This matrix almost shouts “falcifer” zone, more specifically this could be from a belemnite accumulation usually associated with the ovatum band of the upper falciferum subzone, although this is only an educated guess, since the matrix block was found ex situ and could also come from a slightly lower bed. It´s composition and appearance, however, matches very well with one given in the paper : DOYLE, MACDONALD, 1993: Belemnite battlefields.

 

What makes this ammonite interesting is that it has some of the characteristics of the Orthodactylites (literally translated from the latin as “straight-fingered”) subgenus of Dactylioceras that I described from the lower toarcian in an earlier post (link) which predominantly have straight, single, usually non-bifurcating ribs, including the classical preservation with “capped” ribs that have a kind of predetermined breaking point, as the outer shell stayed in the negative and took the top of the ribs with it.

 

Howarth described a similar type of ammonite as Dactylioceras (Orthodactylites) semiannulatum in his 1978 paper “The stratigraphy and ammonite fauna of the Upper lias of Northamptonshire”.   It is a late survivor of the Orthodactylites subgenus, in later beds replaced by ammonites with mostly bifurcating ribs of the Dactylioceras genus. I´m hesitant to attribute this specimen to this species, however, since the measurements – apart from the whorl width, which is much smaller – would rather point to Nodicoeloceras. Howarth´s D. semiannulatum specimen were also a bit smaller, though.

There is one other option, which is Dactylioceras consimile (BUCKMAN), of which I´ve got conflicting descriptions/pictures – I need to take a look at one of these in a museum.

 

The conundrum presenting itself of course is a pattern that applies to most of the Dactylioceratidae, especially the lesser known species :

• You can’t always rely on morphology alone, you need to know the bed from which the ammonite originates to verify the species
  and this can be surprisingly difficult when you mostly collect from the cliff debris, i.e. ex situ
• There are transitions between the different species, as this probably is. And mutations, pathologies…
• There is always variation within a species that can not be fully recognized when you look at a small number of specimen.
• Early descriptions  (BUCKMAN, WRIGHT, SIMPSON…) often relied on single specimen – see above.

 

No clear solution this time, then – I will however label this one, to point out my conviction that this ammonite is closer to D. semiannulatum than to Nodicoeloceras :

Dactylioceras (Orthodactylites) cf. semiannulatum HOWARTH.

 

As promised earlier, the next couple of posts (too much for just one !) will predominantly deal with the upper toarcian Dactylioceratidae – hopefully with less undefined identifications like this one – sorry you had to wait until after the 50th post (which is this one, hurrah !)  – thanks for bearing with me for so long !

 

AndyS