identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03B987E8F008FFAFFCC21C335FEDEA1E.text	03B987E8F008FFAFFCC21C335FEDEA1E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Solemya Lamarck 1818	<div><p>SOLEMYA, ACHARAX, AND THE SOLEMYIDAE</p> <p>Ligament and Support Structures in Solemya and Acharax</p> <p>In the Solemyidae an understanding of the ligament and its supporting structures is fundamental in ascertaining the systematic relations among constituent genera. In the familiar solemyids Acharax and Solemya, the ligament is amphidetic, composed of two principal components: 1) a dorsally arched, parivincular portion posterior to the beaks (= primary ligament) consisting of an inner fibrous layer (Figure 1, lgf) attaching on each side at insertion grooves, bordered by narrow ridges (i.e., nymphae) (Figure 1, ne, ns) that function as attachment sites for an outer lamellar layer (Figure 1, lgl); and 2) an anterior extension (not shown) of the lamellar outer layer in front of the beaks that is often asymmetrically attached between the left and right valves (see Carter, 1990, p. 174; Bailey, 2011, p. 19).</p> <p>In Acharax the primary ligament is external, attaching at external nymphae (Figures 1, 2, ne) and insertion grooves (Figure 1, gr). However, in all subgenera of Solemya the primary ligament is sunken to a shallow internal (= submarginal) position immediately below the posterodorsal margins of the shell. There it is attached to a pair of submarginal nymphae and flanking grooves (Figure 1, ns, gr and Figure 2, ns), each supported at its anterior end by attachment to a ridge-like buttress (= rib, ridge, prop, or clavicle of various authors), i.e., a narrow thickening of the valve that extends along the anterior margin of the posterior adductor muscle (Figure 2, btc). Submarginal nymphae in Solemya are conventionally termed chondrophores (e.g., Dall, 1908) thus obscuring their homological relation to external nymphae. Unlike Solemya, the internal buttress (Figure 2, bts) of Acharax is not attached to nymphae and is variable in development, sometimes prominent but often weak or obsolescent. Peripheral thickenings of adductor attachment sites in other bivalve taxa (Bailey, 1983; Taylor et al., 2008) suggest that the buttress in Acharax functions in part for added reinforcement of the thin valve along the posterior adductor margin (Bailey, 2016).</p> <p>Because of its remarkable similarities to Solemya in gross morphology, Acharax was originally recognized as a subgenus of Solemya (see Dall, 1908, p. 2). Even the diagnostic primary ligament, aside from its external vs. submarginal location, is fundamentally similar in the two genera (Figure 1; see also Bailey, 2011, text-fig. 2). The homologies seem obvious. Together, Acharax and Solemya arguably form a monophyletic group (i.e., clade) in which the external ligament and nymphae of Acharax, the probable plesiomorphic condition (Figure 1 A-B), later achieved submarginal (apomorphic) status in Solemya through depression of the nymphae and ligament below the posterodorsal margin (Figure 1 C-E), along with attendant overgrowth of a thin outer prismatic layer (Carter, 1990, fig. 17; Bailey, 2011; Carter, et al., 2012, fig. 216). As noted by Waller (1998, p. 19), the outer prismatic layer (Figure 1, opl) covering the ligament “is a secondary [apomorphic] feature that is not present in the earliest ontogeny of the dissoconch…nor in the earliest members of the Solemyoidea and Solemyidae.” Depression of the nymphae may have been facilitated by the natural tendency of the thin shells and periostracum (Figure 1, pe) to crack and repair in the umbonal and ligamental regions during growth (Waller, 1990; Bailey, 2011).</p> <p>In Solemya, depression of the nymphae below the hinge margin has resulted in: 1) fusion of the anterior end of each nymph directly to the internal buttress such that the function of the buttress becomes altered by exaptation from an original one of reinforcing the attachment site of the posterior adductor muscle along its anterior border (Figure 2A, bts) to one of serving as a supporting brace or prop for the submarginal nymph (Figure 2B, btc; see also Bailey, 2016); and 2) dorsal occlusion, either by embayment, truncation, or intersection, of the posterior adductor muscle by the nymph. In the case of intersection, the posterior adductor partially continues around the obstructing nymph, passing posteriorly above it (Figure 2B, pao). The resulting cross-cutting relationship firmly establishes the submarginal posterior ligament and nymphae in Solemya as apomorphic traits (see also pl. 4, fig. 2 of Pojeta, 1988, and figs. 3h, 3i of Hryniewicz et al., 2014).</p> <p>Proxy Characters Linked to Nymphal Placement</p> <p>In Acharax and Solemya, nymphal placement has a significant influence on the internal morphology of the shell. If neither nymphae nor ligament are preserved, the two genera may nevertheless be distinguished from each other in internal molds or incomplete specimens so long as traces of the buttresses and posterior adductor scars are present. Serving as proxies of nymphal placement, two functionally linked character states are here designated as follows: Where the nymphae are external (a plesiomorphy), the buttress will be simple and the posterior adductor will be entire. Where the nymphae are submarginal (an apomorphy), the buttress will be compound, and the posterior adductor will be occluded. In Acharax: 1) the buttress is simple (Figure 2A, bts), that is, from the anterior limit of the posterior adductor scar, it extends dorsally to the underside of the umbo without any evident attachment to a nymph; and 2) in the absence of a submarginal nymph the posterior adductor muscle is entire, that is, whole and unobstructed (Figure 2A, pae). The condition is reversed in Solemya: 1) the buttress is compound, that is, it adjoins the anterior terminus of the sub- FIGURE 3. Internymphal gaps in fossil examples of Acharax. A, Acharax doderleini (Mayer, 1861), Pliocene of Italy; dorsal view showing external nymphae and ligament insertion grooves separated by internymphal gap that in life is covered by the ligament. In Solemya, the gap is secondarily closed off by the addition of a thin, outer prismatic shell layer. (Photo by permission, Taviani et al., 2011, fig. 5; yellow arrows with notations added here.) B-E, Solemya puzosiana de Koninck, 1842, Lower Carboniferous of Belgium. B, right lateral view of an incomplete articulated specimen (de Koninck, 1885, pl. 23, fig. 33). C, same specimen in dorsal view (de Koninck, 1880, pl. 23, fig. 34), reversed, anterior at left. D, right lateral view of an articulated specimen (de Koninck 1842, pl. 5, fig. 2b). E, same specimen in dorsal view (de Koninck 1842, pl. 5, fig. 2a). Hind (1900, p. 439) synonymized this specimen with Solemya primaeva Phillips, 1836, the type species of Janeia King, 1850. Internymphal gaps shown in de Koninck’s figures are consistent with Acharax but not Solemya. Red arrows with notations added here. Abbreviations: ne - external nymph; ig - internymphal gap; gr - ligament insertion groove.</p> <p>marginal nymph, the resulting configuration of the two forming a “7” shape (Figure 2B, btc); and 2) the posterior adductor is thereby occluded, becoming dorsally truncated, embayed, or intersected by the nymph (Figure 2B, pao).</p> <p>One additional proxy needs to be discussed. Among fossil solemyids, paired external nymphae are often visibly separated by a narrow space whenever the primary ligament is not preserved. In error, Hind (1900, p. 442) referred to the space as a “slit for the ligament.” Herein termed the internymphal gap (Figures 1B, 3A-E, ig), it is a character seen in living and fossil Acharax but not in Solemya. In his original diagnosis Dall (1908, p. 2) referred to it thusly: “Ligament opisthodetic, wholly external, visible internally only where it crosses the gap between the margins of the valves.” In Acharax, the internymphal gap is covered in life by the arch of the external ligament and is thereby visible only when the ligament is not preserved. In contrast, the internymphal gap is missing in Solemya because the nymphae are submarginal and the former gap is secondarily covered over by the aforementioned outer prismatic shell layer (Figure 1 D-E, opl). In addition to Acharax, the internymphal gap (a probable symplesiomorphy) is observed in other fossil solemyid genera with external nymphae including both Clinopistha Meek and Worthen, 1870, and Dystactella Hall and Whitfield, 1872.</p> <p>Solemyid Origins and Phylogeny</p> <p>Parivincular ligaments with supporting nymphae are key characters used in Pojeta’s (1988) proposed phylogeny of fossil and extant Solemyidae (Figure 4A). Pojeta (1988) and Waller (1990, 1998) posited that these characters were acquired from nymph-bearing ctenodontid nuculoid ancestors such as Ctenodonta nasuta (Hall, 1847) and, especially, Ctenodonta tennesseensis Pojeta, 1988, which, aside from the taxondont hinge, is strikingly similar to the early solemyid Dystactella Hall and Whitfield, 1872. Strong phylogenetic connections of the solemyids and nuculoids are supported by numerous other studies (e.g., Carter et al., 2000; Carter, 2001; Giribet and Distel, 2003; Giribet, 2008; Bailey, 2011; Carter et al., 2011; Bieler et al., 2014). However, based on stratigraphic occurrences Cope (2002) suggested that these characters might have arisen independently in the two groups. Whereas the solemyid Ovatoconcha is dated as late Early Ordovician, ligamental nymphae do not occur in ctenodontids until the Middle Ordovician. Alternatively, Cope also posited that nymphae could be persistent characters derived from earlier, as yet undocumented ctenodontid stock. Indeed, persistent solemyid traits are fairly common among much later nuculoids, for example, in Spathelopsis oakvalensis Peck, Bailey, Heck, and Scaiff, 2009 from the Mississippian of West Virginia (see Peck et al., 2009, p. 959; Bailey, 2011, p. 14).</p> <p>Pojeta’s (1988, fig. 3) phyletic scheme divided the Solemyidae into two sister subfamilies, the Clinopisthinae and the Solemyinae (Figure 4A). With the exception of Solemya, external placement of the nymphae and ligament is broadly shared in both subfamilies. Among the Solemyinae it occurs in Psiloconcha Ulrich, 1894 (Ordovician), Acharax (Devonian-Holocene), and Mazonomya Bailey, 2011 (Pennsylvanian). Among the Clinopisthinae, it occurs in Clinopistha Meek and Worthen, 1870 (Devonian-Permian) and Dystactella Hall and Whitfield, 1872 (Ordovician-Permian). Thus, it is likely to represent the primitive (symplesiomorphic) condition for the Solemyidae as a whole. In contrast, the submarginal ligament structure of Solemya is unique, representing a derived (autapomorphic) condition evidently not occurring prior to the Mesozoic (Figure 4B). Although ligament and nymphae are as yet unknown in Ovatoconcha, the genus is a near match for its possible congener, Psiloconcha with respect to: 1) shell profile, aspect ratio and shell gapes; 2) umbonal placement and elevation; 3) small size and high placement of the posterior adductors to accommodate the underlying hypertrophied gills and hypobranchial gland; and 4) pyriform outline and elevated placement of the anterior composite (adductor/visceral retractor) scars (Bailey, 2011, p. 12). Radial elements in the prosopon are not well developed in either genus, i.e., weak in Ovatoconcha and mostly lacking in Psiloconcha.</p> <p>The Problem of Range</p> <p>In order to establish a convincing phylogenetic derivation of Solemya from Acharax ancestry, the geologic timing of the split must be consistent with the foregoing character analysis.</p> <p>The Y-shaped burrows of the ichnogenus Solemyatuba Seilacher, 1990 occur as early as the Ordovician (Seilacher, 1990). Although they are usually attributed to Solemya, comparable burrows are also associated with Acharax (Stanley, 1970, Campbell et al., 2006; Ros-Franch et al., 2014). Thus, their occurrence cannot be attributed to a particular genus.</p> <p>Early authors, including Beushausen (1895), Zittel (1913), Quenstedt (1930), Shimer and Shrock (1944), as well as more recent authors, notably Cox (1969), gave the stratigraphic range of Solemya as Devonian-Holocene under the apparent misapprehension that the submarginal ligament and compound buttress were primitive characters, whereas the external ligament and simple buttress of Acharax were tacitly regarded as later derivations. For example, Cox (1969) regarded Acharax as a later genus with a verified range limited to Miocene-Holocene. However, Pojeta (1988) subsequently emended the range of each genus thusly: For Solemya, Upper Pennsylvanian-Holocene; and for Acharax, Lower Permian-Holocene, (with a dubious Middle Devonian occurrence). Pojeta’s basis for concluding that Solemya occurred as early as the Upper Pennsylvanian was a single specimen, “ Solemya sp. ” (USNM 415967), from the Hertha Limestone, Erie, Kansas (Pojeta, 1988, pl. 23, figs. 5-8). However, this specimen is a probable Acharax because the alleged free ends of the “chondrophores” shown in his figure 8 are probably the compressed and broken termini of external nymphae, a conclusion supported by his figure 5 of the same specimen showing: 1) simple buttresses that dorsally reveal no indication of either added reinforcement or attachment to internal nymphae; and 2) posterior adductor scars that are entire, lacking the expected dorsal occlusion caused by submarginal nymphae.</p> <p>Although the study of Dickins (1963), like that of Pojeta (1988), ostensibly provided support for the late Paleozoic occurrence of Solemya, Dickins himself was tentative regarding the final generic assignment of his material. His “ Solemya” holmwoodensis Dickins (1963) from the Lower Permian of western Australia is herein assigned to Acharax inasmuch as the holotype and three paratypes show strong external nymphae as well as the anterior ligamental extension (Dickins, 1963, p. 60; pl. 7, figs. 1-9). Even a dorsally arched portion of the external parivincular ligament is preserved in the holotype (Dickins, 1963, pl. 7, fig. 2). In error, Hajkr et al. (1978, p. 14) transferred this species to the Sanguinolitidae Miller, 1877.</p> <p>Contemporary studies support the view that Acharax arose much earlier than Cox (1969) had supposed. For example, Acharax has been reported from the Early Devonian of Arctic Canada (Bailey, 2011, 2016; Bailey and Prosh, 2016). In addition, there are Pennsylvanian occurrences in both Kentucky (Carter, 1990) and the Mazon Creek Lagerstätte of Illinois (Bailey, 2011). Furthermore, all of the Devonian-Permian examples of alleged Solemya (and its doppelgänger, Janeia King, 1850) reviewed herein have external ligament and nymphae like Acharax, whereas the submarginal ligament and associated compounding of the buttress of Solemya appear to be Mesozoic modifications (see Appendix; also Bailey, 2011, 2016).