Lotharingibelus meta (Blainville, 1827) n. comb.

(Figs 3 A-E; 4A-D)

Belemnites meta [also cited as Belemnites brevis var. C] Blainville, 1827: 87, pl. 3, fig. 3. — Deshayes 1830: 131. — d’Orbigny 1846a: pl. 77, figs 8, 9; 1846b: pl. 37, figs 8, 9; 1846c: 566, pl. 77, figs 8, 9; 1855: 357, pl. 77, figs 8, 9. — Giebel 1852: 114. — Hébert 1865: 203. — Benecke 1898: 36, pl. 2, figs 5, 8, 9; 1905: 299. — Schwegler 1938: 473; 1969: 191, fig. 76a, b. Belemnites meta var. compressa – Benecke 1898: 39, pl. 2, figs 6, 6a, 7, 7a (correct identification: Arcobelus lucilinburhucensis Weis, 1999).

non Belemnites meta – Janensch 1902: 111, pl. 12, figs 4, 4a. — Werner 1912: 138, pl. 12, figs 5-7 (correct identification: Dactyloteuthis levidensis (Simpson, 1855), fide Schlegelmilch [1998]).

non Belemnites cf. meta – Janensch 1902: 112, pl. 12, figs 3, 3a (correct identification: Dactyloteuthis levidensis (Simpson, 1855), fide Schlegelmilch [1998]).

Homaloteuthis meta – Bülow-Trummer 1920: 123.

Brachybelus meta – Naef 1922: 241.

Belemnites (? Homaloteuthis) meta – Ernst 1924: 81; pl. 6, figs 6a, 6b.

Dactyloteuthis meta – Lissajous 1925: 27, 109. — Sturz 1958: 54, pl. 6, fig. 4; pl. 7, fig. 1. — Schirardin 1961: 114.

Dactyloteuthis cf. meta – Kolb 1942: 155, pl. 7, figs 8a, 8b.

non Dactyloteuthis aff. meta – Nutsubidze 1966: 156, pl. 37, figs 5, 6 (correct identification: Acrocoelites conoideus (Oppel, 1856) fide Dzyuba et al. [2015]).

non Acrocoelites (Toarcibelus) meta – Riegraf et al. 1984: 154, fig. 48g (correct identification: Acrocoelites levidensis (Simpson, 1855)) .

Brevibelus cf. gingensis – Doyle 1992: 63, pl. 24, fig. 6.

Catateuthis meta – Riegraf 1995: 32.

Arcobelus meta – Schlegelmilch 1998: 68, pl. 11, fig. 5. — Riegraf et al. 1998: 66, 211. — Weis 1999: 220, fig. 36. — Neige et al. 2021: appendix S3 (taxonomical dataset).

Arcobelus lucilinburhucensis Weis, 1999: 221, fig. 35 (compressed variety).

TYPE MATERIAL AND LOCUS TYPICUM. — Lectotype. France • Paris Basin, surroundings of Nancy, designated by Hébert (1865) as ‘type’ of the species; UCBL-EM 75009 (Deshayes coll.) (Fig. 3A).

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL. — France • 1 specimen; Paris Basin, Meurthe-et-Moselle, Lay-Saint-Christophe near Nancy; “Aalénien” (nowadays upper Toarcian); MAN 2023.0.168 (Fig. 3B) • 1 specimen; Paris Basin, Meurthe-et-Moselle, Moulins, Bouxières-aux-Chênes; “Aalénien (zone du minerai)” (= upper Toarcian); MAN 2023.0.165 (Fig. 4B). Belgium • 125 specimens; Paris Basin, Halanzy and Musson, Mont-Saint-Martin Formation, old mining heaps; upper Toarcian; Dominique Delsate leg.; MNHNL DOU989 a-h (Figs 3D, E; 4 C-E). Luxembourg • 1 specimen; Paris Basin, Esch-sur-Alzette; ironstones; upper Toarcian; MNHNL DOU882 (Fig. 3C) • 1 specimen, Paris Basin, Differdange; Mactra subzone, Aalensis Zone; MNHNL DOT500 (Fig. 4A) .

