A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE CONODONTS WITH DE- 

 SCRIPTIONS OF EARLY MISSISSIPPIAN SPECIES 



By Grace B. Holmes 

 Of the Eastern High School, Washington, D. C. 



INTRODUCTION 



The present contributions to the study of the conodonts was pre- 

 pared at the suggestion of Dr. R. S. Bassler and under his direction in 

 the paleontological laboratory of the United States National Museum 

 where extensive collections of these toothlike structures were avail- 

 able. As Doctors Ulrich and Bassler had just completed their paper 

 on the classification of the conodonts and had applied their new 

 classification in the description of an Upper Devonian fauna of 

 western New York and an early Mississippian one from Tennessee, 

 it was thought best that my work should carry these studies to the 

 Mississippian rocks of Alabama and also include for the ready refer- 

 ence by students illustrations of previously described species, with 

 exception of three publications, and a bibliography of the group. 

 The exceptions mentioned refer to the work of Bryant in 1921, 

 Ulrich and Bassler in 1926, and Roundy in 1926, copies of which 

 are still available to the student. 



ZOOLOGICAL AFFINITIES OF THE CONODONTS 



The affinities of the conodonts have been a subject of controversy 

 almost since their discovery by Pander in 1856. That there was no 

 doubt in Pander's mind as to their relationship may be ascertained 

 from the title of his monograph. He studied the internal as well 

 as the external structure of the fossils and saw in their formation 

 fishlike characters somewhat of the Selachian type. 



The question concerning the affinities of these fossils seems to 

 have had its birth in the mind of Dr. J. S. Newberry, of Ohio, who 

 after studying specimens found in the Cleveland shales remained 

 undecided for some years whether they were Marsipobranchii 

 (Cyclostomata) or Annelids. 



Hinde, who made the m.ost comprehensive study of conodonts of 

 any paleontologist up to Bryant's work of 1921, classified them as 

 primitive vertebrates, probably Myxinoids. He based his conclu- 

 sions upon two facts: First, no gastropods which possessed such 



No. 2701.— Proceedings U. S. Natjonal Museum, Vol. 72. Art. 5. 



55414—28 -1 1 