</p> <p>Unverified examples of Solemya have been reported from the Permian (Ciriacks, 1963; Sterren and Cisterna, 2010) and Triassic (Conrad, 1870). Ciriacks (1963, p. 42, pl. 5, figs.12, 13) tentatively designated a nearly featureless internal mold of a possible solemyid as Solemya sp. (UM 5275 = “ S. radiata ?” sensu Branson, 1930) from the Park City Formation, near Cody, Wyoming. Although Ciriacks (p. 42) described the specimen as “insufficiently preserved for specific identification”, the form superficially resembles Dystactella. Sterren and Cisterna (2010, p. vi) reported an occurrence of Solemya from the Early Permian of Argentina, but they provided neither figure nor description. Conrad (1870, p. 102) described the shell exterior and radial prosopon of “an obscure cast” he designated Solemya triasina Conrad, 1870, from the Triassic of Perkiomen Creek, Pennsylvania. However, data on the hinge and ligament are lacking, and no figure of the specimen, now lost, was provided.</p> <p>Other studies place the earliest occurrence of Solemya in either the Jurassic (Coan et al., 2000; Imhoff et al., 2003; Neulinger et al., 2006) or Cretaceous (Dechaseaux, 1952). Hryniewicz et al. (2014) reported convincing examples of Solemya from Late Jurassic-Early Cretaceous hydrocarbon seeps of Spitzbergen. The silicon rubber casts of their (fig. 3h-i) internal molds of Solemya (Petrasma) cf. woodwardiana Leckenby, 1859 clearly show the compound buttress and occluded posterior adductor scar. It should be noted, however, that alleged “ Solemya woodwardiana ” reported by Duff (1978) from the Lower Oxford Clay (Middle Jurassic of England) is a possible Acharax. Although data on the posterior adductor is lacking, a simple buttress is evident. In addition, the butterflied specimen figured by Duff (1978, pl. 1, fig. 40) shows what appear to be traces of a deltoid parivincular ligament stretching across an internymphal gap with a possible nymph and insertion groove preserved in the right valve.</p> <p>The accumulation of 18S rRNA gene sequence disparities (Neulinger et al., 2006) separating extant species of Acharax and Solemya seem consistent with a Mesozoic (possibly Jurassic) split. The timing of the split is interesting. Among the Bivalvia in general, the Mesozoic is associated with episodes of rapid expansion and diversification (Ros et al., 2012).</p> <p>Taxonomic Dissent</p> <p>Despite extensive study, solemyoid classification remains in dispute, noticeably in regard to the systematic relations of Solemya and Acharax (Table 1). Owing to the external ligament, Cox (1969) in Part N of the Treatise first elevated Solemya (Acharax) Dall from subgeneric to full generic status while adding, in error, the vesicomyid, Adulomya Kuroda, 1931 (i.e., see Amano and Kiel, 2011) to the Solemyidae and, unfortunately, giving full recognition to the problematic Janeia King, 1850 as a subgenus of Solemya.</p> <p>Based on the ontogenetic expansion vector of the shell and underlying soft anatomy, Pojeta’s (1988) landmark study argued for two main phyletic lines (Figure 4A) within the Solemyidae, thereby subdividing the Solemyidae into two subfamilies: 1) the Solemyinae for anteriorly elongated solemyids with “barely discernible” beaks and umbos (i.e., Solemya, Acharax, and Psiloconcha); and 2) the Clinopisthinae for anteroventrally elongated solemyids with more conspicuous umbos and beaks (i.e., Clinopistha and Dystactella). This system was followed by Bailey (2011) and used herein (see Figure 4B, Table 1 and Appendix).</p> <p>Scarlato and Starobogatov (1979) split the order Solemyoida into two suborders, the Nucinellina and Solemyina. Emphasizing the relative significance of the submarginal vs. external ligament, they divided the Solemyina into two taxonomic divisions: 1) the Superfamily Solemyoidea /Family Solemyidae was proposed for genera with submarginal ligaments such as Solemya; and 2) the Superfamily Acharacoidea /Family Acharachidae was proposed for genera with an external ligament, including Acharax and, in error, the vesicomyid Adulomya (see Amano and Kiel, 2011). A similarly divided system was endorsed by Zardus (2002), Nevesskaja (2009), and Nevesskaja et al. (2013).</p> <p>Maxwell (1988) likewise placed Acharax and Solemya in separate superfamilies, the Acharac-</p> <p>Cox, 1969</p> <p>Class BIVALVIA Linné, 1758</p> <p>Subclass CRYPTODONTA Neumayr, 1884</p> <p>Order SOLEMYOIDA Dall, 1889</p> <p>Superfamily SOLEMYOIDEA Adams and Adams, 1857 (1840)</p> <p>Family SOLEMYIDAE Adams and Adams, 1857 (1840)</p> <p>(Includes Solemya and Acharax; Clinopistha [= Dystactella] placed in</p> <p>Ctenodontidae Wöhrmann)</p> <p>Scarlato and Starobogatov, 1979</p> <p>Class BIVALVIA Linné, 1758</p> <p>Superorder PROTOBRANCHIA Pelseneer, 1889 (= Nuculoida Dall, 1889)</p> <p>Order SOLEMYIDA Newell, 1965</p> <p>Suborder SOLEMYINA Newell, 1965 (= Solenomyina Dall, 1889)</p> <p>Superfamily ACHARACOIDEA Scarlato et Starobogatov, 1979</p> <p>Family ACHARACIDAE Scarlato et Starobogatov, 1979</p> <p>(Acharax placed here)</p> <p>Superfamily SOLEMYOIDEA H. Adams et A. Adams, 1857</p> <p>Family SOLEMYIDAE H. Adams et A. Adams, 1857</p> <p>(Solemya placed here)</p> <p>Suborder NUCINELLINA Scarlato et Starobogatov, 1971</p> <p>Superfamily AFGHANODESMATOIDEA Scarlato et Starobogatov, 1979</p> <p>Family AFGHANODESMATIDAE Scarlato et Starobogatov, 1979</p> <p>Superfamily MANZANELLOIDEA Chronic, 1952</p> <p>Family MANZANELLIDAE Chronic, 1952</p> <p>Family NUCINELLIDAE Vokes, 1956</p> <p>Superfamily HUXLEYOIDEA Scarlato et Starobogatov, 1971</p> <p>Family HUXLEYIIDAE Scarlato et Starobogatov, 1971</p> <p>Allen and Hannah, 1986</p> <p>Class BIVALVIA Linné, 1758</p> <p>Subclass PROTOBRANCHIA Pelseneer, 1889</p> <p>Order SOLEMYOIDA Dall, 1889</p> <p>Family SOLEMYIDAE Gray, 1840</p> <p>(Includes both Solemya and Acharax)</p> <p>Family NUCINELLIDAE Vokes, 1956</p> <p>Maxwell, 1988</p> <p>(Class BIVALVIA)</p> <p>(Subclass PROTOBRANCHIA)</p> <p>Order SOLEMYOIDA Dall, 1889</p> <p>Suborder SOLEMYINA Dall, 1889</p> <p>Superfamily SOLEMYOIDEA Gray, 1840</p> <p>Family SOLEMYIDAE Gray, 1840</p> <p>(Solemya placed here)</p> <p>Family ACHARACIDAE Scarlato and Starobogatov, 1979</p> <p>(Acharax placed here)</p> <p>Suborder NUCINELLINA Scarlato and Starobogatov, 1971</p> <p>Superfamily MANZANELLOIDEA Chronic, 1952</p> <p>Family MANZANELLIDAE Chronic, 1952</p> <p>Cope, 1996</p> <p>Class BIVALVIA Linnaeus, 1758</p> <p>Subclass LIPODONTA Cope, 1995</p> <p>Order SOLEMYOIDA Dall, 1889</p> <p>Superfamily SOLEMYOIDEA Adams and Adams, 1857</p> <p>Family SOLEMYIDAE Adams and Adams, 1857</p> <p>Pojeta, 1988</p> <p>Class PELECYPODA Goldfuss</p> <p>Subclass PALAEOTAXODONTA Korobkov</p> <p>(= Subclass PROTOBRANCHIA Pelseneer)</p> <p>Superfamily SOLEMYOIDEA Adams and Adams</p> <p>Family SOLEMYIDAE Adams and Adams</p> <p>Subfamily SOLEMYINAE Adams and Adams</p> <p>(Includes both Solemya and Acharax)</p> <p>Subfamily CLINOPISTHINAE Pojeta, 1988</p> <p>(includes both Clinopistha and Dystactella)</p> <p>Superfamily NUCINELLOIDEA Vokes, 1956</p> <p>Family NUCINELLIDAE Vokes, 1956</p> <p>Family MANZANELLIDAE Chronic, 1952</p> <p>Amler, 1999</p> <p>(Class BIVALVIA)</p> <p>Subclass LIPODONTA (Iredale, 1939) Cope, 1995</p> <p>Order SOLEMYOIDA Dall, 1889</p> <p>Superfamily SOLEMYOIDEA (Adams and Adams, 1857) Gray, 1840</p> <p>Family SOLEMYIDAE (Adams and Adams, 1857) Gray, 1840</p> <p>(Solemya placed here) Family JANACEKIIDAE Růžička and Řehoř, 1978</p> <p>(Janacekia placed here)</p> <p>Family ACHARACIDAE Scarlato and Starobogatov, 1979</p> <p>(Acharax placed here)</p> <p>Nevesskaja, 2009; Nevesskaja et al., 2013</p> <p>Class BIVALVIA</p> <p>Superorder PROTOBRANCHIA Pelseneer, 1889</p> <p>Order SOLEMYIDA Newell, 1965</p> <p>Superfamily SOLEMYOIDEA H. et A. Adams, 1857</p> <p>Family SOLEMYIDAE H. et A. Adams, 1857</p> <p>(Solemya placed here)</p> <p>Superfamily ACHARACOIDEA Scarlato et Starobogatov, 1979</p> <p>Family ACHARACIDAE Scarlato et Starobogatov, 1979</p> <p>(Acharax placed here)</p> <p>Superfamily MANZANELLOIDEA Chronic, 1952 Family MANZANELLIDAE Chronic, 1952</p> <p>Family NUCINELLIDAE Vokes, 1956</p> <p>Beiler et al., 2010</p> <p>Class BIVALVIA Linnaeus, 1758</p> <p>Subclass PROTOBRANCHIA Pelseneer, 1889</p> <p>(= Sublcass PALAEOTAXODONTA Korobkov, 1954)</p> <p>Order SOLEMYOIDA Dall, 1889</p> <p>Superfamily MANZANELLOIDEA Chronic, 1952</p> <p>Family MANZANELLIDAE Chronic, 1952</p> <p>Superfamily SOLEMYOIDEA Gray, 1840</p> <p>Family SOLEMYIDAE Gray, 1840</p> <p>Subfamily SOLEMYINAE Gray, 1840</p> <p>(= Family JANACEKIIDAE Růžička and Řehoř, 1978)</p> <p>(Includes both Solemya and Janacekia)</p> <p>Subfamily ACHARACINAE Scarlato and Starobogatov, 1979</p> <p>(Acharax placed here)</p> <p>Subfamily CLINOPISTHINAE Pojeta, 1988</p> <p>Carter et al., 2011</p> <p>Class BIVALVIA Linnaeus, 1758</p> <p>Subclass PROTOBRANCHIA Pelseneer, 1889</p> <p>(= Subclass PALAEOTAXODONTA Korobkov, 1954)</p> <p>Superorder NUCULIFORMII Dall, 1889</p> <p>(= Superorder FOLIOBRANCHIA Ménégaux, 1889)</p> <p>Order SOLEMYIDA Dall, 1889</p> <p>Superfamily SOLEMYOIDEA Gray, 1840</p> <p>Family SOLEMYIDAE Gray, 1840</p> <p>Subfamily SOLEMYINAE Gray, 1840</p> <p>(Includes both Solemya and Acharax) Subfamily JANACEKIINAE Růžička and Řehoř, 1978</p> <p>(Janacekia placed here)</p> <p>Family CLINOPISTHIDAE Pojeta, 1988</p> <p>Family CTENODONTIDAE Wöhrmann, 1893</p> <p>Family OVATOCONCHIDAE Carter, 2011</p> <p>Bailey, 2011 (and herein)</p> <p>Class BIVALVIA Linnaeus, 1758</p> <p>Subclass PROTOBRANCHIA Pelseneer, 1889</p> <p>(= Subclass PALAEOTAXODONTA Korobkov, 1954)</p> <p>Superorder NUCULIFORMII Dall, 1889</p> <p>Order SOLEMYOIDA Dall, 1889</p> <p>Superfamily SOLEMYOIDEA Gray, 1840</p> <p>Family SOLEMYIDAE Gray, 1840</p> <p>Subfamily SOLEMYINAE Gray, 1840</p> <p>(includes both Solemya and Acharax)</p> <p>Subamily CLINOPISTHINAE Pojeta, 1988</p> <p>(includes both Clinopistha and Dystactella)</p> <p>oidea and Solemyoidea, respectively, whereas Amler (1999) recognized only one superfamily, the Solemyoidea made up of three families, the Solemyidae, the Janacekiidae, and the Acharacidae.</p> <p>Bieler et al. (2010) combined and modified the classifications of both Pojeta (1988) and Scarlato and Starobogatov (1979) by dividing the Solemyidae into three subfamilies, the Clinopisthinae, the Acharacinae, and the Solemyinae, the latter considered as a synonym of the Janacekiidae Růžička and Řehoř 1978. However, this system is problematic in that it results in the division of the Acharax- Solemya clade into two paraphyletic subgroups. Furthermore, treating the Janacekiidae as a synonym of the Solemyinae is antithetical because the namesake, Janacekia Růžička and Řehoř, 1978, has the external ligament and nymphae like Acharax but unlike Solemya, as discussed further below.</p> <p>Carter et al. (2011) proposed dividing the order Solemyida into two superfamilies, the Solemyoidea and the Manzanelloidea. In this system, the Solemyoidea comprises four families: the Solemyidae, consisting of the subfamilies Solemyinae (containing both Acharax and Solemya), as well as the Janacekiinae, Clinopisthidae, Ctenodontidae, and Ovatoconchidae. However, because Janacekia is herein accepted as a junior synonym of Acharax, the Janacekiinae becomes superfluous. In addition, Ovatoconcha, because of its similarities to Psiloconcha, may arguably be placed in the Solemyinae.</p> <p>If, indeed, as posited herein, Solemya was derived from Acharax ancestors by, perhaps, mid- Mesozoic times through depression of the primary ligament and nymphae to a submarginal position, the two genera are monophyletic, a conclusion independently corroborated by both Sharma et al. (2013) and Combosch et al. (2017) in each of their phylogenetic tests of molecular markers in the genomic DNA of Solemya and Acharax. The 18S rRNA analysis of these genera by Taylor et al. (2008) reached a similar conclusion. According to Mayr and Ashlock (1991) higher taxa should consist of monophyletic groups separated from groups of similar rank by a distinctive gap. Their understanding echoes Schenck’s (1934, p. 55) classic criterion: “One basic principle is that a family should be monophyletic.” When inherent misunderstandings associated with Janeia and Janacekia are eliminated, the morphologic and temporal gaps separating Acharax and Solemya are not only minimized, but also consistent with DNA studies. Thus, of the various systems described above, Pojeta’s (1988) taxonomic scheme combining both genera within a single subfamily (Solemyinae) remains a viable alternative to placement into separate (paraphyletic) superfamilies or families.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F008FFAFFCC21C335FEDEA1E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F002FFB4FC571852596AE880.text	03B987E8F002FFB4FC571852596AE880.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Janeia PROBLEM	<div><p>THE JANEIA PROBLEM</p> <p>Key issues influencing the taxonomic debate are historical interpretations (sometimes incomplete or erroneous) of past authors regarding the placement of the primary ligament and its associated structures, specifically, the mistaken assumption that among Paleozoic Solemyidae, the primary ligament was placed internally, supported there by so-called “chondrophores” as in modern Solemya. This assumption has been largely based on a series of misapprehensions regarding a single illusory genus, Janeia.</p> <p>In Search of a Concept</p> <p>Janeia King (1850) may be justifiably regarded as a nomen dubium (Hryniewicz et al., 2017). Commenting on its ill-defined and confusing history, Pojeta (1988, p. 214) called it “a name looking for a concept.” Nevertheless, Janeia continues to be widely applied in recent publications (e.g., Nevesskaja, et al., 2013) and many online databases, even though it is devoid of any essential meaning. Historically, the ongoing confusion began with King (1850) himself. In his celebrated monograph, The Permian Fossils of England, he first proposed the genus on page 177 of the text, but subsequently withdrew it in an appendix note (p. 246-247) of the same publication, concluding that Janeia and Solemya are synonymous. In addition, King’s original diagnosis of Janeia is both ambiguous and inaccurate, reflecting not only a misunderstanding of the fossil material at hand but also a lack of familiarity with solemyid soft anatomy. In his diagnosis the anterior and posterior ends of the shell were reversed, and he mischaracterized the ligament (i.e., “cartilage”) as “internal; attached to a considerable portion of, and a little within, the dorsal margin of the valves; dilated, and somewhat oval within the umbonal cavity; narrow and elongated behind [sic] it” (King, 1850, p. 177). The “considerable” dorsal attachment of the ligament possibly refers only to the secondary ligament, that is, the anterior extension of the ligament outer layer (seen in both Acharax and Solemya) that runs along much of the anterodorsal (longidorsal) length of the valves. The “somewhat oval” portion is more difficult to interpret; perhaps it refers to the variably developed subumbonal ligamental demipads seen in Solemya and some Acharax (see Bailey, 2011).