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

Synocladia dubia

Stenolaemata - Fenestrida - Acanthocladiidae

Keratophytes dubius was named by Schlotheim (1820).

It was recombined as Gorgonia dubia by Geinitz (1841); it was recombined as Thamniscus dubius by King (1849), King (1850), Waagen and Pichl (1885), Dreyer (1961) and Termier and Termier (1971); it was recombined as Acanthocladia dubia by Geinitz (1861); it was recombined as Synocladia dubia by Lisitsyn and Ernst (2004).

Synonymy list
YearName and author
1820Keratophytes dubius Schlotheim
1829Retepora virgulacea Phillips p. 120
1834Retepora virgulacea Phillips figs. Pl 3, fig 2
1841Gorgonia dubia Geinitz p. 641
1844Fenestella ramosa King
1848Fenestella ramosa Howse p. 261
1848Fenestella virgulacea Howse p. 262
1849Synocladia virgulacea King p. 388
1849Thamniscus dubius King p. 389
1850Synocladia virgulacea King p. 39 figs. Pl 3, fig 14; pl 4, figs 1-8
1850Thamniscus dubius King p. 44 figs. Pl 5, figs 7-12
1861Synocladia virgulacea Geinitz p. 118 figs. Pl 22, figs 3,4
1861Acanthocladia dubia Geinitz p. 119 figs. Pl 22, figs 5,6
1885Synocladia virgulacea Waagen and Pichl p. 802 figs. Pl 92, fig 4; pl 93, figs 1,2; ?pl 90, fig 8
1885Thamniscus dubius Waagen and Pichl p. 808 figs. Pl 93, fig 4
1930Synocladia dux Korn
1930Synocladia weigelthi Korn
1961Thamniscus dubius Dreyer p. 19 figs. Pl 7, fig 5
1961Synocladia virgulacea Dreyer p. 24 figs. Pl 11, figs 1,2
1971Thamniscus dubius Termier and Termier p. 37
2004Synocladia dubia Lisitsyn and Ernst p. 287

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

EubilateriaAx 1987
phylumBryozoaEhrenberg 1831
classStenolaemataBorg 1926
orderFenestridaElias and Condra 1957
suborderFenestellinaAstrova and Morozova 1956
familyAcanthocladiidaeZittel 1880
speciesdubia(Schlotheim 1820)

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.

No diagnoses are available