Basic info Taxonomic history Classification Relationships
Morphology Ecology and taphonomy   Age range and collections

Goliathiceras

Cephalopoda - Ammonitida - Cardioceratidae

Taxonomy
Goliathiceras was named by Buckman (1919) [Sepkoski's age data: J Oxfo-l J Oxfo-u]. It is not extant.

It was assigned to Ammonoidea by Sepkoski (2002); and to Cardioceratinae by Arkell et al. (1957) and Wright (2012).

Synonymy list
YearName and author
1919Goliathiceras Buckman
1957Goliathiceras Arkell et al. p. 304
2002Goliathiceras Sepkoski, Jr.
2012Goliathiceras Wright

Is something missing? Join the Paleobiology Database and enter the data

RankNameAuthor
kingdomAnimalia()
Bilateria
EubilateriaAx 1987
Protostomia
Spiralia
Schizocoela
phylumMollusca
classCephalopodaCuvier 1797
RankNameAuthor
subclassAmmonoidea(Zittel 1884)
orderAmmonitidaHyatt 1889
suborderAmmonitinaHyatt 1889
superfamilyStephanoceratoidea(Newmayr 1875)
familyCardioceratidaeSiemiradzki 1891
subfamilyCardioceratinaeSiemiradzki 1891
genusGoliathicerasBuckman 1919

If no rank is listed, the taxon is considered an unranked clade in modern classifications. Ranks may be repeated or presented in the wrong order because authors working on different parts of the classification may disagree about how to rank taxa.

Diagnosis
ReferenceDiagnosis
J. K. Wright 2012The genus is markedly dimorphic, with strongly ribbed microconchs (referred by Arkell (1941a, 1943) to Sagitticeras and Korythoceras) and macroconchs (referred by Arkell to Goliathiceras sensu stricto and Goliathites) characterized by moderately involute to strongly involute coiling and a depressed whorl section, with the whorl thickness greater than the whorl height. The ribbing is strong up to 100 mm, with a slight but distinct forward flexure over the venter. Arkell (1943, p.lxxxi) separated Goliathites, of which G. goliathus is typical, as a subgenus of Goliathiceras due to its suture having short, stocky lobes. Sutures are notoriously variable within ammonite species (Glowniak 2002, pp. 336, 343); Wright 2010, p. 36), and is not regarded here as a valid distinction.