</p> <p>King (1850, p. 247) reported that his withdrawal of Janeia was based on an evaluation of the anatomical and conchological figures of Solemya mediterranea Lamarck, 1818, as contained in Cuvier (1836, plate 115). Curiously, despite anatomical evidence to the contrary, King (1850, p. 247) persisted in his erroneous interpretation of shell orientation and criticized contemporary conchologists who disagreed. Despite King’s withdrawal of Janeia, the name has had a lasting legacy inasmuch as it has been accepted by many subsequent authors who, in an attempt to salvage the concept, have ascribed to it additional characters far beyond those originally intended by King.</p> <p>Historically, Janeia has been conceptually applied to Paleozoic solemyids having an internal (primary) ligament supported by internal “chondrophores” (= nymphae) as in extant Solemya. It must be emphasized that the nature of the primary ligament in Janeia is purely an unsupported assumption based on: 1) King’s (1850, p. 177) mischaracterization of the ligament as internal; and 2) his subsequent conflation of Janeia with extant Solemya. Inasmuch as the name Janeia has been restricted to Paleozoic solemyids, the internal primary ligament has been accordingly presumed to be a primitive (plesiomorphic) character within the Solemyidae, whereas the external ligament in Acharax, is implicitly understood to be a post- Paleozoic derived (apomorphic) condition. However, evidence suggests the opposite to be true, given the many published examples of Janeia showing evidence of an external primary ligament similar to Acharax (see Logan, 1967; Carter, 1990; Dickins, 1999; Bailey, 2011, and Appendix herein), whereas other examples of putative Janeia with external ligaments are assignable to either Dystactella or Clinopistha.</p> <p>Types and Archetypes</p> <p>Each of the species of Janeia originally proposed by King is evaluated below:</p> <p>Janeia primaeva (Phillips, 1836). Logan’s (1967) restudy of Janeia primaeva accepted the primary ligament as external, a conclusion later confirmed by Bailey (2011) who emended the name as Acharax primaeva (Phillips, 1836) (see Appendix).</p> <p>As type species of Janeia, King (1850) selected Solemya primaeva Phillips, 1836 from the Lower Carboniferous (Tournaisian-Viséan) of Lowick, Northumberland, England (see Figure 5A), but he neither discussed it nor its relationship to his two other exemplars, Janeia biarmica (de Verneuil, 1845) from the Upper Permian Magnesian Limestone at Tunstall Hill and Humbledon Hill, Durham, England, and Janeia phillipsiana (King, 1848), allegedly from Humbledon Hill.</p> <p>Solemya primaeva was evidently based on a single specimen. Phillips’ (1836, p. 209, pl. 5, fig. 6) original treatment consists of an imprecise diagnosis and simple drawing. The putative holotype consisted of a composite mold with attached shell showing no evidence of the ligamental condition aside from the apparent non-occlusion of the posterior adductor scar, suggestive of an external ligament as in Acharax (Figure 5A). The specimen, originally stored in Phillips’ personal collection, is lost, allegedly stolen by thieves (see Hind, 1896 footnote, p. 19). Portlock’s (1843, p. 441) subsequent re-description S. primaeva was based on a single unfigured hypotype collected from an alternate location, i.e., Carboniferous shales of Aghaloo Parish, County Tyrone, Northern Ireland. Portlock’s hypotype, much larger and more elongated than Phillips’ holotype, was later illustrated by Hind (1900) (see Figure 5B). In the same study, Hind illustrated five additional specimens of S. primaeva (e.g., Figure 5 C-D). One of these, a topotype (Figure 5C), was reproduced by Cox (1969, fig. B1.1a) in Part N of the Treatise where it was used as a principal basis for accepting Janeia as a valid subgenus. Unfortunately, the Treatise figure is mistakenly credited to Phillips (1836) rather than Hind (1900). Apart from the significant size disparity, the morphologic similarities of Hind’s topotypic example (Figure 5C) and Portlock’s hypotype (Figure 5B) are compelling. Both lack direct ligament data but show simple buttresses and entire posterior adductors characteristic of Acharax.</p> <p>M’Coy (1855) approved of King’s decision to withdraw Janeia in favor of Solemya in apparent agreement with King’s presumption that the primary ligament is internal. However, he disagreed with King on shell orientation, asserting correctly that the valves are anteriorly elongate. On page 519 of the same work M’Coy provided a detailed description of an additional topotype he identified as Solemya primaeva Phillips, although the shell shape significantly differs from the aforementioned specimens of Hind. As shown in Figure 5 E-F, it appears to be either an internal or composite mold with well-marked adductor scars and radial striae. As in Acharax, the posterior adductor scar is entire, and the internal buttress is weak and simple, extending along the anterior border of the posterior adductor and diminishing in relief as it approaches the interior of the umbo. The close-set nymphae shown on the brevidorsum appear to be external, recalling those of Acharax (Nacrosolemya) trapezoides (Meek, 1874) (see Beede and Rogers 1899, pl. 32, fig. 2b; Carter, 1990, fig. 17d), an interpretation that seems supported by M’Coy’s own description (1855, p. 519): “…on its outer or posterior margin the slight thickening of the external cartilage support [= nymphae] is clearly seen, and the reflected gaping [= internymphal gap] edge of the lunette in some specimens…” Surprisingly, these features are not validated by M’Coy’s actual topotype (Sedgwick Museum, no. E1114), a natural cast with attached matrix (Figure 5 G-H) on which his illustrations (evidently interpretive reconstructions) were based. In particular, the hinge morphology of the topotype is inconsistent with M’Coy’s figure, providing few clues concerning the exact mode of ligament attachment. Yet, the posterior adductor is simple, and the elevated brevidorsal feature that M’Coy called a “lunette” (p. 519) appears consistent with external nymphae. It is worth noting here that Hind (1900, p. 444) regarded M’Coy’s figures as “largely hypothetical, especially the view of the hinge-line and umbones.”</p> <p>Solemyids comparable to S. primaeva have been treated by several authors. De Verneuil’s (1845, pl. 19, fig. 5) specimen of S. primaeva from the Lower Permian of Russia is fragmentary; only the anterior portion of the shell is preserved; the ligament-bearing posterior portion of shell is missing. Both M’Coy (1855 p. 520) and Hind (1900, p. 440) accepted Solemya puzosiana de Koninck, 1842, Carboniferous of Belgium (Figure 3B-E), as a synonym of S. primaeva. However, M’Coy (1855) separated the species into two varieties: S. primaeva of Phillips he informally called S. primaeva var. α whereas Solemya puzosiana de Koninck, 1842 (p. 60, pl. 5, fig. 2a, b; Carboniferous of Belgium) he formally named S. primaeva var. β. Similar shells, M’Coy noted, occur in the Lower Carboniferous dark limestone of Lowick and black beds of Derbyshire.</p> <p>Zhang and Pojeta (1986, p. 670, fig. 5.4) reported Solemya (Janeia) primaeva (Phillips) from the Ceshui Formation (Lower Carboniferous of China). Their specimen resembles Hind’s (1900) topotype and Portlock’s hypotype (Figure 5B).</p> <p>Janeia biarmica (de Verneuil, 1845). King's (1850, pl. 16, fig. 7) example of J. biarmica from the Upper Permian, Tunstall Hill, and Humbledon Quarry, is not a solemyid (Figure 5I). The umbos are too prominent, and the shell is marked by regular, broadly rounded comarginal ribs (radii lacking), and a subtruncate longiterminus. Rather, it is a probable pholadomyoid, i.e., Wilkingia elegans (King) (see Logan, 1967, p. 63). Richard Howse (1857a, p. 309), a colleague and collaborator of King’s, called it a juvenile specimen of Allorisma elegans [= Wilkingia elegans], and Geinitz (1861, p. 57) agreed.</p> <p>King (1850, p. 178) placed Solemya abnormis Howse, 1848 from the Upper Magnesian Limestone (Upper Permian), Tunstall and Silksworth, in synonymy with J. biarmica. Howse (1857a, p. 309) not only disagreed with King’s conclusion but also professed reluctance in referring it to Solemya. His two figures of S. abnormis (Howse, 1857a, pl. 4, figs. 8, 9) are simple drawings. Although the ambiguous shell fragment in his figure 9 shows no distinguishing traits, the modioliform Silksworth shell shown in his figure 8 (Figure 5J herein) compares with Stutchburia modioliformis (King) sensu Logan (1967, p. 50, pl. 8, fig. 8a-e) from the reef facies, Middle Magnesian Limestone (Upper Permian), Tunstall Hill, Durham. Later, Howse (1858, p. 266, pl. 11, figs. 8, 9) published the same Silksworth shell under the name of “ Solemya biarmica ?” (see Appendix).</p> <p>De Verneuil’s (1845, pl. 19, fig. 4a, b) original specimen of Solemya biarmica, herein assigned to the clinopisthin, Dystactella, is a smooth internal mold from the Lower Permian of Nizhny Novgorod Oblast (Russia) (see Figure 5 K-L). Unlike Acharax and Solemya, the umbos are broader, more elevated and more subcentrally placed than in either of these genera, and the shell is expanded anteroventrally. Furthermore, the shell radii that often mark internal molds of both Solemya and Acharax are uncharacteristically absent. The thin cylindrical ridge along the brevidorsum is probably a sediment infilling of an internymphal gap associated with a strong external ligament. The characters and the shell profile of de Verneuil’s figured type precisely match McAlester’s (1968, pl. 5, figs. 3-11) and Pojeta’s (1988, pl. 8, figs. 1-10) specimens of Dystactella subnasuta Hall and Whitfield, 1872 (type species of Dystactella) from the Silver Creek Limestone Member of the Sellersburg Limestone (Middle Devonian) of Clark County, Indiana. (compare Figure 5 K-L with Figure 5 M-N) Herein, de Verneuil’s original figured type of Solemya biarmica is emended as Dystactella biarmica (de Verneuil, 1845) new combination (see Appendix).</p> <p>A tiny specimen attributed to S. biarmica by Geinitz (1848, p. 8, pl. 3, fig. 34) from the Permian Kupferschiefer of Kamsdorf, Germany, is not instructive. However, a second example figured by Geinitz (1861, p. 60, pl. 12, fig. 18) superficially resembles de Verneuil’s figured type (= Dystactella), but ligamental and other data are lacking. Logan’s (1967, pl. 10, fig. 11, 12) figured specimens, hypotypes “A” and “B” respectively, from the Upper Permian Middle Magnesian Limestone, Durham, were described under the emended name, Janeia biarmica (de Verneuil, 1845). Hypotype “A”, from Humbledon Hill, is an internal mold that generally agrees with de Verneuil’s type. However, Logan’s inferred profile of the incomplete hypotype “B” from Tunstall Hill is more like Acharax although the prosoponal radii characteristic of some (but not all) species of this genus are not evident. Unlike de Verneuil’s figured type, hypotype “B” is far more inequiaxal with lower umbos. Significantly, it convincingly shows remains of paired external ligamental nymphae separated by a narrow oval cleft (internymphal gap), features associated with both Acharax and Dystactella but not Solemya.</p> <p>Janeia phillipsiana (King, 1848). King’s figure (1850, pl. 16, fig. 8) shows an internal mold, extremely inequiaxial in form, with barely discernible umbo and beak. A few radial ribs are indistinctly shown along with a narrow furrow for a simple buttress extending vertically to the beak but lacking an adjoining groove for the diagnostic submarginal nymph of Solemya (see Figure 5O). Significantly, in a scathing denunciation of King’s work, Howse (1857b, p. 9) accused King of specimen theft, plagiarism, and deceit, calling King’s Janeia phillipsiana a “mere fiction”, and asserting that his published description and figure were inventions based on non-existent fossil material. Accordingly, King’s (1850, p. 179) placement of Solemya normalis Howse, 1848 in synonymy with J. phillipsiana was also denounced by Howse (1857a, p. 309; 1857b, p. 9; 1858, p. 266).</p> <p>Howse’s (1857a, pl. 4, fig. 7; 1858, pl. 11, fig. 7) own illustration of S. normalis is a simple drawing of an elongated shell with low umbos marked by comarginal lineations with few radii and, apparently, an entire posterior adductor scar (see Figure 5P). However, the shell is unusual in its slightly arcuate profile and broadly embayed ventral margin. In a footnote, Howse (1857a, p. 308; 1858, p. 265) admitted that anterior extremity of his drawing was not correctly represented. Thereby, placement within the Solemyidae cannot be fully confirmed. More recently, Logan (1967, p. 61) gave recognition to Janeia normalis (Howse) based on material from the Upper Permian Magnesian Limestone at Tunstall Hill. However, these are referable to Acharax inasmuch as Logan (p. 62) observed external ligamental nymphae in his hypotypes. Although prosoponal radii are either weak or lacking, the shell profiles (see Logan, 1967, pl. 10, figs. 13, 14) are intermediate between Solemya parallela Beede and Rogers, 1899, pl. 34, fig. 1 (= Acharax parallela (Beede and Rogers) emend. Bailey, 2011) and Acharax primaeva (i.e., S. primaeva sensu Hind, 1900, non Phillips, 1836).