| IODP Proceedings Volume contents Search | |||
 | |||
| Expedition reports Research results Supplementary material Drilling maps Expedition bibliography | |||
|
doi:10.2204/iodp.proc.320321.204.2012 Taxonomic notes
Anthocyrtoma spp. Anthocyrtoma spp. Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 25, pl. P3, figs. 15, 16
Artophormis barbadensis (Ehrenberg) Calocyclas barbadensis Ehrenberg, 1873, p. 217; 1875, pl. 18, fig. 8 Artophormis barbadensis (Ehrenberg), Haeckel, 1887, p. 1459; Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1970, p. 532, pl. 13, fig. 5; Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 25, pl. P3, figs. 17–19
Artophormis dominasinensis (Ehrenberg) Podocyrtis dominasinensis Ehrenberg, 1873, p. 250; 1875, pl. 14, fig. 4 Artophormis dominasinensis (Ehrenberg), Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1970, p. 532; 1971, p. 1592, pl. 6, fig. 6; Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 25, pl. P4, fig. 1
Artophormis gracilis Riedel Artophormis gracilis Riedel, 1959, p. 300, pl. 2, figs. 12, 13; Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1970, p. 532, pl. 13, fig. 6; 1971, pl. 3B, figs. 5–7; pl. 6, fig. 7; Sanfilippo and Nigrini, 1995, p. 272, pl. I, figs. 1–5 ?Artophormis fluminafauces O’Connor, 1999, p. 20, pl. 3, figs. 12–16b; pl. 6, figs. 24a–27 Artophormis gracilis Riedel, Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 26, pl. P3, figs. 20–22
Calocyclas bandyca (Mato and Theyer) Lychnocanoma bandyca Mato and Theyer, 1980, p. 225, pl. 1, figs. 1–6 Calocyclas bandyca (Mato and Theyer), Sanfilippo and Riedel in Saunders et al., 1984, p. 411, pl. 5, figs. 1, 5, 6 Remarks: Early in its range Calocyclas bandyca may have more than three primary feet (compare Plate P1, figs. 5 and 6; see also pl. 5, fig 5.6 in Saunders et al., 1984).
Calocyclas hispida (Ehrenberg) Anthocyrtis hispida Ehrenberg, 1873, p. 216; 1875, pl. 8, fig. 2 Calocyclas hispida (Ehrenberg), Foreman, 1973, p. 434, pl. 1, figs. 12–15; pl. 9, fig. 18
Calocyclas turris Ehrenberg
Calocyclas turris Ehrenberg, 1873, p. 218; 1875, pl. 18, fig. 7; Foreman, 1973, p. 434
Calocycletta (Calocycletta) anekathen Sanfilippo and Nigrini Theocyrtis tuberosa Riedel, Moore, 1971, p. 743, pl. 5, fig. 5 only (part) Calocycletta virginis Haeckel sensu stricto, in Petrushevskaya and Kozlova, 1972, p. 544, pl. 35, figs. 8–10 Calocycletta (Calocycletta) anekathen Sanfilippo and Nigrini, in Nigrini et al., 2006, pp. 27–28, pl. P5, figs. 7–9
Calocycloma ampulla (Ehrenberg) Eucyrtidium ampulla Ehrenberg, 1854, pl. 36, fig. 15a–15c; 1873, p. 22 Calocycloma ampulla (Ehrenberg), Foreman, 1973, p. 434, pl. 1, figs. 1–5; pl. 9, fig. 20
Centrobotrys gravida Moore Centrobotrys gravida Moore, 1971, p. 744, pl. 5, fig. 8 Remarks: In the material studied the first appearance of this species may be diachronous, appearing first at Site U1333, then at Site 1218, and lastly at Site U1334.
Centrobotrys petrushevskayae Sanfilippo and Riedel Centrobotrys (?) sp. A Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1971, p. 1602, pl. 3F, figs. 15, 16 Centrobotrys petrushevskayae Sanfilippo and Riedel, 1973, p. 532, pl. 36, figs. 12, 13; Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 30, pl. P6, figs. 22, 23
Cryptocarpium azyx (Sanfilippo and Riedel) Carpocanistrum azyx Sanfilippo and Riedel, 1973, p. 530, pl. 35, fig. 9 Cryptocarpium azyx (Sanfilippo and Riedel), Sanfilippo and Riedel, 1992, p. 6, pl. 2, fig. 21 Remarks: A variety of Cryptocarpium ornatum with fine pores and an inflated thorax overlaps the range of C. azyx and can be confused with it. C. azyx has a more constricted termination and does not show clear evidence of an abdomen (compare with Plate P2, fig. 2).
