The Echinoid Directory

• Test large, elongate, highly inflated, flat adorally.
• Apical system monobasal, anterior.
• Petals broad, open, very long, unequal, outer pore of petaloid pores very elongated transversely, slit-like, joined to inner pore by narrow, deep, conjugation groove. Ambulacral plates beyond petals with single pores.
• Peristome anterior, pentagonal, sunken.
• Periproct inframarginal, transverse.
• Phyllodes very broad, single pored, comprise of an inner wedge-shaped series of pores and an outer bowed series of pores with numerous additional pores scattered in between. Phyllodes sunken as to create prominent bourrelets which do not project. These are \'pseudobourrelets\' as they incorporate post-basicoronal plates.
• Buccal pores present.
• Two types of tubercle present: small scrobiculate, crenulate, perforate tubercles on both the adapical surface and adoral surface, except in medial region of interambulacrum 5 adoraly; large nonscrobiculate, noncrenulate, nonperforate tubercles on adapical surface and in medial region in interambulacrum 5 adorally.
• Narrow naked zone runnign between peristome and periproct on oral surface, covered in fine granules.

Upper Cretaceous (Campanian-Maastrichtian) of Europe.

Clypeaster leskei Goldfuss, 1829, p. 132 (=Galerites ovatus Lamarck, 1816, p. 22) by monotypy.

• Clypeolampas ovatus (Lamarck, 1816); Campanian-Maastrichtian, France, Turkey, Spain.

Irregularia; Cassiduloida; Echinolampadidae.

Cotteau (1887, pl 20, fig. 7) showed a tetrabasal apical system in his C. lesteli. However, Kier, (1962, p. 188) stated that the apical system of the type species is definitely monobasal (which we confirm), and suspected that Cotteau\'s artist may have made an error.

Lambert & Thiery (1909-1925) considered Lamarck\'s Galerites ovatus a nomen nudum and used Goldfuss\'s Clypeaster leskei instead. Kier (1962) noted that Lamarck includes a description of ovatus, and so this name does not represent a nomen nudum and is the oldest available.

Clypeolampas differs from Vologesia in that it has adoral interambulacral plates elevated to form mound-like projecting bourrelets. It differs from Hungaresia in having much more complex phyllodes with many intermediate pores (Smith & Jeffery, 2000).

P. M. Kier. 1962. Revision of the cassiduloid echinoids. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 144 (3) 262 pp.

J. Lambert & P. Thiery. 1909-1925. Essai de nomenclature raisonnee des echinides. Libraire Septime Ferriere, Chaumont, 607 pp., 15 pls.

Pomel, A. 1869. Revue des échinoderms et de leur classification pour servir d’introduction à l’étude des fossiles, 67 pp. Deyrolle, Paris.

A. B. Smith & C. H. Jeffery. 2000. Maastrichtian and Paleocene echinoids: a key to world faunas. Special Papers in Palaeontology 63, 406 pp.