ialontolngia ndita,

164 REVISION OF THE JURASSIC CEPHALOPOD
from Rumania, by Boeckh (1881) from Hungary, and by Sharpe (1840) and
Cho:ffat (1880) from Cape Mondego. In 1920 (p. 312) I expressed the opinion
that the macrocephalus zone should be included in the Bathonian since it formed
part of the Cornbrash; and that although such a classification was contrary
to Continental usage, the English type succession should be adhered to. Unfortunately
this would mean drawing the line between the Bathonian and Callovian
in the middle of the macrocephalus-beds. It seems preferable therefore
to adopt the classification of e.g. Haug (1907, p. 998) as I have also done
in more recent papers (1924, p. 21, 1925, p. 24, 1926, p. 324, supra, p. 81).
This necessitates the inclusion of the Macrocephalus Shales of the Lower Chari
Group as well as of the Coral (and Brachiopod) Beds of the uppermost
Patcham Group in the Callovian although they may be contemporaneous with
the Oxycerites beds ot the European Upper
Bathonian.
It is therefore less
convenient to refer Waagen's 'Perisphinctes ' decorus, reprsenting apparently
a transitional type, to Parkinsonidae or Morphoceratidae of arlier beds, and
Epimorphoceias ·is now included in · Reineckeidae. · Petitclerc (1917, p. 27,
1.. Ill, fig . .. 4, .
PI.. VIII, fig. 13) has shown that comparable forms still occur
in .the . Middle Callovian.
· Hyatt (1900,, p. 583) was induced by the presence of coronate young in
both Morphoceratids and Reineckeids to group them together in a too heterophyletic:
sup9r-family .. This .' recapitulatorial' evidence is now known to be
of but little significance and in the case of his derivation of Macrocephalitids
from Otoites CO!l/,tractus (1876, pp. 366, 372, 390), which is quite inadmissible,
Hyatt was probably .influenced by his developmental theories.
As in the young
of e.g. Asteroceras stellare of .the. Lower Lias, previously (Spath, 1926b, p. 140)
referred to, the. tubercle may .be· merely a, strengthening device,. and its 'phylogenetic.'
value is nil, i.e. the coeiwgenetic· appearance of spines in the young
of unrelated stocks cannot.: be used to demonstrate common descent from a
'coronate ' ancestor. Reineckeidae, as shown below, may however, well be
derived from the same (Stephanoceratid-Perisphinctoid) stock that produced
Parkinsonids and Morphoceratids. They are dealt with after the other Stephanoceratid
families here discussed only to avoid separating in the descrip-;
tions below the Proplanulitidae from the other Perisphinctids.
The Callovian family Macrocephalitidae is represented by hundreds of individuals.
These Macrocephalitids with which is conveniently grouped .Morrisites
S. Buckman (=Morrisiceras t S. Buckman = Pionoceras Lissajous = group
of Amm. morrisi, Oppel) include direct developments of Sphaeroceras, as Rollier
(1909, p. 613 ; 1911, p. 287 ; 1922, Pl. XXI) holds, including the Bathonian ' bullati '
which are all derivatives of the Stephanoceratids. This family Macrocephalitidae
is discussed below. Cadoceratidae which may be partly descendants of Macrocephalitids,
partly more or less parallel developments (ex Tulitidae), are as yet
unknown from Kachh, and such typical genera as Oadoceras, Pseudocadocas,
t See Spa.th, 1923, p. 6.
a lta.tement rashly adopted by Crickmay (1927, p. 514).
In the following y£>ar, Mr. Buckman (1924 p. 6) unjustifiably asamed it to be of later date,