OCCURRENCE. — Upper Toarcian. Dispansum Zone (common): Luxembourg; Gaume, Belgium; Lorraine, France. — Dispansum Zone (very rare): Dehmen, Northern Germany; Blea Wyke Point, North Yorkshire, United Kingdom;?Mistelgau, Franconia, Southern Germany (Kolb 1942). — Pseudoradiosa and Aalensis (Mactra subzone) zones (occasionally present): Luxembourg; Gaume, Belgium; Lorraine, France.

DESCRIPTION

Medium-sized, stout, conical rostrum (elongation index between 0.7 and 1; Table 2). The profile is ventrally asymmetrical, conical. The outline is symmetrical and cylindriconical. Orthorostrum without grooves. Cross section elliptical, strongly compressed (compression index between 1.12 and 1.26; Table 2). Apical region smooth, sometimes with shallow dorsolateral depressions that extend laterally towards the rostrum cavum. The tip of the apical region shows often a looser calcification resulting in a navel-shaped cavity, which is indicative of a very short epirostral stage. The flanks are more or less flattened. The alveolus occupies approximately two third of the rostrum and is ventrally displaced. The apical line is weakly goniolineate. Alveolar angle 29-32°.

REMARKS

Lotharingibelus meta n. comb. is distinguished from the taxa assigned to Dactyloteuthis by its more conical profile, the deeply penetrating alveolus and the absence of a ventral apical groove. ‘ Dactyloteuthis ’ crossotela (Blake in Tate & Blake, 1876) from the United Kingdom is a slightly younger species, that bears some resemblance with L. meta n. comb. (see also Doyle 1992); it is however distinguished from the latter by its more cylindrical profile and the presence of an epirostrum. Further investigation of the type material of D. crossotela is needed to investigate the question whether D. crossotela could represent an early taxon of Lotharingibelus n. gen. rather than Dactyloteuthis . Lotharingibelus meta n. comb. is chiefly distinguished from L. subgigantea by the presence of a well-developed epirostrum and a more conical orthorostrum in the latter.

TAXONOMIC HISTORY

In his monograph on the belemnites, Blainville (1827) established Belemnites brevis and distinguished three varieties, A, B, and C; for the latter, he proposed conditionally the name Belemnites meta . According to Article 15.1 of the ICZN (1999), “A new name or nomenclatural act proposed conditionally and published before 1961 may be available”. Thus, the valid name for variety C of Belemnites brevis is Belemnites meta . This nominal species-group taxon was based on syntypes: a single specimen of the Deshayes collection from the “Oolithe ferrugineuse” (Minette ironstones) from the surroundings of Nancy (Meurthe-et-Moselle; Fig. 1), and an unspecified number of specimens from the d’Orbigny collection from the vicinity of L’Aiguillon-la-Presqu’île, Vendée department, in the Pays de la Loire region in Western France. Deshayes (1830) considered that “pour éviter toute méprise, nous conservons le nom de Belemnites brevis à la variété C”. He thus designated as (lecto)type for Belemnites brevis the specimen of var. C figured in Blainville (1827: pl. 3, figs 3, 3a) and thus B. brevis and B. meta would have the same type and would become synonyms. However, this nomenclatural act is to be considered invalid, because Blainville (1827) introducing the name B. meta for var. C, restricted the syntypes of B. brevis to the specimens included in his varieties A and B. The nomenclatural act by Deshayes (1830) of chosing as lectotype for B. brevis a specimen attributed by Blainville (1827) to another species-group taxon ( B. meta), corresponds to the proviso of Art. 74.2 of the ICZN (1999): “ Lectotype found not to have been a syntype. If it is demonstrated that a specimen designated as a lectotype was not a syntype, it loses its status of lectotype ”. This issue was solved by Hébert (1865), who recognized the three varieties ofBlainville (1827) as distinct species and indicated as (lecto)type for B. meta the specimen of var. C figured in Blainville (1827).

The generic attribution of Belemnites meta has varied. Earlier authors (Bülow-Trummer 1920; Naef 1922) attributed it to Homaloteuthis, or to Brachybelus (synonym of Brevibelus). Lissajous (1925) was the first to attribute it to the genus Dactyloteuthis due to its stout rostrum and blunt apex. This attribution was followed by Kolb (1942) and Sturz (1958). Schlegelmilch (1998) instead attributed it to the genus Arcobelus sensu Doyle, 1994, previously known only from northern Siberia and the Russian Far East (Sachs & Nalnjaeva 1970). The latter attribution was maintained by Weis (1999) and Neige et al. (2021).