</p> <p>From the lower Zechstein (Upper Permian) of Germany, Schauroth (1854, p. 553, pl. 21, fig. 5) described a specimen he hesitatingly referred to Solemya phillipsiana (King). His figure shows a relatively featureless internal mold with an anomalously thick shell remnant attached just above the “posterior” (breviventral) margin (Figure 5Q). The shape of the bivalve superficially agrees with other solemyins and is subtly marked by a few radial elements. Subsequently, Geinitz (1861, p. 60, pl. 12, fig. 19) refigured Schauroth’s original specimen but assigned it to Solemya biarmica de Verneuil, although the similarities to that species are few. Interestingly, Geinitz’s figure of the same specimen is startlingly different from Schauroth’s. Although Geinitz’s figure, like that of Schauroth, shows the same telltale shell remnant, the overall profile of the bivalve is noticeably altered (see Figure 5R). More significantly, the internal mold in Geinitz’s figure is marked by a deep groove for an internal buttress flanked by an adductor scar. Surprisingly, these features are altogether missing in Schauroth’s figure. If Geinitz’s illustration is accurate, the septum-like buttress is simple but appears unusually deep and well defined but does not appear to directly border the adductor scar as expected. The adductor scar, though entire, is unusual in its more breviventral placement. Although the shell profile superficially recalls Acharax parallela (Beede and Rogers), the umbos are more prominent and less extreme in posterior placement, and strong comarginal lirae adventitiously mark the outer surface of the shell remnant. Because of the many disparities, taxonomic placement of this specimen is undetermined, and its location is unknown.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F002FFB4FC571852596AE880	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F01FFFB3FEA618DD5A56EFBD.text	03B987E8F01FFFB3FEA618DD5A56EFBD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Janeia VERSUS	<div><p>JANEIA VERSUS JANACEKIA</p> <p>There is a significant complication to the Janeia story. Růžička and Řehor (1978) were critical of King’s (1850) withdrawal of the name Janeia in favor of Solemya, arguing that King had failed to provide objective evidence that Janeia was related to Solemya. Determination of the anterior and posterior ends of the shell, placement of the ligament, and organization of the internal anatomy, they asserted, were King’s personal opinions. Yet, because King’s original diagnosis of Janeia is both ambiguous and subjective, they were also critical of subsequent authors who adopted the name. Curiously, however, Růžička and Řehor (1978) agreed with King’s erroneous opinion that the long end of the shell is posterior. In their study of an assemblage of Janeia -like shells from the Carboniferous of the Czech Republic, Růžička and Řehor (1978) concluded that the ligament was external, rather than internal, as King (1850) and subsequent authors had alleged. By comparing their shells to those of extant Solemya togata, Poli 1795, they also affirmed that King (1850) was wrong in asserting that the ligament of Janeia, like that of Solemya, was internal. Unfortunately, the authors did not compare their material with extant examples of Acharax, comparing them instead to the solecurtid genus Tagelus Gray, 1847, which they selected as an archetype. Because their interpretations agreed neither with Solemya nor Janeia sensu King, they proposed a new genus, Janacekia Růžička and Řehoř, 1978, herein accepted as a junior synonym of Acharax. Thus, there is neither justification for recognition of Růžička and Řehoř’s family Janacekiidae nor any basis for regarding it as synonym of the Solemyinae as opposed to the Acharachinae (contra Bieler, et al., 2010, p. 115).</p> <p>Both Acharax and Janacekia share the same shell profile, the same thick periostracum marked by radial ribs and lirae, and the same primary ligament (external, parivincular, opisthodetic). Significantly, the ligament of Janacekia as originally described by the authors is ironically in agreement with Acharax but not Solemya: “Ligament ist ein äusseres, kurz und opisthodet.” (Růžička and Řehoř, 1978, p. 37). However, because their understanding of anterior and posterior is reversed, the term “opisthodet” was incorrectly applied. Thus, this portion of their description becomes essentially correct but for the wrong reason.</p> <p>Of critical importance in diagnosing Janacekia is a unique feature Růžička and Řehor termed the “pseudolunula”, consisting of paired external lamellae located on the brevidorsm. Having observed an equivalent feature in “ Solemya” radiata Meek and Worthen, 1866 (Pennsylvanian of Illinois), they suggested that “ S.” radiata would more reasonably placed in Janackeia rather than Solemya. However, based on examples with well-preserved ligaments from the Mazon Creek Lagerstätte (Pennsylvanian of Illinois), Bailey (2011) transferred “ S.” radiata to Acharax. Visual comparison of the brevidorsum of Janacekia (e.g., fig. 64 of Růžička and Řehoř, 1978) with that of Acharax (e.g., pl. 2, fig. 2 of Pojeta, 1988) demonstrates that the “pseudolunula” and external nymphae are synonymous.</p> <p>Janacekia and Acharax show additional similarities that further secure their identity. As shown in figure 61 of Růžička and Řehoř (1978), the buttress in Janacekia, as in Acharax, is simple, extending dorsally from the anterior limit of the posterior adductor scar to the underside of the umbo without any suggestion of attachment to nymphae, and the posterior adductor muscle shows no indication of dorsal occlusion.</p> <p>Although the analysis of Janacekia by Růžička and Řehor (1978) is comprehensive, it contains numerous errors and internal contradictions. For example, in their extensive biometric section (p. 18-27) the anteriorly elongate shell orientation is understood correctly, whereas, in the systematic section, the incorrect orientation (posteriorly elongate) is applied beginning on their page 37: “Der Vorderteil der Schalen ist kurz, enger als die Hinterzeite. Die hintere Teil ist stets länger als die Vordere.” In addition, the authors provided a detailed reconstruction (their fig. 65) of the foot and pedal accessory musculature (pedal protractor, retractors, and elevators) placed at the short end of the shell, which they regarded incorrectly as the anterior.</p> <p>Interpretative errors notwithstanding, the deltoid outline of the distinctive external, convexupward ligament of Acharax is documented in those authors’ photos of Janacekia herberti (pl. 1, fig. 2, showing collapsed ligament with nymph termini), and Janacekia leosi (pl. 7, fig. 9). Moreover, deltoid traces (or possible traces) of the external ligament of Janacekia herberti and Janacekia leosi seem evident in several of their other photos (pl. 3, fig. 12; pl. 8, fig. 9; pl. 11, fig. 4; and especially both pl. 7, fig. 9 and pl. 14, fig. 6). Traces of the anterior ligamental extension like Acharax radiata (Meek and Worthen, 1860) as figured by Bailey (2011, pl. 3, 4) are evident in their pl. 6, fig. 8. The type species, Janacekia herberti from the Carboniferous (Namurian) Ostrava Schichtengruppe, Upper Silesian Coal Basin, Czech Republic, is so remarkably similar to Acharax radiata (Meek and Worthen) from the Mazon Creek Lagerstätte that, aside from differences in the relative relief of the radial ribs, the two are nearly indistinguishable. For example, compare Růžička and Řehoř (1978, pl. 7, fig. 9) with Bailey (2011, pl. 3, figs. 1-9; pl. 4, figs. 1-7). Interestingly, Růžička and Řehoř listed numerous specimens referred by various authors to Solemya primaeva Phillips (= type species of Janeia King, 1850) as synonyms of both Janacekia herberti and Janacekia leosi. However, as noted above and by both Bailey (2011, 2016) and Logan (1967), S. primaeva is a probable Acharax.</p> <p>In addition to J. herberti, three additional species of Janacekia (i.e., J. leosi, J. mariae, and J. talboti) were described by Růžička and Řehor (1978) (see Appendix). However, the apparent differences in shell profile and prosopon, which both seem fairly minor, are possibly due to variable taphonomic effects on the thin shells and compliant periostracum.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F01FFFB3FEA618DD5A56EFBD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F010FFBDFF6B19F35AFEEFAD.text	03B987E8F010FFBDFF6B19F35AFEEFAD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Solemyidae , Bailey 2011	<div><p>PALEOZOIC SOLEMYIDAE - REVIEW AND REVISION OF SELECTED TAXA</p> <p>The following treatise is a preliminary assessment and taxonomic review of Paleozoic bivalves misclassified either as Janeia, Janacekia, or Solemya (including nomina vana variants, Solenomya or Solenimya) based in part on the unsubstantiated assumption that among Paleozoic examples the primary ligament was set in internal chondrophores. Emphasis here is mostly on generic level evaluation and revision. Within synonymies, descriptive annotations and provenance are provided for most listings. The format in part follows recommendations of Matthews (1973) and Bengtson (1988). Publication dates given by de Ryckholt for various portions of his Mélanges Paléontologiques are revised based on Rosenberg and Petit (1987).</p> <p>Abbreviations. Diagnostic character states observed: Bts = simple buttress; Dp = ligamental demipad; IG = internymphal gap; Le = ligament visibly external; Ne = nymphae external; PAe = posterior adductor entire; PP = traces of periostracal ‘awning’. Prosopon: Pc = comarginal lirae/rugae; Pc0 = comarginal elements lacking; Pr0 = radii absent or not observed; Pr1f = fine, closely spaced radii; Pr1 = radii weak or obsolescent; Pr2 = radii marked; Pr3 = radii strongly marked; Prs = radii with scalloped pattern.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F010FFBDFF6B19F35AFEEFAD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F010FFBEFEAC1F455A96ED12.text	03B987E8F010FFBEFEAC1F455A96ED12.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Acharax primaeva (Phillips 1836)	<div><p>Acharax primaeva (Phillips, 1836)</p> <p>Remarks. Lost holotype of Phillips (1836) was imperfectly illustrated and diagnosed. Useful if Hind’s (1900, in part, pl. 50, figs. 4, 5) topotypes are given priority (e.g., Cox, 1969). If so, Solemya puzosiana de Koninck, 1842 is a probable synonym. Hind (1900, p. 441) compared it with S.</p> <p>costellata and S. excisa but with stronger radial ribs.</p> <p>? 1836 Solemya primaeva Phillips, p. 209, p. 247, pl. 5, fig. 6 [Pr3?, PAe?; nom. dub.; figure and diagnosis insufficient; holotype lost]; Lower Carbonferous, Lowick, Northumberland, England.</p> <p>1842 Solemya puzosiana de Koninck, p. 60, pl. 5, fig. 2a, b [Pr3, Ne?, IG; = A. cf. primaeva, i.e., similar to Hind’s (1900) topotypes and Portock’s (1836) hypotype of S. primaeva]; Lower Carboniferous, (Tournaisian), Belgium.</p> <p>1843 Solemya primaeva Phillips; Portlock, p. 441 [no figure; later figured by Hind (1900)]; Carboniferous, Aghaloo, Co. Tyrone, N. Ireland.</p> <p>1844 Sanguinolites radiatus M’Coy, 1844, p. 50, pl. 13, fig. 4 [Pr3; synonym of Hind (1900, p. 438)]; Carboniferous, Killymeal, Dungannon, Co. Tyrone, N. Ireland.</p> <p>? 1845 Solemya primaeva Phillips; de Verneuil, p. 295, pl. 19, fig. 5 [Pr2; gen. et sp. indet.; partial valve; hinge unknown]; Lower Carboniferous, Tarusa, Oka River, Russia.</p> <p>? 1849 Solemya primaeva Phillips; Brown, p. 230, pl. 93, fig. 10 [Pr3?; stylized drawing after Phillips, 1836, pl. 5, fig. 6]; Lower Carboniferous limestone, Heiton and Lowick, Northumberland, England, and Co. Fermanagh, N. Ireland.</p> <p>1850 Janeia primaeva (Phillips); King, p. 177 [no figure].</p> <p>1850 Solemya primaeva Phillips; King, p. 246-247 [no figure].</p> <p>? 1855 Solenimya? primaeva Phillips; M’Coy (?M’Coy), p. 519, pl. 3F, fig. 3, 3a [hypothetical reconstruction]; Lower Carboniferous limestone, Lowick, Northumberland, England.</p> <p>1855 Solenimya primaeva Phillips var. β puzosiana M’Coy, p. 520 [no figure]; Carboniferous, Derbyshire, and Northumberland, England [Accepted by M’Coy (1855) as a variety of S. primaeva].</p> <p>non 1859 Solenomya primaeva Phillips; Eichwald, [plates pub. 1859, text pub. 1860]; p. 5, pl. 39, fig.10a-b (1859) [Pr2; highly elongated shell with aberrant (upwardly curving) longiterminus; gen. et. sp. indet.; possibly not a solemyid]; p. 1040-1041 (1860); Carboniferous limestone, Tarusa and Peredki, Novgorod Oblast, Russia.</p> <p>p 1885 Solemya puzosiana de Koninck; de Koninck, p. 120, pl. 23, fig. 41 [Pr3, Ne?]; fig. 29? [Pc, Pr0]; figs. 33?, 34? [Pr2, Ne, IG]; [possibly composed of more than one species; see Bailey, 2011, p. 30]; fig. 41 [= A. cf. primaeva]; Lower Carboniferous (Tournaisian), Belgium.</p> <p>1896 Solemya primaeva Phillips; Hind, p. 6, 27, 53.</p> <p>1900 Solenomya primaeva Phillips; Hind, pl. 50, fig. 1 (not fig. 2 as stated by Hind in error on p. 440) [Pr3, Bts, PAe; Portlock’s (1836) unfigured hypotype; compares with topotypes but much larger and anteriorly more expanded]; Carboniferous, Aghaloo, Co. Tyrone, N. Ireland.</p> <p>? 1900 Solenomya primaeva Phillips; Hind, pl. 50, fig. 2? [Pr3; provenance?], pl. 50, fig. 3? [Pr3; valves shorter and dissimilar in profile to Hind’s topotypes; = A. cf. costellata ?]; Carboniferous limestone series, Ardross, Fife, Scotland.</p> <p>p 1900 Solenomya primaeva Phillips; Hind, p. 438, pl. 50, figs. 4, 5 [topotypes, herein given priority; Pr3, Bts, PAe, IG]; Lower Carboniferous limestone, Lowick, Northumberland, England; non pl. 50, fig. 2 [Pr3; provenance?]; non pl. 50, fig. 3 [a hypotype, Pr3; shorter, more ovoid in profile], Carboniferous limestone series, Ardross, Fife, Scotland.</p> <p>1900 Solenomya primaeva Phillips; Hind, pl. 50, fig. 6 [Pr3, Bts, PAe?; copy of M’Coy’s1844 hypotype of Sanguinolites radiatus; like Portlock’s hypotype but much smaller]; Carboniferous, Killymeal, Dungannon, Co. Tyrone, N. Ireland.</p> <p>1969 Solemya (Janeia) primaeva (Phillips); Cox, p. N243, fig. B1,1a [topotype, Pr3, Bts, PAe; copy of Hind, 1900, pl. 50, fig. 5]; Lower Carboniferous limestone, Lowick, Northumberland, England.</p> <p>1986 Solemya (Janeia) primaeva (Phillips); Zhang and Pojeta, p. 670, fig. 5.4 [Pr3, PAe, Bts(weak)]; Lower Carboniferous (Viséan), China.</p> <p>2011 Acharax primaeva (Phillips); Bailey, 2011, p. 30</p> <p>2013 Janeia primaeva (Phillips); Nevesskaja, et al., p. 90, pl. 12, fig. 12.5 [copy of Hind, 1900, pl. 50, fig. 5].</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F010FFBEFEAC1F455A96ED12	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F013FFBEFF731F255F94EFDC.text	03B987E8F013FFBEFF731F255F94EFDC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Acharax costellata (M'Coy 1844)	<div><p>Acharax costellata (M’Coy, 1844) sp. inq.</p> <p>Remarks. Needs further study. Reviewed by Bailey (2011, p. 30). Hind (1900, p. 441) compared the form as similar to S. primaeva but with radial ribs weak to obsolescent. M’Coy’s (1844, p. 48) original description is limited; the holotype, figured both by M’Coy (1844) and by Hind (1900), is an ambiguous shell fragment. Possibly useful if Hind’s (1900, in part, pl. 50, figs. 8-10, non fig. 7) hypotypes are given priority. If so, one of de Koninck’s (1885, pl.