hall, 1861, p. 101. 

MeristeUa? unislllcata (Conrad). Hall, 1862, p. 158, pl. 2, figs. 

17, 20-23 (not figs. 19, 24, 25). 

Meristella (Pentagonia) unisulcata (Conrad), Hall, 1867, p. 309, 

pl. 50, figs. 14-29 (not figs. 30-35). 

Not Meristella unisulcata (Conrad). Nettleroth, 1889, p. 99, pl. 

15, figs. 9-16. 

Pentagonia unisulcata (Conrad). Stauffer, 1915, p. 104, 245 

(not p. 160, 171, 175, 234); Dunbar, 1919, p. 87, 89; Goldring, 1935, p. 148, figs. 53B-D; Butts, 1940, p. 300, 301, 

304, 305; Butts, 1941, pl. 115, figs. 17-21, 35; Cooper and 

others, 1942, chart; Cooper, 1944, p. 333, pl. 127, fig. 27; 

Oliver, 1954, p. 633, 634, 638-640; Oliver, 1956, p. 1452, 

1456, 1462, 1469; Rickard, 1964, chart, Boucot and others, 

in Moore, 1965, p. M656, pl. 633, figs. 2a-d (not figs. 2e-f); 

Oliver and others, 1969, chart. 

Not Pentugonia unislllcata (Conrad). Savage, 1930, p. 47, 50, 

53, 62; Savage, 1931, p. 242, pl. 30, figs. 17, 18. 

Goniatites creniskia Phillips 

1836. Goniatites wenistria Phillips, Illustrations of the 

geology of Yorkshire, pt. 2, p. 234, pl. 19, figs. 7-9. 

1836. Goniatites vesica Phillips, Illustrations of the geology of 

Yorkshire, pt. 2, p. 236, pl. 20, figs. 19-21. 

1897. Glyphwceras incisurn Hyatt (part). Smith, Proceedings 

of the California Academy of Science, 3d. ser., 

Geology, v. 1, no. 3, p. 111-121, pl. 13, figs. 1, 2, 

6-12, pl. 14, figs. 1-9, pl. 15, figs 1-11 (not pl. 13, 

figs. 3-5). 

1903. Goniatites wenistria Phillips (part). Smith, U.S. 

Geological Survey Monograph 42, p. 68-76, pl. 14, 

figs. 1, 2, 7-12, pl. 15, figs. 1-9, pl. 16, figs. lad, pl. 

26, figs. 14 (not pl. 10, figs. 12-16, pl. 14, figs. 4-6, 

pl. 26, fig. 5). 

1910. Goniatites crenistria Phillips. Grabau and Shimer, North 

American index fossils, v. 2, p. 141, figs. 1393f-h. 

1911. Goniatites choctaw~ Shumard (part). Girty, U.S. 

Geological Survey Bulletin 439, p. 97-99, pl. 15, figs. 

7, 7a (not figs. 1-6). 

1911. Goniatites crenistria Phillips. Girty, U.S. Geological 

Survey Bulletin 439, p. 99-101, pl. 15, figs. 8, 9. 

1924. Goniatites craistria Phillips. Bisat, Proceedings of the 

Yorkshire Geological Society, v. 20, pt. 1, p. 78-82, 

pl. 3, figs. 4, 5, pl. 9, fig. 1. 

1925. Glyphwceras crenistria (Phillips) (part). Schmidt, 

Preussischen Geologischen Landesanstalt Jahrbuch, 

v. 45, p. 565, 566, p. 21, figs. 1, 3, pl. 23, fig. 14 (not 

pl. 2, fig. 2, pl. 23, fig. 13). 

1952. Goniatites wenistria Phillips. Bisat, Transactions of the 

Leeds Geological Association, v. 6, pt. 4, p. 173, 174, 

text fig. 3(b). 

Formal generic and specific fossil names are in 

Latin and are italicized. Informal names and adjectives based on fossil names are not italicized: Pectens, 

spirifers, bryozoans, productids, Ostreas, foraminifers, 

and others. All generic and suprageneric names are 

capitalized. (See also p. 141 for further information on 

the use of italic in regard to fossil names). 

The two parts of species names agree in gender 

according to rules of classical grammar. Gender does 

not necessarily indicate the sex of the object in question. Most Latin nouns ending in -us are masculine, in 

-a are feminine, and in -urn are neuter, but there are 

exceptions. Consult classical grammars when in doubt. 

Brown's "Composition of Scientific Words" (1954) is 

indispensible for anyone composing scientific names 

for use in systematics. 

The name of the first describer of a taxon should be 

included in all references to that taxon, although the 

name can be omitted from tables and elsewhere, at 

the discretion of the paleontologist, if earlier reference to the describer is clear. 