Cryptocarpium ornatum (Ehrenberg) Cryptoprora ornata Ehrenberg, 1873, p. 222; 1875, pl. 5, fig. 8; Sanfilippo et al., 1985, p. 693, fig. 27.2a, 27.2b Cryptocarpium ornatum (Ehrenberg), Sanfilippo and Riedel, 1992, pp. 6, 36, pl. 2, figs. 18–20 Remarks: The morphology of this species varies significantly in size and outline (compare Plate P2, figs. 2–4). Further studies may find it useful to separate the more inflated form (fig. 2) from those forms having a more cylindrical outline. See also Sanfilippo et al. (1985) for a discussion of variation in this species.
Dictyoprora armadillo (Ehrenberg) group Eucyrtidium armadillo Ehrenberg, 1873, p. 225; 1875, p. 70, pl. 9, fig. 10 Theocampe armadillo (Ehrenberg) group, Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1971, p. 1601, pl. 3E, figs. 3–5 (partim.) Dictyoprora armadillo (Ehrenberg), Nigrini, 1977, p. 250, pl. 4, fig. 4; Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 31, pl. P6, fig. 9 Remarks: As used by Nigrini et al. (2006) and herein, this group may encompass more than one species; however, the last appearance of this form in the uppermost Eocene is consistent in all three sites studied. As in Nigrini et al. (2006), we confine the species to those individuals with 10–15 transverse rows of circular pores.
Dictyoprora mongolfieri (Ehrenberg) Eucyrtidium mongolfieri Ehrenberg, 1854, pl. 36, fig. 18B lower; 1873, p. 230 Dictyoprora mongolfieri (Ehrenberg), Nigrini, 1977, p. 250, pl. 4, fig. 7
Dorcadospyris anastasis Sanfilippo
Dorcadospyris anastasis Sanfilippo, in Nigrini et al., 2006, pp. 33–34, pl. P1, figs. 11, 12 Dorcadospyris ateuchus (Ehrenberg) Ceratospyris ateuchus Ehrenberg, 1873, pl. 218; 1875, pl. 21, fig. 4D Cantharospyris ateuchus (Ehrenberg), Haeckel, 1887, p. 1051; Riedel, 1959, p. 294, pl. 22, figs. 3, 4 Dorcadospyris ateuchus (Ehrenberg), Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1970, p. 523, pl. 15, fig. 4; Sanfilippo and Nigrini, 1995, p. 275, pl. III, figs. 2–4; Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 34, pl. P1, figs. 13–15 Remarks: This species was not found in the material studied. See Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 34, pl. P1, figs. 13–15, for illustrations in order to compare it to D. cf D. ateuchus (see below).
Dorcadospyris cf. D. ateuchus (Ehrenberg)
Remarks: This form first appears in the earliest Oligocene, stratigraphically separated from Dorcadospyris ateuchus. Similar to D. ateuchus it has two relatively straight, downwardly divergent primary feet and two to four lamellar secondary feet; however, it may also have another somewhat longer secondary foot that is cylindrical in cross section and extends from the base of the shell at the junction with the sagital ring. It is smaller in cross section and shorter in length than the cylindrical primary feet (Plate P2, fig. 11). This form appears to be intermediate between the form of Tristylospyris triceros having lamellar secondary feet and Dorcadospyris aff. D. pseudopapilio (see remarks below under Dorcadospyris aff. D. pseudopapilio). The upper part of its short range overlaps with the lower part of the range of Dorcadospyris aff. D. pseudopapilio. Dorcadospyris circulus (Haeckel) Gamospyris circulus Haeckel, 1887, p. 1042, pl. 83, fig. 19 Dorcadospyris circulus (Haeckel), Moore, 1971, p. 739, pl. 8, figs. 3–5 Dorcadospyris circulus (Haeckel), Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 34, pl. P1, fig. 16 Remarks: This species first appears slightly above the samples studied here. See Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 34, pl. P1, figs. 13–15, for illustrations. It may evolve from D. mahurangi (see below).