</p> <p>23, fig. 31) examples of Solemya saginata is a possible synonym. Compares with Acharax radiata</p> <p>(Meek and Worthen) but not with A. primaeva (Phillips).</p> <p>? 1844 Sanguinolites costellatus M’Coy, p. 48, pl. 8, fig. 5 [nom. dub.; gen. et. sp. indet. Pr2; fragmentary; longiterminal half missing; hinge unknown; short radial ribs faint but limited to breviventral margin]; Carboniferous, Ireland.</p> <p>non 1854 Solemya saginata de Ryckholt, (“1847”), p. 53, pl. 11, figs. 9, 10 [= Dystactella cf. subnasuta]; l’argile carbonifère, Antoing, Belgium.</p> <p>? 1885 Solemya saginata de Ryckholt; de Koninck, p. 121, pl. 23, figs. 31 [Pr2, Pc Ne?], 32? [Pr2, Pc]; Lower Carboniferous (Tournaisian), calcaire carbonifère, Tournai, Belgium.</p> <p>? 1900 Solemya costellata M’Coy; Hind, p. 442, pl. 50, fig. 13 [Pr2, fragmentary; gen. et sp. indet.; Hind’s own figure of M’Coy’s (1844) holotype]; Carboniferous, Killyclogby, Lisbellaw, Co. Tyrone, N. Ireland.</p> <p>p 1900 Solenomya costellata; Hind, p. 442, pl. 50, fig. 8 [Pr2, PAe], fig. 9 [Pr3, Bts?], fig. 10 [Pr2]; non fig. 7; Lower Carboniferous, Lowick and Redesdale, Northumberland, England.</p> <p>? p 1900 Solemya excisa de Koninck; Hind, p. 441, pl. 50 figs. 12, 16 [Pc, Pr2, Bts, PAe, = Acharax cf. costellata]; Carboniferous, Ardross, Scotland; non pl. 50, figs. 11, 14, 15 [ventrally embayed; Pc, Pr1; = Acharax cf. normali s sensu Howse]; Lower Carboniferous, Lowick, Northumberland. [See also Dystactella excisa (de Koninck)].</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F013FFBEFF731F255F94EFDC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F013FFBFFCE31DE85AD2EE55.text	03B987E8F013FFBFFCE31DE85AD2EE55.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Acharax normalis (Howse 1848) Bailey 2021	<div><p>Acharax cf. normalis (Howse, 1848) n. comb.</p> <p>Remarks. No figure accompanied Howse’s (1848)</p> <p>description; his subsequent (1857a) figure is rudimentary and is, as he personally remarked, inaccurate; holotype lost. Useful if Logan’s (1967, pl.10,</p> <p>figs. 13, 14) material is given priority. If so, Solemya excisa de Koninck of Hind (1900, in part, pl.</p> <p>50, figs. 11, 14, 15) is a possible synonym.</p> <p>? 1848 Solenimya normalis Howse, p. 244 [nom.</p> <p>dub.; description only; no figure; radii described as lacking]; Upper Permian, Magnesian Limestone, Humbleldon Hill Quarry, Durham, England.</p> <p>non 1848 Solemya phillipsiana King, p. 11 [allegedly fictitious (nom. nud.) but accepted by King as senior synonym of S. normalis Howse].</p> <p>non 1850 Janeia phillipsiana King; King, p. 179, pl. 16, fig. 8 [description and figure, allegedly fictitious (nom. nud.) but accepted by King as senior synonym of S. normalis Howse].</p> <p>? 1857a Solemya normalis Howse; Howse, p. 25, pl. 4, fig. 7 [Pr1; nom. dub.; rudimentary drawing; anterior margin described by Howse as inaccurate; holotype lost]; Upper Permian, Magnesian Limestone, Humbledon Hill, Durham, England.</p> <p>? 1861 Solemya normalis Howse; Geinitz, p. 61, pl. 12, figs. 20, 21? [gen. et sp. indet.; prosopon with fine comarginal growth lines and a few obsolescent radii]; Upper Permian (lower Zechstein), Thieschitz bei Gera, Germany.</p> <p>non 1894 Solemya normalis Howse; Netschajew, p. 303, pl. 10, fig. 7 [gen. et sp. indet.; possible edmondiid?]; Permian, Volga River, mouth of Kama, Russia.</p> <p>? p 1900 Solenomya excisa de Koninck; Hind, pl. 50, figs. 11, 14, 15, [ventrally embayed; Pc, Pr1; = Acharax cf. normalis]; Lowick, Northumberland; non pl. 50, figs.12, 16 [= Acharax cf. costellata]; Carboniferous, Ardross, Scotland. [See also Dystactella excisa (de Koninck)].</p> <p>1967 Janeia normalis (Howse); Logan, p. 61, pl. 10, figs. 13, 14 [best published examples; Pr1, Le]; Upper Permian, Middle Magnesian Limestone, Tunstall Hill, Durham, England.</p> <p>? 1978 Janeia normalis (Howse); Kłapciński and Karwowski, p. 73, pl. 3, figs. 1, 2 [Bts?; = aff. Acharax]; Upper Permian (middle Zechstein), Main Dolomite, Stassfurt Cyclothem, Poland.</p> <p>non 1981 Solemya (Janeia) normalis (Howse); Muromtseva, p. 29, pl. 10, fig. 18 [Pc, Pr0; very small, gen. et sp. indet; possible edmondiid? or nuculoid?]; Upper Permian, Novaya Zemlya.</p> <p>non 1984 Solemya (Janeia) normalis (Howse); Muromtseva and Guskov, p. 35, pl. 24, fig.15, Seregovo, Komi Republic, Russia; pl. 41,fig. 18 [Pc, Pr0; very small, gen. et sp. indet.; edmondiid?]; Upper Permian (Kazanian) Novaya Zemlya.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F013FFBFFCE31DE85AD2EE55	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F012FFB8FF641C605F3EED72.text	03B987E8F012FFB8FF641C605F3EED72.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Acharax radiata (Meek and Worthen 1860)	<div><p>Acharax radiata (Meek and Worthen, 1860)</p> <p>Remarks. Figures, missing in Meek and Worthen’s</p> <p>(1860) original publication, were later added by the same authors (1866, pl. 26, figs. 10a-b). Compares with A. costellata (M’Coy), A. herberti (Růžička and</p> <p>Řehoř), and A. cylindrica (Hind), but not with A. primaeva s. s. Widely accepted; reviewed by Pojeta</p> <p>(1988) and Bailey (2011).</p> <p>1860 Solemya radiata Meek and Worthen, p. 457 [no figure]; Pennsylvanian Coal Measures, Grayville, Illinois; [figure published by the authors in 1866].</p> <p>1866 Solenomya radiata Meek and Worthen; Meek and Worthen, p. 349, pl. 26, fig. 10a-b [Pr2, Ne]; Pennsylvanian Coal Measures, Schuyler Co., Illinois.</p> <p>? 1872 Solenomya sp. Meek, pl. 2, fig. 12a-b [figures only; no description; partial internal mold with attached shell fragment; Pr0, Bts?, Ne?]; Pennsylvanian, Upper Coal Measures, Rock Bluff, Nebraska.</p> <p>1877 Solenomya radiata Meek and Worthen; Miller, p. 204 [no figure].</p> <p>1889 Solenomya radiata Meek and Worthen; Miller, p. 512 [no figure].</p> <p>1896 Solemya radiata Meek and Worthen; Hind, p. 32 [no figure].</p> <p>1900 Solenomya radiata Meek and Worthen; Beede, p. 160, pl. 22, fig. 5-5a [Pr2-3, Ne?; copy of Meek and Worthen’s description]; Pennsylvanian, Topeka, Kansas.</p> <p>1922 Solenomya radiata Meek and Worthen; Morningstar, p. 193-194 [description but no figure]; Pennsylvanian, lower Mercer Limestone, Muskingum Co., Ohio.</p> <p>non 1930 Solenomya radiata? Meek and Worthen; Branson (?Branson), p. 41, pl. 9, figs. 21, 22 [Pr0, Pc0; featureless cast of an internal mold, gaping (?) at both ends; ligament and hinge unknown; same specimen (UM 5275) tentatively called Solemya sp. by Ciriacks (1963); profile resembles Dystactella]; Upper Permian, Park City Formation, Ervay Member, near Cody, Wyoming.</p> <p>1961 Solemya radiata Meek and Worthen; Hoare, p. 94, pl. 12, fig. 12 [Pr2]; Middle Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian), Tiawah Limestone, St. Clair Co., Missouri.</p> <p>? 1961 Solemya sp. Hoare, p. 96, pl. 12, fig. 13 [Bts, PAe; partial internal mold; possibly Acharax radiata ?]; Middle Pennsylvanian (Desmoinesian), Seville Limestone, Henry Co., Missouri.</p> <p>1979 Solemya (Janeia) radiata (Meek and Worthen); Hoare, Sturgeon and Kindt, p. 29, pl. 2, fig.12 [Pr2], fig. 13? [Pr2]; Middle Pennsylvanian, Putnam Hill Shale, Ohio.</p> <p>1983 Solemya (Janeia) radiata (Meek and Worthen); Kues, p. 80 [no figure]; Middle Pennsylvanian, Upper Los Moyos Limestone, Cedro, New Mexico.</p> <p>1988 Solemya radiata Meek and Worthen; Pojeta, p. 215, pl. 22, figs. 1, 2, 5 [Pr3], fig. 4 [Pr3, Bts], Pennsylvanian Coal Measures, New Lisbon, Ohio; pl. 22, fig. 3 [Pr2], Pennsylvanian, Schuyler Co., Illinois; figs. 6, 7 [Pr2], fig. 10 [Pr3], pl. 23, figs. 1, 2 [Pr2], figs. 3, 4 [Pr2, Bts, PAe]; Pennsylvanian, Henry Co., Missouri.</p> <p>non 1988 Solemya radiata Meek and Worthen; Pojeta, pl. 24, figs. 2, 3 [Pr1, Bts, PAe]; Pennsylvanian, Illinois?; figs. 4, 6 [Pr2, Bts, PAe; = Acharax (Nacrosolemya) trapezoides]; Pennsylvanian, Kansas City, Missouri.</p> <p>1992 Solemya radiata Meek and Worthen; Kues, p. 91, figs. 2.7, 2.8 [Pr3, Bts, PAe]; Upper Pennsylvanian, basal limestone, Kinney Quarry, Manzanita Mts., New Mexico.</p> <p>1997 Solemya radiata Meek and Worthen; Cope, pl. 1, fig. 10 [Pr3, Le(?)]; Upper Carboniferous, Ohio.</p> <p>1997 “ Solemya” radiata Meek and Worthen; Bailey and Sroka, p. 101, fig. 8A.2, C-E [Pr2, Le]; Middle Pennsylvanian (Westphalian D), Francis Creek Shale, Carbondale Formation, Will-Kankakee counties, Illinois.</p> <p>2011 Acharax radiata (Meek and Worthen); Bailey, 2011, p. 27, pl. 3, figs. 1-6, 9; pl. 4, figs. 1-7 [based on topotypes; Pr 2-3, Bts, PAe, Ne, Le, IG, PE]; Middle Pennsylvanian (Westphalian D), Francis Creek Shale, Carbondale Formation, Will-Kankakee and Fulton counties, Illinois.</p> <p>Acharax (Nacrosolemya) trapezoides (Meek, 1874)</p> <p>Remarks. First published as a figure (Solenomya</p> <p>sp. undet. Meek and Worthen, 1873, pl. 27, fig. 1ab); later named by Meek (1874, p. 583) but only briefly characterized. Beede and Rogers (1899, p.</p> <p>132) gave the first detailed description. Reviewed by Pojeta (1988) and Carter (1990); lectotype nominated by Bailey (2011).</p> <p>1873 Solenomya sp. undet. Meek and Worthen, pl. 27, fig. 1a-b [Pc, Pr0, Ne, Dp]; same specimen (USNM 36315; labeled, “Coal Meas. Illinois?”) later figured by Bailey (2011, p. 31, pl. 5, figs. 1-5) and nominated as lectotype of Acharax trapezoides (Meek and Worthen)].</p> <p>1874 Solenomya sp. undet. Meek, p. 582 [ref. Meek and Worthen, 1873, pl. 27, fig 1a-b].</p> <p>1874 Solenomya (Janeia) trapezoides Meek, p. 583 [ref. Meek and Worthen, 1873, pl. 27, fig 1a-b].</p> <p>1899 Solenomya trapezoides Meek; Beede and Rogers, p. 132, pl. 34, fig. 2a-b [Pc, Pr0/Pr1, Bts, PAe, Ne, IG]; Pennsylvanian, Coal Measures, Westport, Missouri, and Porterville, Kansas.</p> <p>1900 Solenomya trapezoides Meek; Beede, p. 159, pl. 21, fig. 2a-b [Pc, Pr0, Bts, PAe, Ne]; near junction of Upper and Lower Coal Measures, Porterville, Kansas, and Westport, Missouri.</p> <p>? 1961 Solemya trapezoides Meek; Hoare, 1961, p. 96, pl. 12, fig. 14 [Pr0; few details; more smoothly rounded than other A. (N.) trapezoides]; Weir-Pittsburg Coal, Henry Co., Missouri.</p> <p>? 1979 Solemya (Janeia) trapezoides Meek; Hoare, Sturgeon and Kindt, p. 30, pl. 2, figs.14? (fragment), 15? (fragment), 16, 17 [Pc]; Pennsylvanian, Putnam Hill Shale, Ohio.</p> <p>1988 Solemya trapezoides Meek; Pojeta, p. 215, pl. 22, figs. 8, 9 [Pr 1, Bts, PAe,]; Pennsylvanian, Henry Co., Missouri; pl. 24, fig. 1? [Pr 2, Bts, PAe]; Pennsylvanian, Beatrice, Nebraska; pl. 24, fig. 5? [Pr 2, Bts, PAe]; Pennsylvanian, Clover Land, Clay Co., Indiana; pl. 24, figs. 7, 8 [Pr 1, Bts, PAe]; Pennsylvanian, Kansas City, Missouri.</p> <p>1988 Solemya sp. Pojeta, pl. 23, figs. 5-8 [Pr1, Bts, PAe, Ne, IG]; Pennsylvanian, Hertha Limestone, Kansas.</p> <p>? 1988 Acharax ? sp. Pojeta (?Pojeta), pl. 20, fig. 9 [left internal mold; Pc, Pr1, PAe, Bts(weak); compares with A. (N.) trapezoides]; Permian, near Wymore, Nebraska.</p> <p>1990 Acharax (Nacrosolemya) trapezoides (Meek); Carter, 1990, p. 174, figs. 17, 18 [Pr0/Pr1, Le, Ne]; Upper Carboniferous, Breathitt Formation, Eastern Kentucky.</p> <p>1992 Solemya trapezoides Meek; Kues, p. 93, fig. 2.9 [Pc, Bts?, Ne], fig. 2.10 [Pc, Pr1]; Upper Pennsylvanian, basal limestone, Kinney Quarry, Manzanita Mts., New Mexico.</p> <p>1997 Acharax (Nacrosolemya) trapezoides (Meek); Bailey and Sroka, p. 102 [no figure].</p> <p>2002 Solemya trapezoides Meek; Kues et al., 2002, p. 129, fig. 4Q [Pc]; Upper Pennsylvanian, Derry Hills, New Mexico.</p> <p>? 2003 Solemya trapezoides Meek; Krainer, et al., 2003, fig. 7L [Pc, Pr0 Le; Bts; poorly preserved composite mold; shell profile short and rounded, nearly ovoid; intermediate (?) between A. trapezoides and A. radiata]; Upper Pennsylvanian, Zuni Mts., New Mexico.</p> <p>2011 Acharax (Nacrosolemya) trapezoides (Meek); Bailey, p. 31, text-fig. 3, Middle Pennsylvanian, Carbondale Formation, Canton, Illinois; pl. 5, figs.1-5; = lectotype, USNM 36315, “Coal Meas., Illinois?” [Pc, Pr1, Bts, PAe, Ne, IG]; pl. 5, fig. 6 [Pr1]; Middle Pennsylvanian, Carbondale Formation, Will Co., Illinois.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F012FFB8FF641C605F3EED72	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F015FFB9FCE51F45595EE885.text	03B987E8F015FFB9FCE51F45595EE885.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Acharax parallela (Beede and Rogers 1899) emend. Bailey 2011	<div><p>Acharax parallela (Beede and Rogers, 1899)</p> <p>Remarks. Junior homonym of Solemya parallela de Ryckholt. Known mostly from original designation by Beede and Rogers (1899). Subsequent reports are questionable. Compares with A. primaeva (Phillips) (see Bailey, 2011, p. 30, 37). Logan’s (1967, in part) example of Janeia biarmica is a possible synonym.</p> <p>non 1853 Solemya parallela de Ryckholt, (“1854”), p. 51, pl. 11, figs., 11, 12 [senior homonym; not a solemyid; = Wilkingia ?, i.e., W.? aff. abramovi Muromtzeva in Biakov, 2019, pl. 3, fig. 20]; Lower Carboniferous, (Tournaisian) l’argile carbonifère, Tournai, Belgium.</p> <p>1899 Solenomya parallela Beede and Rogers, p. 131, pl. 34, fig. 1 [Pr3, Bts, PAe]; Pennsylvanian Coal Measures, Kansas City and Lawrence, Kansas.</p> <p>? 1952 Solemya (Janeia) parallela (Beede and Rogers); Chronic, p. 153 [fragmentary, no figure]; Middle Permian, Kaibab Formation, Arizona.</p> <p>? p 1967 Janeia biarmica (de Verneuil, 1845); Logan, p. 60, pl. 10, fig. 12 [Le, IG], non fig. 11; Upper Permian, Tunstall Hill, Durham, England.</p> <p>? 1986 Solemya (Janeia) parallela (Beede and Rogers); Zhang and Pojeta, p. 669, fig. 5.14 [PAe; shorter than expected for A. parallela; compares with A. radiata and A. costellata]; Lower Carboniferous, Ceshui Formation, China.</p> <p>2011 Acharax parallela (Beede and Rogers); Bailey, 2011, p. 30, 37 [possible variant (?) of Acharax primaeva (Phillips)].</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F015FFB9FCE51F45595EE885	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F014FFB9FF751AD0591CEEBA.text	03B987E8F014FFB9FF751AD0591CEEBA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Acharax cylindrica (Bailey 2021) Bailey 2021	<div><p>Acharax cylindrica (Hind, 1907) n. comb.</p> <p>Remarks. Poorly known. The syntype (BGS</p> <p>GSE6465) clearly shows a simple buttress and entire posterior adductor scar. Radii weak; compares with A. costellata (M’Coy) and A. radiata</p> <p>(Meek and Worthen).</p> <p>1907 Solemya cylindrica Hind, p. 351, pl. 2, figs.