The Echinoid Directory

• Test discoidal with flat base, weakly domed upper surface and sharp edges. Outline weakly indented at ambulacra, especially posteriorly.
• Apical disc central with four gonopores.
• Petals elongate and converging distally, but remaining open. More than half the radius in length.
• Ambulacral and interambulacral zones of similar width at ambitus.
• Pores and food grooves extend onto interambulacral plates.
• Food grooves bifurcating immediately distal to the basicoronal plates and branching extensively distally.
• Basicoronal circlet weakly pentastellate without interambulacral plates projecting.
• Periproct oral, opening between third or fourth paired post-basicoronal plates and immediately adjacent to posterior border.
• Interambulacra continuous, but with very narrow contact between basicoronal plate and subsequent plates.
• Internal partitioning present but detailed arrangement unreported.

Miocene, southern Europe and the Mediterranean.

Scutella leognanesis Lambert, 1903, by original designation.

• P. leognanensis (Lambert, 1903); Burdigalian, France.
• P. lusitanica de (Loriol, 1896); Burdigalian, Portugal.
• P. neuvillei (Lambert, 1903); Aquitanian, France.
• P. almerai (Lambert, 1903); Tortonian, Spain.
• P. gibbercula (de Serres); Tortonian.
• P. stefannini Desio, 1929; Miocene, Libya

Clypeasteroida; Scutellina; Scutelliformes; Scutellidea; Scutellidae.

Probably paraphyletic by exclusion of Remondella and Scaphechinus.

Differs from Scutella in having the periproct marginal and associated with the third or fourth post-basicoronal interambulacral plates. Differs from Parmulechinus in having longer petals and a much more robust test. Differs from Scaphechinus and Remondella primarily in having adoral interambulacral plating continuous.

Mortensen (1948) had grave doubts about whether Scaphechinus could be distinguished from Scutella (which then included the type species of Parascutella) noting that Scaphechinus differed only by having trailing pore-pairs below the ends of its petals. Oral plating also distinguishes the two taxa.

J. W. Durham 1955. Classification of clypeasteroid echinoids. University of California Publications in Geological Sciences 31(4), 73-192.