Dorcadospyris copelata Sanfilippo
Dorcadospyris copelata Sanfilippo, in Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 34, P1, figs. 19, 20; pl. P2, figs. 1, 2 Remarks: Tristylospyris triceros, as used here, does include forms with tabular feet; however, they are less broad and more delicate than those of Dorcadospyris copelata. The range Tristylospyris triceros with lamellar secondary feet extends into the lower Oligocene, above the last occurrence of Dorcadospyris copelata.
Dorcadospyris mahurangi (?) O’Connor
Dorcadospyris mahurangi O’Connor, 1994, p. 338, pl. 1, figs 1–4, pl. 3, figs. 1–3 Remarks: This form appears to be intermediate between Tristylospris triceros and Dorcadospyris circulus. It first appears just below the first occurrence of D. circulus and has two primary feet that curve in a semicircular arc and a third, relatively straight primary foot that extends obliquely downward, very similar to D. mahurangi, as described by O’Connor (1994). In early forms the two arched primary feet do not cross. In later forms they may cross and even join, but do not usually form a smooth circle as in D. circulus.
Dorcadospyris ombros Sanfilippo
Dorcadospyris ombros Sanfilippo, in Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 36, pl. P2, figs. 5, 6
Dorcadospyris cf. D. ombros Sanfilippo
Remarks: Similar to Dorcadospyris ombros in its general morphology, this form usually has five long, cylindrical feet, similar in length and thickness, that diverge at an angle of <180° and then curve to extend straight downward. The distal part of the feet taper and recurve gently. However, it is stratigraphically separated from D. ombros, and the terminations of the primary feet do not show the sharply curved upward aspect seen in the later forms of D. ombros. This form occurs before the last appearance of and is likely descended from D. quadripes in the mid-Oligocene.
Dorcadospyris pseudopapilio Moore
Dorcadospyris pseudopapilio Moore, 1971, p. 738, pl. 6, figs. 7, 8; Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 37, pl. P2, figs. 16, 17
Dorcadospyris aff. D. pseudopapilio Moore
Remarks: this form resembles Dorcadospyris pseudopapilio in its relatively strong apical horn and its latticed secondary feet. It differs in that the two primary feet diverge at an angle distinctly less than ~180°. There may be more than two latticed secondary feet, and in some specimens only a fringe of lattice work is preserved. It is the likely ancestor of D. pseudopapilio in that it precedes and overlaps the first appearance of that species. It differs from D. cf. D. ateuchus (see above) in having curved feet and a relatively prominent apical horn.
Dorcadospyris quadripes Moore (emend. herein)
Dorcadospyris quadripes Moore, 1971, p. 738, pl. 7, figs. 3–5; Nigrini et al., 2006, pp. 37–38, pl. P2, figs. 14, 15 Remarks: As noted in Nigrini et al. (2006), at least some of the D. quadripes specimens in their Leg 199 material have a broadly arching (>180°) pair of primary feet that arise from the apical part of the cortical shell rather than from the base of the shell (as described by Moore, 1971, p. 738). In this study we emend the description of D. quadripes to include specimens that have these broadly arching primary feet extending from the apical part of the cortical shell (Plate P4, figs. 2, 3). These forms tend to occur later in the range of this species and can co-occur with forms that have primary feet arising from the base of the shell. As noted in Nigrini et al. (2006), forms of D. quadripes with broadly arching primary feet arising from the cortical shell are similar to D. riedeli. “However, there are several features that distinguish the two species. In D. riedeli the broadly arching pair of feet always arise from the apical part of the cortical shell and the secondary pair of feet extend from the basal ring at nearly 180° and curve to form a circle or ellipse (sometimes crossing, but usually not joined). D. riedeli never has more than four primary feet, whereas D. quadripes may have six to eight. The primary feet of D. quadripes that are not broadly arching extend from the basal ring at an angle distinctly <180°. They tend to diverge distally and recurve only slightly” (Plate P4, fig. 3). “The stratigraphic ranges of the two species are different, with D. quadripes occurring in Zone RP20 and D. riedeli occurring most abundantly, but not exclusively, in the upper part of Zone RP22.”
Dorcadospyris spinosa Moore
Dorcadospyris spinosa Moore, 1971, p. 739, pl. 6, figs. 1, 2; Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 39, pl. P3, figs. 13, 14 Remarks: The degree to which the primary feet show spines is highly variable in the material studied, particularly in the earlier part of the range of this species. Often only the distal part of the primary feet (basal part of the joined feet) show irregularly spaced spines (see Plate P4, fig. 8).