</p> <p>60, 61 [Pr1; Bts?]; Carboniferous (Namurian), Millstone Grit, Coatbridge, Dumbartonshire, Scotland [ref.: BGS GSE6465 (syntype), Pr 1, Bts, PAe; labeled “ Solemya costellata ?” (McCoy), Carboniferous (Namurian), Millstone Grit, Gain Quarry, Glenboig, Lanarkshire, Scotland.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F014FFB9FF751AD0591CEEBA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F014FFB9FF411C8D5FC5E85F.text	03B987E8F014FFB9FF411C8D5FC5E85F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Acharax holmwoodensis (Dickins 1963) Bailey 2021	<div><p>Acharax holmwoodensis (Dickins, 1963) n. comb.</p> <p>Remarks. Useful but not widely studied.</p> <p>1963 ‘Solemya’ holmwoodensis Dickins, p. 59, pl. 7, figs. 1-9 [Pc, Pr1f(internal), Bts, Le, Ne]; pl. 8, figs. 17, 18; Lower Permian (Sakmarian) Holmwood Shale, W. Australia.</p> <p>Acharax herberti (Růžička and Řehor, 1978) n. comb.</p> <p>Remarks. Shell compares in profile to both A. radiata and A. costellata, but radial ribs are more conspicuous; J. herberti has priority; J. leosi, J. mariae, and J. talboti are probable synonyms; differences are judged to be taphonomic in origin.</p> <p>1978 Janacekia herberti Růžička and Řehor, p. 63, pl. 1, figs. 1-8; pl. 2, figs. 1-8; pl. 3, figs. 1-13; pl. 4, figs. 2-9; pl. 5, figs. 1-9; pl. 11, fig. 1; pl. 14, fig. 6; [Pc, Pr3, Bts, PAe, Le]; Carboniferous, Ostrava Schichtengruppe, Upper Silesian Coal Basin, Czech Republic.</p> <p>1978 Janacekia leosi Růžička and Řehor, p. 66, pl. 4, fig. 1; pl. 6, figs. 1-12; pl. 7, figs. 1-10; pl. 8, figs. 1-9; pl. 9, figs. 1-9; pl. 10, figs. 1-10; pl.</p> <p>11, figs. 2-6; pl.12, figs. 1-10; pl. 13, figs. 1- 10; pl. 14, figs. 2, 8; pl. 15, figs. 2-4; [PP?, Pc, Pr3, Bts, PAe, Le, Ale]; Carboniferous, Ostrava Schichtengruppe, Upper Silesian Coal Basin, Czech Republic.</p> <p>1978 Janacekia mariae Růžička and Řehor, p. 69, pl. 14, figs. 1, 3, 5; pl. 16, figs. 1, 2 [PP?, Pc, Pr3, Bts]; Carboniferous, Ostrava Schichtengruppe, Upper Silesian Coal Basin, Czech Republic.</p> <p>1978 Janacekia talboti Růžička and Řehor, p. 69, pl. 14, figs. 4, 7 [Pc, Pr3]; Carboniferous, Ostrava Schichtengruppe, Upper Silesian Coal Basin, Czech Republic.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F014FFB9FF411C8D5FC5E85F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F014FFB9FCD61C185F25EE82.text	03B987E8F014FFB9FCD61C185F25EE82.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Acharax petschorica (Guskov 1984) Bailey 2021	<div><p>Acharax? petschorica (Guskov, 1984) n. comb.</p> <p>? 1984 Solemya (Janeia) petschorica Guskov (in Muromtseva and Guskov, 1984), p. 35, pl. 24, fig. 10 [Pr2, Bts? PAe?; possible Acharax]; Lower Permian (Kungurian), Pechora Basin, Russia.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F014FFB9FCD61C185F25EE82	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F014FFB9FCD91A6A5EAEEFCD.text	03B987E8F014FFB9FCD91A6A5EAEEFCD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Acharax solikamica (Muromtseva 1981) Bailey 2021	<div><p>Acharax solikamica (Muromtseva, 1981) n. comb.</p> <p>Remarks. Compares with A. radiata, A. costellata, and A. herberti. Ligament described by Muromtseva (1981, p. 30) as posteriorly placed, external. 1981 Solemya (Janeia) solikamica Muromtseva, p.</p> <p>30, pl. 7, figs. 12, 16, 17 [Le, Pr2/3]; Upper</p> <p>Permian, North European part of Russia. 1984 Solemya (Janeia) solikamica Muromtseva;</p> <p>Muromtseva and Guskov, p. 35, pl. 24, figs.</p> <p>11, 13, 14 [Pr2, Bts]; Upper Permian, West</p> <p>Verkhoyansk, Russia; pl. 37, figs. 9?, 11, 12</p> <p>[Pr2; Bts?, PAe?]; Permian, Novaya Zemlya.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F014FFB9FCD91A6A5EAEEFCD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F017FFBAFCF0187D5FC0E842.text	03B987E8F017FFBAFCF0187D5FC0E842.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Clinopistha abbreviata (de Ryckholt 1854)	<div><p>Clinopistha abbreviata (de Ryckholt, 1854)</p> <p>Remarks. Ligament posterodorsal, parivincular,</p> <p>external. Compares with Clinopistha levis Meek and Worthen, 1870; Hind (1900, p. 447) agreed.</p> <p>1854 Solemya abbreviata de Ryckholt, p. 53, pl. 16, figs. 18, 19 [short, anteroventrally extended shell, Pr0, Le]; Lower Carboniferous, (Tournaisian) Tournai, Belgium.</p> <p>1885 Clinopistha abbreviata (de Ryckholt); de Koninck, pl. 14, figs. 48-50; pl. 23, figs. 15-19 [short, anteroventrally extended shell; Pr0, Le]; Lower Carboniferous, (Tournaisian), calschiste de Tournai, Belgium.</p> <p>1900 Clinopistha abbreviata (de Ryckholt); Hind, p. 446, pl. 50, fig. 17; Lower Carboniferous, Fourlaws Limestone, Coombs Quarry, Redesdale, Northumberland.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F017FFBAFCF0187D5FC0E842	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F017FFBAFCF41A955E07EEB2.text	03B987E8F017FFBAFCF41A955E07EEB2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Clinopistha curta (Walcott 1884) Bailey 2021	<div><p>Clinopistha curta (Walcott, 1884) n. comb.</p> <p>Remarks. Name originally applied to two different taxa: Walcott (1884, pl. 22, fig. 6) is Clinopistha,</p> <p>i.e., C. cf. levis Meek and Worthen, but pl. 22, fig.</p> <p>11 is probably Dystactella, i.e., D. cf. subnasuta</p> <p>(Hall and Whitfield). By priority, the trivial name,</p> <p>curta, is herein assigned to Clinopistha as it appears first on Walcott’s plate 22.</p> <p>p 1884 Solenomya curta Walcott, p. 242, pl. 22, fig. 6 [Pc, Pr1; = Clinopistha cf. levis Meek and Worthen], non fig. 11 [Pc, Pr1; = Dystactella cf. subnasuta (Hall and Whitfield, 1872)]; Lower Carboniferous, Eureka District, Nevada.</p> <p>? 1889 Solenomya curta Walcott; Miller, p. 512 [no figure]; Subcarboniferous, Nevada.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F017FFBAFCF41A955E07EEB2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F017FFBAFF461A7B5A5AEF7B.text	03B987E8F017FFBAFF461A7B5A5AEF7B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Clinopistha Meek and Worthen 1870	<div><p>Genus CLINOPISTHA Meek and Worthen, 1870</p> <p>Type species. By monotypy, Clinopistha radiata var. levis Meek and Worthen, 1870, p. 44 (= Clinopistha levis Meek and Worthen, 1870, p. 45); Coal Measures (Pennsylvanian), west-central, Illinois. Reviewed by McAlester (1968, p. 20) and Pojeta (1988, p. 216).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F017FFBAFF461A7B5A5AEF7B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F017FFBAFF681D4D5FB4EA6A.text	03B987E8F017FFBAFF681D4D5FB4EA6A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Clinopistha truncata (Golfuss 1840) Bailey 2021	<div><p>Clinopistha truncata (Golfuss, 1840) n. comb.</p> <p>Remarks. Beushausen’s type (Sanguinolaria truncata Goldfuss, 1840) is a generically indeterminate shell fragment. Useful if Beushausen’s (1895, pl.</p> <p>26, figs. 4, 5) topotypes are given priority. Compares with certain examples of Clinopistha levis showing fine prosoponal radii, especially on the inner surface of the shell (e.g., Pojeta, 1988, pl. 9,</p> <p>fig. 8; pl. 11, figs. 1-9).</p> <p>? 1840 Sanguinolaria truncata Goldfuss, p. 279, pl.</p> <p>159, fig. 13a, b; [gen. et sp. indet.; breviterminus encased in matrix; poorly exposed; possibly not a solemyid]; Devonian, Eifel.</p> <p>? 1858b Edmondia? radiata Hall (?Hall); p. 716, pl. 29, fig. 3 [Pr1; = Clinopistha; like C. levis Meek and Worthen (1870, p. 45) but fine prosoponal radii more pronounced; holotype lost]; Coal Measures (Pennsylvanian), Iowa.</p> <p>p 1895 Janeia truncata (Goldfuss); Beushausen, p.</p> <p>296, pl. 26, figs. 4, 5, [Pr1f; like C. levis but prosoponal radii more pronounced; non text-fig. 32, p. 297]; Devonian, Eifel and Gerolstein, Germany.</p> <p>1930 Janeia truncata (Goldfuss); Quenstedt, pl. 1, figs. 4, 5, Middle Devonian, Gerolstein, Germany.</p> <p>1969 Solemya (Janeia) truncata (Goldfuss); Cox, 1969, p. N243, fig. B1,1b (copy of Quenstedt, 1930, pl. 1, fig. 4).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F017FFBAFF681D4D5FB4EA6A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F017FFBBFCE91C855AD2E955.text	03B987E8F017FFBBFCE91C855AD2E955.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Clinopistha kasanensis (Netschajew 1894) Bailey 2021	<div><p>Clinopistha? kasanensis (Netschajew, 1894) n. comb.</p> <p>Remarks. Generic identity of the Netschajew’s (1894) type material (internal molds) is questionable; shell profiles resemble Clinopistha but diagnostic characters are lacking. Kłapciński and Karwowski’s (1978) specimen is indeterminate, whereas examples of Muromtseva (1981) and Muromtseva and Guskov (1984) appear to be edmondiids.</p> <p>? 1894 Solemya (Janeia) kasanensis Netschajew, p.</p> <p>304, pl. 10, fig. 16 [possible Clinopistha ?];</p> <p>Volga River, mouth of the Kama; pl. 10, fig.</p> <p>20? [gen. indet.], Permian, Krasnowidowo,</p> <p>Volga River, Russia; pl. 10, fig. 21 [possible</p> <p>Clinopistha ?]; Permian, Bogorodskoye, Volga River, Russia.</p> <p>? 1978 Janeia kasanensis (Netschajew); Kłapciński and Karwowski, p. 73, pl. 2, fig. 14 [internal mold; Bts?; gen. indet.]; Upper Permian (middle Zechstein), Main Dolomite, Stassfurt Cyclothem, Poland.</p> <p>non 1981 Solemya (Janeia) kasanensis Netschajew; Muromtseva, p. 30, pl. 10, fig. 17 [gen. indet.; possible edmondiid]; Upper Permian, Novaya Zemlya.</p> <p>non 1984 Solemya (Janeia) kasanensis Netschajew; Muromtseva and Guskov, p. 35, pl. 41, fig. 17 [gen. indet.; possible edmondiid]; Permian, Novaya Zemlya.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F017FFBBFCE91C855AD2E955	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F016FFBBFF431A2A5F8EEDD2.text	03B987E8F016FFBBFF431A2A5F8EEDD2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dystactella biarmica (de Verneuil 1845) Bailey 2021	<div><p>Dystactella biarmica (de Verneuil, 1845) n. comb.</p> <p>Remarks. Holotype of de Verneuil (1845) is an internal mold with profile and ligament (external,</p> <p>parivincular) similar to Dystactella subnasuta (Hall and Whitfield). Shell exterior and prosopon not preserved in the holotype. Judged by Meek (1871, p.</p> <p>67) to be possible synonym of S olemya (Janeia)</p> <p>vetusta Meek (= Dystactella; see below). Solemya saginata of de Ryckholt 1854 is a possible synonym.</p> <p>1845 Solemya biarmica de Verneuil, p. 294, pl. 19, fig. 4a-b [IG, Le]; Lower Permian, Nizhny Novgorod Oblast, Russia.</p> <p>? 1848 Solemya biarmica de Verneuil; Geinitz, p. 8, pl. 3, fig. 34. [Tiny oval shell with low umbos; gen. et sp. indet.] Upper Permian, Kupferschiefer, Kamsdorf, Germany.</p> <p>non 1850 Janeia biarmica (de Verneuil); King, p. 178, pl. 16, fig. 7 [= probable pholadomyid, i.e., Wilkingia elegans (King); see Logan, 1967, p. 63]; Upper Permian, Humbledon Hill, Durham, England.</p> <p>? 1854 Solemya saginata de Ryckholt, p. 53, pl. 11, figs. 9, 10 [Pc, Pr0; = Dystactella cf. subnasuta; compares with Pojeta (1988, pl. 8 figs.</p> <p>1, 2)]; Lower Carboniferous, (Tournaisian), l’argile carbonifère, Tournai, Belgium.</p> <p>non 1858 Solemya biarmica? de Verneuil; Howse (?Howse), p. 266, pl. 11, figs. 8, 9 [formerly, Solenimya abnormis Howse, 1848, and Solemya abnormis Howse, 1857a] [= Stutchburia ? cf. modioliformis (King) sensu Logan (1967, p. 51)]; Upper Permian, Silksworth, Durham, England.</p> <p>? 1860 Solenomya biarmica? de Verneuil; Swallow and Hawn (?Swallow and Hawn), p. 190. [Material described as “imperfect”; no description, no figure; Swallow was doubtful about generic placement]; Upper Permian, Council Grove, Kansas.</p> <p>p? 1861 Solemya biarmica de Verneuil; Geinitz, p. 60, pl. 12, fig. 18 [Pc; shell form fairly consistent with D. biarmica; ligament unknown]; Upper Permian, Zaufensgraben bei Gera, Germany; non pl. 12, fig. 19 [= type of Solemya phllipisiana sensu Schauroth]; Upper Permian (lower Zechstein), Bucha, Germany.</p> <p>non 1866 Solemya biarmica de Verneuil; Geinitz, p. 15, pl. 1 fig. 22; [gives size but no description; hinge, ligamental and interior uknown; the smoothly ovoid profile, pointed subcentral umbo, and fasciculate comarginal growth laminae are unlike known solemyids; gen. et sp. indet.] Pennsylvanian, Plattsmouth Limestone Member, Oread Limestone, Nebraska City, Nebraska.</p> <p>1877 Solenomya biarmica de Verneuil; Miller, p. 204 [no figure].</p> <p>1889 Solenomya biarmica de Verneuil; Miller, p. 512 [no figure].</p> <p>non 1894 Solemya biarmica de Verneuil; Netschajew, p. 302, pl. 10, fig. 13 [gen. et. sp. indet.; probably not a solemyid]; Permian, Volga River at the mouth of the Kama.</p> <p>1896 Solemya biarmica de Verneuil; Hind, p. 24, 36 [no figure].</p> <p>non 1897 Solemya (Janeia) biarmica (de Verneuil); Diener, p. 173, pl. 8, figs. 7, 8 [= Sanguinolites ? M’Coy, 1844]; Upper Permian, Kuling Shales, south of Pomerang, India.</p> <p>? 1967 Janeia biarmica (de Verneuil); Logan, p. 60, pl. 10, fig. 11?, fig. 12? [possible Dystactella, sp. indet.; Pc, Ne, IG]; Upper Permian, Middle Magnesian Limestone, Tunstall Hill, Durham, England.</p> <p>? 1978 Janeia biarmica (de Verneuil); Kłapciński and Karwowski, p. 72, pl. 2, figs. 12, 13; [poor preservation; gen. et sp. indet.]; Upper Permian (middle Zechstein), Main Dolomite, Stassfurt Cyclothem, Poland.</p> <p>non 1984 Solemya (Janeia) biarmica (de Verneuil); Muromtseva and Guskov, p. 34, pl. 24, fig. 4a-b [= cf. Acharax sp.; Pr0, Ne, Bts?, IG]; non fig. 5 [gen. et sp. indet]; fig. 6a-b [= clinopisthin, cf. Clinopistha sp.; Pc, Ne, IG]; fig. 7 [= Dystactella ?]; Lower Permian (Kungurian), Pechora Basin, Russia.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F016FFBBFF431A2A5F8EEDD2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F016FFBBFF5A1B6059F0E820.text	03B987E8F016FFBBFF5A1B6059F0E820.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dystactella Hall and Whitfield. K 1872	<div><p>Genus DYSTACTELLA Hall and Whitfield, 1872 [= Palaeosolemya Pojeta and Runnegar, 1985]</p> <p>Type species. By monotypy, Tellinomya subnasuta Hall and Whitfield, 1872, lower Givetian (upper Middle Devonian) near Louisville, Kentucky.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F016FFBBFF5A1B6059F0E820	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F016FF84FCF51FE5595EEE22.text	03B987E8F016FF84FCF51FE5595EEE22.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dystactella vetusta (Meek 1871) Bailey 2021	<div><p>Dystactella vetusta (Meek, 1871) n. comb.</p> <p>Remarks. Judged by Meek (1871, p. 67) to be possible synonym of S olemya biarmica de Verneuil. Pojeta (1988, p. 217) placed Hall’s (1885)</p> <p>examples of Dystactella vetusta (Meek) in Dystactella valvulus (Hall and Whitfield). See D. valvulus (below).