page_title: Belemnotheutis
section_title: History and controversy
hierarchical_section_title: Belemnotheutis / History and controversy
caption_attribution_description: English: A and B are reconstructions (1843 and 1844 respectively) by Richard Owen who mistakenly believed that the phragmocone belonged to Belemnite that simply got separated from its guard (rostrum). They are therefore reconstructed as Belemnites. C is a restoration by Pearce (19th century, date unknown), the original describer of Belemnotheutis who, like Gideon Mantell, believed that Belemnotheutis was a distinct belemnoid from true belemnites.
context_page_description: Belemnotheutis is an extinct coleoid cephalopod genus from the middle and upper Jurassic, related to but morphologically distinct from belemnites.
  Belemnotheutis fossils are some of the best preserved among coleoids. Remains of soft tissue are well-documented in some specimens, even down to microscopic muscle tissue. In 2008, a group of paleontologists even recovered viable ink from ink sacs found in several specimens.
  This genus was the subject of a dispute between several eminent 19th century British paleontologists, notably between Richard Owen and Gideon Mantell. Some authors incorrectly spell the genus Belemnoteuthis following the usual spelling teuthis for 'squid'.
context_section_description: Belemnotheutis was first described by the amateur paleontologist Joseph Pearce in 1842 in Wiltshire, South West England, two years after excavations from the construction of the Great Western Railway uncovered parts of the Oxford Clay. It is unknown why he chose the spelling Belemnotheutis rather than Belemnoteuthis as convention would have dictated. He described his discovery to the Geological Society of London in the same year.
  In 1843, Richard Owen acquired specimens of Belemnotheutis from the same locality from another paleontologist, Samuel Pratt. He formally published a paper in 1844 (On the Belemnites, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society), naming the specimens Belemnites owenii Pratt, after himself and crediting Pratt with the discovery while failing to mention Pearce. He believed that the specimens were of the genus Belemnites whose typically lengthy rostra simply got separated. He sent a copy of the paper to Pearce in the same year, proving that he was actually aware of Pearce's earlier description but had deliberately omitted any mention of him. Pearce responded by stating that examination by another paleontologist James Bowerbank, supported his belief that fossils did not possess the bullet-shaped guards typical of Belemnites but instead had rostra in the form of very thin sheaths. Bowerbanks confirmed this assertion but supported Owen's assignment of Belemnites, saying that the presence of very short rostra did not justify the classification of Belemnotheutis as a separate genus from Belemnites.
  Owen received a Royal Medal from the Royal Society in 1846 for the 1844 paper, further inducing Pearce to protest what he viewed as erroneous descriptions of the specimens. In 1847, the London Geological Journal published a paper by Pearce of his objections to Owen's paper. At the same time the editor of the paper and another paleontologist, Edward Charlesworth, published an editorial criticizing Owen for deliberately failing to credit Pearce with the discovery of Belemnotheutis, as well as his apparent disregard to the opinions of less well-known paleontologists like Pearce. This was also the first time that Pearce described the specific epithet antiquus to the fossils. Pearce died later in the same year in May 1847 taking no further part in what was to become a controversy. Shortly after his death, the same paper published the support of William Cunnington, a fossil collector, for this description as opposed to Owen's conclusions.
  In 1848, Gideon Mantell read a description of Belemnotheutis specimens recovered by his son Reginald Neville Mantell to the Royal Society. His descriptions supported that of Pearce's views and held that the differences between belemnites and Belemnotheutis were enough to justify it being a separate genus. He also described the characteristic groove on the apical dorsal surface of the Belemnotheutis for the first time (structures which Owen had attributed as artifacts of crushing). He had expected Owen, who was present during the session, to support this amendment. Instead, Owen ridiculed Mantell, further aggravating the famous feud between the two.
  Mantell continued to assert his position until his death in 1852, gaining supporters in other eminent paleontologists like Edward Forbes and Charles Lyell against Owen with regards to the true morphology of Belemnotheutis. By then the hostility between Owen and Mantell had escalated, Owen going so far as to oppose the awarding of the Royal Medal to Mantell for his work in 1849. Mantell did eventually receive the Royal Medal for his work on Iguanodon to which Owen had attempted to claim another authority much in the same way that he had named Belemnotheutis after himself.
  In 1860, three years after Mantell's death, Owen eventually published an amendment to his earlier descriptions. He acknowledged that Belemnotheutis indeed had very thin rostra and was distinct from the genus Belemnites. He did so only after other prominent authorities described the very similar Acanthoteuthis and were considering Belemnotheutis as its synonym. Howeve
caption: Left and Center: erroneous reconstructions by Richard Owen.[9][17]
  
  Right: a restoration by Joseph Pearce, the original discoverer of Belemnotheutis. It is also the illustration copied in 2008 using ~150 million year old ink recovered from the fossilized ink sac of Belemnotheutis antiquus.[35]
exif: {}