When a species is assigned to a genus other than 

the original one, the name of the first describer is 

A few guildlines 101 
placed in parentheses and the reviser's name is 

added. For example, the proper citation for the 

olenellid trilobite that was first described as Olenus 

thompsoni by Hall in 1859, but that later was used as 

the type species of Olenellus by Billings, is Olenellus 

thompsoni (Hall) Billings. 

Taxonomic rules differ for animals and plants. 

Anyone writing about fossils should study the two 

standard nomenclatural guides carefully (Stafleu, 

1983; Ride and others, 1985). 

Various degrees of certainty in identification of taxa 

are expressed by modification in citations of fossil 

names. For example: - 

Taxon Degree of certainty 

Spirifer grimsi Hall ------------- Taxon definitely identified. 

S 'nfer cf. S. grimsi Hall---- Taxon compared with named species. $nfer aff. S. qrimsi Hall -- Taxon.has affinities with named 

species. Spirifer? grimsi Hall ----------- Species questionably assigned to - 

genus. Spirifer grimsi Hall?------------ Species doubtful, but assimed - to cor- rect genus. ?Spirifer grimsi Hall------------ Entire assignment doubtful. 

A species name consists of two parts; the first is 

the generic part and the second is the trivial part. 

Despite a clear statement by Schenk and McMasters 

(1956, p. 13), among others, confusion concerning this 

basic fact continues. 

The name of the original describer of a taxon 

should not be abbreviated. However, the rules of 

botanical nomenclature provide for use of standard 

abbreviations of the names of certain classical 

botanists. 

The English forms of "n. gen.," "n. sp.," "not," 

"part," "of authors," "undet.," "indet.," and so on, 

are to be used rather than the Latin forms. 

An unpublished name, or "nude" name, is invalid 

and should not be used in a manuscript unless the 

description of that species will be published before the 

manuscript is published. 

Generic names may be abbreviated where they are 

a part of a species name if the full name has been 

used earlier in the paper and there is no confusion 

with other generic names having the same initial 

letter. 

Authors who cite systematic identifications and 

opinions of others should quote accurately and should 

include original qualifying statements and clear reference to source and date of communication, whether 

published or unpublished. 

In describing species authors must state the nature 

of the material on which the description is based. 

Include (1) number and condition of specimens, (2) sex 

and growth stage where known, (3) measurements of 

all important morphologic features and indication of 

variability, and (4) an unambiguous indication of the 

types, their catalog numbers, and their repository. 

Descriptions of taxa may be in complete sentence 

form or they may be in telegraphic style. As with 

synonymies, however, a consistent format is used 

throughout any particular paper. 

Authors who are not paleontologists, but who are 

describing fossils or are quoting or paraphrasing 

paleontologists on referred fossils, should submit 

relevant parts of their reports to the Branch of 

Paleontology and Stratigraphy for inspection early 

in the review process. 

Formats for different journals vary; the suggestions 

for authors of papers submitted to any specific journal 

should be followed closely when designing a contribution to that journal. This procedure ultimately avoids 

grief for writer, critic, and editor alike. 

NUMBERING SYSTEMS FOR SAMPLES 

AND SPECIMENS 

Different institutions use various numbering 

systems to identify repositories for their fossils, 

minerals, ores, and rocks. A serial number with the 

description of a new fossil species can tell the reader 

where the type specimen is preserved, whether in the 

paleontologic collections of the U.S. National Museum, 

the American Museum of Natural History, the Harvard Museum of Comparative Anatomy, or another 

permanent repository. Similar numbering systems 

applied by groups within the Survey, and by other 

groups, are indispensable to future researchers and 

should be used in published reports wherever applicable. Informal and temporary systems applied in the 

field on a particular project, or in the laboratory, 

seldom have a place in a final report. In general, any 

material of permanent value that will need to be 

physically retrieved by some future worker should be 

identified with a meaningful permanent collection 

number. 

102 Numbering systems for samples and specimens 
By law, all type specimens and significant collections made on projects supported by Federal money 

must be deposited in the National Collections of the 

U.S. National Museum, Smithsonian Institution; a 

logical time to transfer specimens is soon after completion of the project for which the specimens were 

collected. 

Significant specimens such as type fossils or minerals are far more valuable if the exact spots from 

which they were collected are also recorded permanently. Some scientists understandably hesitate to 

pinpoint these locations for fear that the remaining 

material will be removed by others or vandalized. 

Each researcher must balance the potential damage of 

disclosing the collecting locality against possible benefits to science. On geologic maps the collecting locality can be shown by symbol. Whether or not a map 

accompanies a report, the locality should be referred 

to permanent topographic features, to a land-survey 

(section, township, and range) system, to latitude and 

longitude, or to the Universal Transverse Mercator 

projection grid. Road intersections and the like may 

prove to be ephemeral. 

Numbering systems for samples and specimens 103