</p> <p>1871 Solemya (Janeia) vetusta Meek, p. 66 [description only; no figure]; Devonian, Corniferous Group, Dublin, Franklin Co., Ohio.</p> <p>1873 Solemya (Janeia) vetusta Meek; Meek, p. 206, pl. 18, fig. 4 [Pr1, Ne]; Devonian, Corniferous Group, Dublin, Franklin Co., Ohio.</p> <p>1877 Solenomya vetusta Meek; Miller, p. 204 [no figure].</p> <p>1878 Solenomya vetusta Meek; Bigsby, p. 76 [no figure]; Corniferous Limestone, Dublin, Franklin Co., Ohio.</p> <p>non 1885 Solemya (Janeia) vetusta Meek; Hall, p. 463, pl. 45, figs. 53-55; pl. 94, fig. 10 [= Dystactella valvulus (Hall and Whitfield); see Pojeta, 1988, p. 217].</p> <p>1889 Solenomya vetusta Meek; Miller, p. 512, fig. 922 [figure copied from Meek, 1873, pl. 18, fig. 4].</p> <p>1890 Solemya (Janeia) vetusta Meek; Lesley, p. 972 [figure copied from Meek, 1873, pl. 18, fig. 4].</p> <p>1901 Solemya (Janeia) vetusta Meek; Kindle, p. 690, pl. 16, figs. 1, 1a-b, 2 [Pc, Pr1, Ne, IG]; Middle Devonian, Sellersburg beds; Watson, Indiana, and Falls of the Ohio.</p> <p>non 1944 Solemya? vetusta Meek; Shimer and Shrock (?Shimer and Shrock), p. 369, pl. 44, figs. 1, 2 [with figure copies of Hall, 1885, pl. 47, figs. 53, 55; Pojeta (1988, p. 217) referred these to Dystactella valvulus.]; Middle Devonian (Onondaga-Hamilton), New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F016FF84FCF51FE5595EEE22	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F029FF84FF411C35599FEDD4.text	03B987E8F029FF84FF411C35599FEDD4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dystactella subnasuta Hall and Whitfield 1872	<div><p>Dystactella cf. subnasuta Hall and Whitfield, 1872</p> <p>Remarks. Dystactella subnasuta Hall and Whitfield was reviewed by Pojeta (1988, p. 217); items in his brief synonymy are omitted here as none were referred either to Solemya or Janeia.</p> <p>p 1884 Solenomya curta Walcott, p. 242, pl. 22, fig. 11 [Pc, Pr1; = Dystactella cf. subnasuta (Hall and Whitfield, 1872); hinge, ligament and interior unknown]; non pl. 22, fig. 6 [Pc, Pr1; = Clinopistha cf. levis Meek and Worthen]; Lower Carboniferous, Eureka District, Nevada.</p> <p>? 1889 Solenomya curta Walcott; Miller, p. 512 [no figure]; Subcarboniferous, Nevada.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F029FF84FF411C35599FEDD4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F029FF84FF571FE05F22EDBC.text	03B987E8F029FF84FF571FE05F22EDBC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dystactella valvulus (Hall and Whitfield 1872)	<div><p>Dystactella valvulus (Hall and Whitfield, 1872)</p> <p>Remarks. Reviewed by Pojeta (1988, p. 217). Hall (1885) placed Yoldia? vetusta Hall and Whitfield in synonymy with Solemya (Janeia) vetusta Meek.</p> <p>Pojeta (1988, p. 217) placed Hall’s (1885) examples of Dystactella vetusta (Meek) in Dystactella valvulus (Hall and Whitfield). See D. vetusta</p> <p>(above).</p> <p>non 1871 Solemya (Janeia) vetusta Meek, p. 66 [description only; no figure]; Devonian, Corniferous Group, Dublin, Franklin Co., Ohio.</p> <p>1872 Yoldia? valvulus Hall and Whitfield (?Hall and Whitfield), p. 190 [description only; figures published in Hall and Whitfield, 1875, pl. 11, figs. 18-20]; Middle Devonian, Hydraulic Beds near Louisville, Kentucky.</p> <p>non 1873 Solemya (Janeia) vetusta Meek; Meek, p.</p> <p>206, pl. 18, fig. 4 [Pr1, Ne]; Devonian, Corniferous Group, Dublin, Franklin Co., Ohio.</p> <p>1875 Yoldia? valvulus Hall and Whitfield (?Hall and Whitfield), pl. 11, figs. 18-20 [Pc, Ne; figures to accompany description in Hall and Whitfield, 1872, p. 190].</p> <p>1883 Yoldia? valvulus Hall and Whitfield (?Hall and Whitfield); Hall, pl. 47, figs. 53-55 [Pc, Ne; figures copied from Hall and Whitfield, 1875, pl. 11, figs. 18-20].</p> <p>1885 Solemya (Janeia) vetusta Meek; Hall, p. 463, pl. 47, figs. 53-55 [Pc, Ne; figures copied from Hall and Whtifield, 1875, pl. 11, figs. 18- 20]; Middle Devonian Hamilton Group, near Louisville, Kentucky; pl. 94, fig. 10 [Prs, Ne]; Hamilton Group, Charlestown, Indiana.</p> <p>1889 Yoldia? valvulus Hall and Whitfield (?Hall and Whitfield); Nettleroth, p. 223, pl. 4, figs. 4, 5 [Pc, Pr0, Ne]; Devonian, from the cherty layers above the Hydraulic Limestone, Jefferson Co., Kentucky, and Clark Co., Indiana.</p> <p>1944 Solemya? vetusta Meek; Shimer and Shrock (?Shimer and Shrock), p. 369, pl. 44, figs. 1, 2 [figures copied from Hall, 1885, pl. 47, figs. 53, 55], Middle Devonian (Onondaga-Hamilton), New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky.</p> <p>1988 Dystactella valvulus (Hall and Whitfield); Pojeta, p. 217, pl. 10, figs. 1-4 [Prs, Pr1, Ne; these specimens used by Nettleroth (1889) for his description and figures]; Middle Devonian (Lower Givetian), Silver Creek Limestone Member, Falls of the Ohio, Clark Co., Indiana.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F029FF84FF571FE05F22EDBC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F029FF85FC1F1F88594EE87A.text	03B987E8F029FF85FC1F1F88594EE87A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dystactella excisa (de Koninck 1885)	<div><p>Dystactella excisa (de Koninck, 1885)</p> <p>Remarks. A species of Dystactella with large, well-defined external ligament on the brevidorsum. The lost undescribed (nom. nud.) specimen of Solemya symesii figured by Baily (1880) is nearly identical to de Koninck’s (1885, pl. 9, figs. 13, 14) type of Solemya excisa; other specimens of de Koninck attributed to S. excisa are indeterminate. Because the trivial name, excisa, is applied first to pl. 9, figs.</p> <p>13, 14, it is here given priority.</p> <p>1880 Solemya symesii Baily, p. 22. [no description (nom. nud.); based on two unnumbered figures of a single specimen, now lost; strong external ligament; similar to de Koninck’s (1885, pl. 9 figs. 13, 14) examples of Solemya excisa]; lower limestone series, Easky, Bunowna, Co. Sligo, Ireland.</p> <p>p 1885 Solemya excisa de Koninck, p. 122, pl. 9, figs. 13, 14, pl. 23, figs. 30, 39, 40, non pl. 23, fig. 42, 43 [gen. et sp. indet.]; Lower Carboniferous, (Tournaisian) calcaire carbonifère, Tournai, Belgium.</p> <p>non 1900 Solemya excisa de Koninck; Hind, p. 441, non pl. 50, figs. 11, 14?, 15 [ventrally embayed; Pc, Pr1; = Acharax cf. normali s sensu Howse]; Lower Carboniferous, Lowick, Northumberland; non pl. 50 figs. 12, 16 [Pc, Pr2, Bts, PAe; = Acharax cf. costellata]; Carboniferous, Ardross, Scotland.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F029FF85FC1F1F88594EE87A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F028FF85FF681A4D596DEEE7.text	03B987E8F028FF85FF681A4D596DEEE7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dystactella silurica (Liljedahl 1984) Bailey 2021	<div><p>Dystactella? silurica (Liljedahl, 1984) n. comb.</p> <p>Remarks. Possibly a new subgenus of Dystactella.</p> <p>Pojeta (1988) reassigned Janeia silurica to Dystactella, but because of its uniquely asymmetric ligament support structures, Bailey (2011, p. 20)</p> <p>suggested placement in a new genus very close to</p> <p>Dystactella s. s.].</p> <p>1984a Janeia silurica Liljedahl, p. 28, figs. 4, 13-15, 34:5. Silurian (Upper Wenlockian), Halla beds, Mölbos, Gotland.</p> <p>1984b Janeia silurica Liljedahl; Liljedahl, p. 693-698, text-figs. 1-3. Silurian (Upper Wenlockian), Halla beds, Mölbos, Gotland.</p> <p>1988 Dystactella silurica (Liljedahl); Pojeta, 1988, p. 215.</p> <p>1991 Janeia silurica Liljedahl; Liljedahl, p. 222, text-figs. 2E-G, 3.</p> <p>1994 Janeia silurica Liljedahl; Liljedahl, p. 12, etc.</p> <p>2011 Dystactella? silurica (Liljedahl); Bailey (?Bailey), 2011, p. 20; text-fig. 4.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F028FF85FF681A4D596DEEE7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F028FF85FC1B1A105E02ED8A.text	03B987E8F028FF85FC1B1A105E02ED8A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Edmondia anodontoides (Meek 1875)	<div><p>Edmondia anodontoides (Meek, 1875)</p> <p>Remarks. Studies prior to Morningstar (1922)</p> <p>placed the species in Solemya. Restudy of Hoare,</p> <p>Sturgeon, and Kindt (1979) accepted it as Edmondia.</p> <p>1875 Solenomya? anondontoides Meek (?Meek), p. 339, pl. 19, fig. 11 [hinge, ligament and interior unknown; Meek called it a possible Edmondia]; Pennsylvanian, Newark, Ohio.</p> <p>1877 Solenomya anodontoides, Meek; Miller, p. 204 [no figure].</p> <p>1886 Solenomya anondontoides Meek; Claypole, p. 241-242 [no description, or figure]; Pennsylvanian, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.</p> <p>1887 Solenomya? anodontoides Meek (?Meek); Herrick, p. 29, pl. 4, fig. 10 [Pc(strong); possible Edmondia, but hinge, ligament and interior unknown. Herrick was doubtful about generic placement]; Pennsylvanian, Flint Ridge, Ohio.</p> <p>1889 Solenomya anodontoides Meek; Miller, p. 512 [no figure].</p> <p>1922 Edmondia anodontoides? (Meek); Morningstar (?Morningstar), p. 196 [description/discussion but no figure; judged Meek’s and Herrick’s specimens to be disparate species]; Pennsylvanian, Perry Co., Ohio.</p> <p>1979 Edmondia anodontoides (Meek); Hoare, Sturgeon and Kindt, p. 57, pl. 15, figs. 12-14; Pennsylvanian, Brush Creek, Ohio.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F028FF85FC1B1A105E02ED8A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F028FF85FE851F735A03EDD3.text	03B987E8F028FF85FE851F735A03EDD3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Edmondia de Koninck 1842	<div><p>Genus EDMONDIA De Koninck, 1842</p> <p>Type species. By original designation, Isocardia unioniformis Phillips, 1836, Carboniferous, Bolland, Yorkshire.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F028FF85FE851F735A03EDD3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F028FF85FF591FE55F06E9C5.text	03B987E8F028FF85FF591FE55F06E9C5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Edmondia soleniformis (Cox 1857) Bailey 2021	<div><p>Edmondia? soleniformis (Cox, 1857) new comb.</p> <p>Remarks. Cox’s (1857) type incomplete; umbo subcentral, broad and elevated; prosopon with regular comarginal lirae, closely spaced and distinct;</p> <p>radii lacking; hinge, ligament and interior unknown.</p> <p>Placed in Solemya by Cox (1857), Keyes (1888)</p> <p>and Hind (1896). Not a solemyid; probable edmondiid: Edmondia ?</p> <p>? 1857 Solenimya soleniformis Cox, p. 573, pl. 9, fig. 5; [Pc(strong), Pr0; = Edmondia ?]; Pennsylvanian, Coal Measures, Union Co., Kentucky.</p> <p>1877 Solenomya soleniformis Cox; Miller, p. 204 [no figure].</p> <p>1888 Solenomya soleniformis Cox; Keyes, 1888, p. 234 [no figure or description; Keyes compared it to Solenimya soleniformis sensu Cox but larger]; Lower Coal Measures (Pennsylvanian), Des Moines, Iowa.</p> <p>1889 Solenomya soleniformis Cox; Miller, p. 512 [no figure].</p> <p>1896 Solemya soleniformis Cox; Hind, 1896, p. 29 [no figure].</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F028FF85FF591FE55F06E9C5	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F028FF86FC161FDD58C8EA46.text	03B987E8F028FF86FC161FDD58C8EA46.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Edmondia meekiana (Herrick 1887)	<div><p>Edmondia meekiana (Herrick, 1887)</p> <p>Remark. Solemya? meekiana Herrick subsequently accepted as Edmondia.</p> <p>1887 Solenomya? meekiana Herrick (?Herrick), p.</p> <p>30, pl. 4, fig. 9 [hinge, ligament, interior unknown; probable Edmondia. Herrick noted similarities to Edmondia reflexa Meek (1872, p. 233, pl. 4, fig. 7) but did not accept it as a synonym]; Pennsylvanian Coal Measures, Flint Ridge, Ohio.</p> <p>1922 Edmondia meekiana? (Herrick); Morningstar (?Morningstar), p. 198, pl. 10, fig. 6; Pennsylvanian, Lower Mercer Limestone, Flint Ridge, Ohio.</p> <p>? 1958 Edmondia meekiana (Herrick); Wanless, p.</p> <p>44 [no figure]; Pennsylvanian, Liverpool Cyclothem, western Illinois.</p> <p>1979 Edmondia meekiana (Herrick); Hoare, Sturgeon and Kindt, p. 58, pl. 16, figs. 6, 7; Pennsylvanian, Lower Mercer unit, Flint Ridge, Ohio.</p> <p>? 1983 Edmondia aff. E. meekiana (Herrick); Kues (aff. Kues), p. 80 [no figure]; Middle Pennsylvanian, Upper Los Moyos Limestone, Cedro, New Mexico.</p> <p>ORDER CARDIIDA Férussac, 1822</p> <p>SUPERFAMILY KALENTEROIDEA Marwick, 1953</p> <p>FAMILY KALENTERIDAE, Marwick, 1953</p> <p>Genus PLEUROPHORELLA Girty, 1904</p> <p>Type species. Pleurophorella papillosa Girty, 1904 by original designation, Graham Limestone, Pennsylvanian (Cisco), Young County, Texas.</p> <p>Remarks. Janeia? compressa (Goldfuss) Beushausen (1895) and Janeia laevigata (Goldfuss) Beushausen (1895) are not solemyids; both are here provisionally placed in Pleurophorella. Shell posteriorly elongated, somewhat modioliform, laterally compressed with well-defined lunule and long escutcheon; hinges and internal morphologies unknown.</p> <p>Pleurophorella ? aff. transversa (de Koninck, 1842)</p> <p>Remarks. Janeia? compressa (Goldfuss)</p> <p>Beushausen compares with Sanguinolaria compressa Goldfuss and with Pleurophorella transversa (de Koninck). Beushausen himself was uncertain about generic placement.</p> <p>? 1840 Sanguinolaria compressa Goldfuss, 1840, p. 280, pl. 159, fig. 16a-b [= Beushausen’s type of J.? compressa; hinge and interior unknown; well-defined lunule and long escutcheon]; Devonian, Uebergangskalk, Eifel.</p> <p>? 1842 Cypricardia transversa de Koninck, p. 94, pl. 1, fig. 3, pl. 3, fig. 8? [compares with but not identical to S. compressa Goldfuss]; Lower Carboniferous, (Tournaisian), Tournai, Belgium.</p> <p>1895 Janeia? compressa (Goldfuss); Beushausen (?Beushausen) 1895, p. 297, pl. 26, fig. 1a-c [compares with S. compressa Goldfuss; hinge and ligament unknown; Pr0]; Devonian, Daleiden, Germany.</p> <p>? 1991 Pleurophorella transversa (de Koninck); Morris et al. (1991, p. 87, fig. 41) [compares with J.? compressa sensu Beushausen]; Lower Carboniferous, (Tournaisian) Tournai, Belgium.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F028FF86FC161FDD58C8EA46	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F02BFF86FB8818915FD0E8DE.text	03B987E8F02BFF86FB8818915FD0E8DE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pleurophorella Girty 1904	<div><p>Pleurophorella ? sp.</p> <p>Remarks. Beushausen’s poorly exposed type of Janeia laevigata (i.e., Sanguinolaria laevigata Goldfuss) is indeterminate. Beushausen’s (1895, pl. 26, fig. 2a-c) example of Janeia laevigata compares with Pleurophorella sp. Morris et al., 1991, fig. 40, Upper Pennsylvanian, Graham Formation, Texas, and also with? Pleurophorella cuneata (Phillips) (Morris et al., 1991, p. 88, fig. 42), Lower Carboniferous (Viséan), Yorkshire.</p> <p>non 1840 Sanguinolaria laevigata Goldfuss, p. 279, pl.</p> <p>149, fig. 14; [gen. indet., nom. dub.; a partially exposed, unidentifiable shell; probably not a solemyid]; Devonian, Eifel.</p> <p>p 1895 Janeia laevigata (Goldfuss); Beushausen, p.</p> <p>294, pl. 26, fig. 2a-c [possible Pleurophorella;</p> <p>hinge and interior unknown]; Devonian,</p> <p>Daleiden, Germany; non pl. 26, fig. 8 [copy of</p> <p>Goldfuss’ type, gen. indet.].</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F02BFF86FB8818915FD0E8DE	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F02BFF86FCE31AE95E07ED34.text	03B987E8F02BFF86FCE31AE95E07ED34.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pleurophorella Girty 1904	<div><p>Pleurophorella ? cf. tricostata (Portlock, 1843)</p> <p>Remark. Different from Beushausen’s other Janeia laevigata; compares with Sanguinolites striatogranulatus Hind, considered by Morris et al. (1991) as possibly synonymous with Pleurophorella tricostata</p> <p>(Portlock).</p> <p>p 1895 Janeia laevigata (Goldfuss); Beushausen, p.</p> <p>294, pl. 26, fig. 3a-b [Pc, Pr2; with buttresslike feature]; Middle Devonian, Gerolstein, Germany; non pl. 26, fig. 2a-c; Devonian Daleiden, Germany.</p> <p>? 1900 Sanguinolites striatograunulatus Hind, p.</p> <p>393-394, pl. 42, figs. 16-22; Lower Carboniferous, Isle of Man, Yorkshire, and Ireland.</p> <p>? 1991 Pleuorphorella tricostata (Portlock); Morris et al., p. 87, fig. 38a-h; Lower Carboniferous, Isle of Man, Yorkshire, and Ireland.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F02BFF86FCE31AE95E07ED34	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
