WoRMS name details

Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorAnanchothuria Fossa-Mancini, 1921 †

689369  (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:689369)

nomen dubium
Genus
marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
fossil only
Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorFossil range Lower Cretaceous (Neocomian)  
Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorFossil range Lower Cretaceous (Neocomian) [details]

Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorStatus Partially disarticulated fragment of an...  
Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorStatus Partially disarticulated fragment of an irregular echinoid (presumably a holasteroid or, possibly, a spatangoid).
supposed imbrication of the plates that Fossa-Mancini laid great stress on is probably just an outcome of the partially disassociated nature of the fossil on which this was based. As Lambert & Thiery (1920, p. 401) point out, the specimen is almost certainly an ambital fragment of two interambulacra and an ambulacrum of a holasteroid or spatangoid. It has nothing to do with the echinothurioids, contrary to Fossa-Mancini's original suggestion. [details]
Kroh, A. (2012). Ananchothuria Fossa-Mancini, 1921 †. In: Kroh, A. & Mooi, R. (2017). World Echinoidea Database. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=689369 on 2017-12-14

Date
action
by
2012-09-11 20:54:35Z
created

Creative Commons License The webpage text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License


basis of record Smith, A. B. & Kroh, A. (eds.). (2011). The Echinoid Directory. World Wide Web electronic publication., available online at http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/projects/echinoid-directory [details]   
From editor or global species database
Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorFossil range Lower Cretaceous (Neocomian) [details]

Checked: verified by a taxonomic editorStatus Partially disarticulated fragment of an irregular echinoid (presumably a holasteroid or, possibly, a spatangoid).
supposed imbrication of the plates that Fossa-Mancini laid great stress on is probably just an outcome of the partially disassociated nature of the fossil on which this was based. As Lambert & Thiery (1920, p. 401) point out, the specimen is almost certainly an ambital fragment of two interambulacra and an ambulacrum of a holasteroid or spatangoid. It has nothing to do with the echinothurioids, contrary to Fossa-Mancini's original suggestion. [details]