03B987E8F02BFF81FC011F075F26EF7D.text	03B987E8F02BFF81FC011F075F26EF7D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Stutchburia Etheridge 1900	<div><p>Genus STUTCHBURIA Etheridge, 1900</p> <p>Type species. By original designation, Orthonota? costata Morris, 1845; Permian, southeastern Australia.</p> <p>Remarks. Needs further study. Logan’s (1967) placement of Cardiomorpha modioliformis King in Stutchburia is uncertain. Although the subquadrate shell profile and coarse radial ribs of the type species are lacking, Logan (1967, p. 50) argued that Etheridge’s original definition of Stutchburia was broadly defined to include forms with a modioloid outline and variable prosopon.</p> <p>Stutchburia ? cf. modioliformis (King, 1850) sp. inq.</p> <p>Remark. Howse’s (1857a, pl. 4, figs. 8, 9) simple drawing of Solemya abnormis Howse superficially compares with Stutchburia modioliformis (King,</p> <p>1850), but hinge, ligament, and interior unknown.</p> <p>1848 Solenimya abnormis Howse, p. 244 [description only; Pc, Pr0; prosopon with comarginal “waves”; anisomyarian; adductor muscles deeply impressed; hinge and ligament unknown; not a solemyid]; Upper Permian, Magnesian Limestone, Silksworth and Tunstall.</p> <p>non 1850 Janeia biarmica (de Verneuil); King, p. 178 (non de Verneuil, 1845); [no figure; in error, King considered Solenomya abnormis of Howse to be a junior synonym of J. biarmica (de Verneuil).</p> <p>? p 1850 Cardiomorpha modioliformis King, p. 180, pl. 14, 20-22; non figs. 18, 19, 23; Upper Permian, “Shell-Limestone”, Tunstall Hill, Ryehope Field-House-Farm and Humbleton Quarry, Durham, England.</p> <p>1857a Solemya abnormis Howse; Howse, p. 309; pl. 4, figs. 8, 9 [figures to accompany 1848 description; Pc, Pr0; modioloid profile, anisomyarian, not a solemyid]; Upper Permian, “Shell-Limestone”, Silksworth, Durham, England.</p> <p>1858 Solemya biarmica? de Verneuil; Howse (?Howse), p. 266, pl. 11, figs. 8, 9 [same specimen was shown by Howse (1857a) under the name of Solemya abnormis]; Upper Permian, “Shell Limestone”, Silksworth, Durham, England.</p> <p>? 1967 Stutchburia modioliformis (King); Logan, p. 51, pl. 8, fig. 8a-e (= lectotype); [compares with both Solemya abnormis Howse and Cardiomorpha modioliformis King]; Upper Permian, Middle Magnesian Limestone, Tunstall Hill, Durham, England.</p> <p>? p 1981 Stutchburia modioliformis (King); Muromtseva, p. 41, pl. 10, fig. 11?, non 12a [gen. et sp. indet.]; Permian, Novaya Zemlya.</p> <p>? 1984 Stutchburia modioliformis (King); Muromtseva and Guskov, p. 85, pl. 5, pl. 5, figs. 2, 10, 11; pl. 24, fig. 9a-b [compares with Solemya abnorm is Howse]; Upper Permian, Russian Platform, Urals and Pechora Basin.</p> <p>PROBLEMATICA (incertae sedis)</p> <p>Remarks. The following listings marked ?? are either generically indeterminate or misidentified, etc. See comments in brackets.</p> <p>?? Solenomya phillipsiana King, 1850, p. 179, pl. 16, fig. 8. [nom. dub.; Howse (1849, p. 9) called it a “mere fiction” based allegedly on nonexistent material from the “Shell-Limestone”]; Humbledon Quarry, Durham, England.</p> <p>non 1854 Solenomya phillipsiana King; Schauroth, p.</p> <p>553, pl. 21, fig. 5 [Pc, Pr1; gen.indet.]; Upper</p> <p>Permian (lower Zechstein), Bucha, Germany.</p> <p>non 1861 Solemya biarmica de Verneuil; Geinitz, p. 60, pl. 12, fig. 19a-c [gen. indet.; Schauroth’s original specimen of S. phillipsiana was refigured but significantly altered and reassigned in error by Geinitz to S. biarmica]; Upper Permian (lower Zechstein), Bucha, Germany.</p> <p>?? Solemya arcuata (Philllips); de Ryckholt, (1847)</p> <p>1854, p. 52 [no figure; not a solemyid; based solely on earlier studies of Phillips and King]; Lower Carboniferous, (Tournaisian) l’argile carbonifère, Tournai, Belgium.</p> <p>? 1836 Sanguinolaria? arcuata Phillips (?Phillips) 1836, p. 209, pl. 5, fig. 4 [possible mytilid, aff. Lithophaga Röding, 1798]; Harelaw, Northumberland, England.</p> <p>non 1849 Sanguinolites arcuatus (Phillips); Brown, p.</p> <p>219, pl. 90, fig. 16 [drawing after Phillips; possible mytilid, aff. Lithophaga].</p> <p>non 1850 Edmondia arcuata (Phillips); King, p. 164 [no figure].</p> <p>non 1899 Edmondia arcuata (Phillips); Hind, p. 310, pl. 35, fig. 2 [= Acharax ?; solemyiform shell, expanded brevidorsal auricle; Bts?, PAe?, Pc, Pr0]; fig. 3 [like fig. 2 but with fine radial ornament; Pc, Pr1]; Carboniferous, Redesdale Ironstone series, Northumberland; non pl. 35, figs. 1, 4, 6-10; Hurlet Limestone, St.</p> <p>Monans, Fife, and Redesdale Ironstone, Northumberland.</p> <p>non 1903 Edmondia? arcuata Cleland (?Cleland), 1903, p. 44, pl. 4, figs. 5-7 [= possible Edmondia but junior homonym of Edmondia arcuata (Phillips)]; Ordovician (Beekmantown), New York.</p> <p>?? Solemya devonica de Ryckholt (1847) 1854, p.</p> <p>51, pl. 16, figs. 16, 17; [gen. indet.; possible solemyid based on description, but fig. 16 is badly flawed, described by de Ryckolt himself, p. 51, as</p> <p>“plus inexacte”]; Devonian, Eifel.</p> <p>1878 Solenomya devonica de Ryckholt; Bigsby, p. 76 [no figure]; Devonian, Eifel, Paffrath, Germany.</p> <p>?? Solemya parallela de Ryckholt, (1847) 1854, p.</p> <p>51, pl. 11, figs. 11, 12. [non Solenomya parallela</p> <p>Beede and Rogers (1899); Pr0; parallel dorsal and ventral margins; beaks placed at extreme breviterminus; treated by Hind (1899, p. 318) as possible synonym of Edmondia sulcata Phillips, 1836; not a solemyid; possible pholadomyid, cf. Wilkingia Wilson, 1959]; Lower Carboniferous, (Tournaisian)</p> <p>Tournai, Belgium.</p> <p>non 1885 Solemya parallela de Ryckholt; de Koninck, p. 121, pl. 23, figs. 35, 36 [possible solemyid?, Pr0, Ne?]; non figs. 37, 38 [= Edmondia, cf. arcuata (Phillips)]; Lower Carboniferous, (Tournaisian), calschiste de Tournai, Belgium.</p> <p>?? Solemya (?) recurvata Swallow (?Swallow) 1858,</p> <p>p. 208-209 [gen. indet.; description only; no figure;</p> <p>described as showing the remains of an external ligament; recurving gibbous shell, large beaks;</p> <p>comarginal growth laminae described; radii not indicated]; Upper Coal Measures, Clifton Park,</p> <p>Kansas.</p> <p>1877 Solenomya recurvata Swallow; Miller, p. 204 [no figure].</p> <p>1889 Solenomya recurvata Swallow; Miller, p. 512 [no figure].</p> <p>1896 Solemya recurvata Swallow; Hind, p. 29 [no figure].</p> <p>?? Solenomya monroensis Worthen, 1884, p. 13.</p> <p>[gen. indet.; description only; no figure; size small with comarginal growth lines; ligament, hinge and interior unknown]; Mississippian, St. Louis Limestone, Monroe Co., Illinois.</p> <p>1889 Solenomya monroensis Worthen; Miller, p.</p> <p>512 [no figure].</p> <p>1896 Solenomya monroensis Worthen; Hind, p. 52 [no figure].</p> <p>1890 Solenomya monroensis Worthen; Worthen, p. 131, pl. 18, fig. 5, 5a [copy of 1884 description; figure 5 shows umbo too narrow and prominent for a solemyid; radii lacking; evenly spaced comarginal growth varices; oblique longiterminus with longidorsum slightly elevated; dorsum (Worthen’s fig. 5a) shows no evidence of ligament; form suggestive of Edmondia].</p> <p>?? Solenomya varsoviensis Worthen, 1884, p. 12 [no figure; description of the shell form and size; ligament, hinge, and interior unknown]; Mississippian,</p> <p>Keokuk Limestone, Warsaw, Illinois.</p> <p>1889 Solenomya varsoviensis Worthen; Miller, p.</p> <p>512 [no figure].</p> <p>? 1890 Solenomya varsoviensis Worthen; Worthen, p. 131 [copy of 1884 description], pl. 19, fig. 7 [not a solemyid; featureless; outline compares with Edmondia ovata Meek and Worthen, 1873]; non pl. 19, fig. 8, 8a [not a solemyid; smooth outer surface; posteriorly elongate and expanded; dorsal view shows no ligament; concave posterodorsal margin; possibly with large posterior gape; probable pholadomyid, cf. Chaenomya Meek, 1864; compares with Anelli et al., fig. 7A]; Mississippian, Keokuk Limestone, Warsaw, Illinois.</p> <p>1896 Solenomya varsoviensis Worthen; Hind, 1896, p. 52 [no figure].</p> <p>?? Solenomya? iowensis Worthen (?Worthen), 1884,</p> <p>p. 13 [no figure; size (small) and shell shape described; ornament, ligament and internal features unknown]; Mississippian, St. Louis Limestone, Pella, Iowa.</p> <p>1889 Solenomya iowensis Worthen; Miller, p. 512 [no figure].</p> <p>1890 Solenomya? iowensis Worthen (?Worthen); Worthen, p. 132 [copy of 1884 description]; pl. 19, fig. 5, 5a [not a solemyid; possible kalenterid, cf. Pleurophorella ? Girty, 1904; compares with Anelli et al., 2009, fig. 2H]; Mississippian, St. Louis Limestone, Pella, Iowa.</p> <p>1896 Solenomya? iowensis Worthen (?Worthen); Hind, p. 52 [no figure].</p> <p>?? Solenomya subradiata Herrick, 1887, p. 30, pl. 3,</p> <p>fig. 8. [gen. indet.; possible solemyid? Shell thin,</p> <p>somewhat solemyiform with prosoponal radii, but umbos too prominent; protruding heel on breviterminus; hinge, ligament, and interior unknown];</p> <p>Coal Measures, (Pennsylvanian), Flint Ridge,</p> <p>Ohio.</p> <p>?? Solenomya ? cuyahogensis Herrick (?Herrick),</p> <p>1888, p. 115, pl.10, fig. 1 [gen. indet.; short valves,</p> <p>very small and conjoined; probably not a bivalve;</p> <p>possible conchostracan. Herrick thought it might be</p> <p>Edmondia]; Lower Mississippian, Waverly Group,</p> <p>Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.</p> <p>? 1895 Solenomya ? cuyahogensis Herrick (?Herrick); Herrick, pl. 22, fig. 25 [gen. indet.; short valves, very small and conjoined – possible conchostracan]; Carboniferous, Cuyahoga Shale, Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.</p> <p>?? Janeia phaseolina (Goldfuss); Beushausen,</p> <p>1895, p. 295 pl. 26, figs. 6, 7, 9 [a heterogeneous mix].</p> <p>? 1840 Sanginolaria phaseolina Goldfuss, p. 279, pl. 159, fig. 15 [gen. et sp. indet; Pc, Pr1; elevated umbos, hinge, ligament and interior unknown]; Devonian, Eifel.</p> <p>non 1855 Edmondia phaseolina (Goldfuss); M’Coy, 1855, p. 502. Lower Carboniferous limestone, Lowick, Northumberland; [= Edmondia lowickensis Hind, 1899, p. 296, pl. 33, figs. 1-</p> <p>4]; Carboniferous, Fourlaws Limestone, Coombs, Northumberland, etc.</p> <p>? 1895 Janeia phaseolina (Goldfuss); Beushausen, pl. 26, fig. 9 [copy of Goldfuss’s type; differs slightly, hinge, ligament and interior unknown; Pc; gen. et sp. indet.; possible edmondiid?].</p> <p>? 1895 Janeia phaseolina (Goldfuss); Beushausen, p. 296, text-fig. 31 [differs from Goldfuss’ type; hinge, ligament, and interior uniknown = Edmondia ?]; Middle Devonian, Gerolstein, Germany.</p> <p>? 1895 Janeia phaseolina (Goldfuss); Beushausen, pl. 26, fig. 6 [differs in form Goldfuss’ type and from text-fig. 31; shell thick; Pc (strong), buttress lacking; hinge and ligament uknown; = Edmondia ?]; Devonian, Eifel.</p> <p>? 1895 Janeia phaseolina (Goldfuss); Beushausen, pl. 26, fig. 7, [significantly differs from Beushausen’s other examples of J. phaseolina; short, sulcate shell with tumid umbos; possible sanguinolitid, = Myofossa ? Waterhouse]; Middle Devonian, Gerolstein, Germany.</p> <p>?? Solenomya brevis Hind, 1907, p. 351, pl. 2, figs.</p> <p>45, 47 [Pr0; gen.indet.; non-solemyid shell profile;</p> <p>hinge, ligament and interior unknown]; Carboniferous, Millstone Grit, Coatbridge, Dumbartonshire,</p> <p>Scotland.</p> <p>?? Solenomya ? sharonensis Morningstar (?Morningstar), 1922, p. 194, pl. 10, figs. 1, 2, [not a solemyid; characters include small but prominent umbos, nasute longiterminus; straight/slightly declining hinge line; possible modiomorphoid, aff. Sphenotomorpha Williams and Breger, 1916]; Pennsylvanian, Scioto Co., Ohio.</p> <p>?? Solenomya sp. McKee, 1938, pl. 15, fig. 4. [gen. indet; not a solemyid; Pr0; ventrally embayed; alate; elevated subcentral umbos]; pl. 15, fig. 10 [gen. indet.; Kues and Lucas (1989, p. 171) called it Sanguinolites ?]; Permian, ‘β’ member, Kaibab Formation, Grand Canyon, Arizona.</p> <p>?? Solemya (Janeia) elliptica Zhang, 1977, p. 526, pl. 200, figs. 16, 17 [Pr2; possible solemyin, cf. Acharax ?, but ligament and internal morphology not observed]; Permian, south-central (Hubei, Hunan), China.</p> <p>?? Solemya (Janeia) minuta Zhang, 1977, p. 526, pl. 200, fig. 18 [Pr2; hinge, ligament not observed, possible solemyin?]; Permian, south-central (Lichuan, Hubei) China.</p> <p>?? Solemya (Janeia) sp. Kues and Lucas, 1989, p. 171, fig. 3A-C [gen. indet.; poorly preserved]; Permian, San Andres Formation, Ojo Caliente, New Mexico.</p> <p>?? Solemya (Jania) [sic] sp. Hoare, 2007, p. 65, fig. 3.20; [gen. indet.; broken shell with radiating ridges intersected by coarse comarginal discontinuities; probably not a solemyid]; Mississippian, Maxville Limestone, Ohio.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B987E8F02BFF81FC011F075F26EF7D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bailey, Jack Bowman	Bailey, Jack Bowman (2021): The genera that never were: The impact of Janeia and Janacekia on phyletic and taxonomic relations within the Solemyidae (Bivalvia: Protobranchia). Palaeontologia Electronica (a 12) 24 (1): 1-47, DOI: 10.26879/945, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.26879/945