Dorcadospyris aff. D. spinosa Moore
Remarks: This form resembles Dorcadospyris spinosa in nearly all respects except for the absence of spines on its primary feet. Its upper range overlaps the basal part of the range of D. spinosa and it is thought to be the ancestor of D. spinosa.
Dorcadospyris cf. D. spinosa Moore
Remarks: This very rare form is only found in the uppermost Eocene and resembles D. spinosa only in that the multiple primary feet have similar spines. There are usually only four primary feet extending from the base of the shell in a broad semicircular arch with two or more very thin secondary feet that are rarely preserved. The primary feet do not join but usually terminate in an upturned spine, very similar to the termination of the primary feet seen in later specimens of D. ombros. The range of this form lies within the range of D. ombros and is believed to derive from that species.
Eucyrtidium plesiodiaphanes Sanfilippo
Artophormis cf. A. gracilis in Moore, 1971, p. 742, pl. 5, fig. 12 Eucyrtidium plesiodiaphanes Sanfilippo, in Sanfilippo and Nigrini, 1995, p. 278, pl. 1, figs. 12–14, 16; Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 40, pl. P4, figs. 11, 12
Eusyringium fistuligerum (Ehrenberg)
Eucyrtidium fistuligerum Ehrenberg, 1873, p. 229; 1875, pl. 9, fig. 3 Eusyringium fistuligerum (Ehrenberg), Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1970, p. 527, pl. 8, figs. 8, 9; Sanfilippo and Blome, 2001, p. 212, figs. 9a–9d; Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 40, pl. P4, fig. 13
Lithochytris vespertilio Ehrenberg
Lithochytris vespertilio Ehrenberg, 1873, p. 239; 1875, pl. 4, fig. 10; Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1971, p. 528, pl. 9, figs. 8, 9 Remarks: This study did not sample material within the stratigraphic range of this species; however, specimens were found in our samples along with other reworked, older microfossils.
Lithocyclia angusta (Riedel)
Trigonactura? angusta Riedel, 1959, p. 292, pl. 1, fig. 6 Lithocyclia angustum (Riedel), Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1970, p. 522, pl. 13, figs. 1, 2 Lithocyclia angusta (Riedel), Sanfilippo and Riedel, 1973, p. 523; Sanfilippo et al., 1985, p. 653, fig. 7.3a–7.3c
Lithocyclia aristotelis (Ehrenberg) group
Astromma aristotelis Ehrenberg, 1847, p. 55, fig. 10 Lithocyclia aristotelis (Ehrenberg) group, Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1970, p. 522, pl. 3, figs. 1, 2
Lithocyclia crux Moore
Lithocyclia crux Moore, 1971, p. 737, pl. 6, fig. 4
Lithocyclia cf. L. crux Moore, var A
Remarks: The appearance of this species slightly precedes that of Lithocyclia cf. L. crux, var. B and has cortical and medullary shells very similar to that variant. The cortical shell is somewhat smaller than that of L. crux. The outer medullary shell is irregular in shape and, unlike L. crux, more than half as broad as the cortical shell. A second, inner medullary shell is less than half as broad as the outer medullary shell. Bars connecting the inner to the outer medullary shell attach at marked indentations in the outer shell. A spongy patagium surrounds the cortical shell. In well-preserved specimens, four narrow, symmetrically arranged spongy arms extend beyond the patagium and appear to support a nearly square outline of the patagium (fig. 14). When these arms are not preserved, the patagium often retains remnants of this outline (Plate P5, fig. 11).
Lithocyclia cf. L. crux Moore, var. B
Lithocyclia ? sp., Nigrini et al., 2006, pl. P1, fig. 8 Remarks: As in Lithocyclia cf. L. crux Moore, var., A, the cortical shell is somewhat smaller than that of L. crux. The outer medullary shell is irregular in shape and more than half as broad as the cortical shell. A second, inner medullary shell is less than half as broad as the outer medullary shell. Bars connecting the inner to the outer medullary shell attach at marked indentations in the outer shell. Four broad spongy arms are arranged symmetrically and radiate out from the cortical shell. In older specimens these arms are nearly as broad as the cortical shell itself. In younger specimens the arms are often longer and more narrow. A delicate patagium is sometimes preserved between the arms.
Lithocyclia cf. L. crux Moore, var. C
Remarks: This form is very similar to Lithocyclia cf. L. crux Moore, var. B; however, it has only three relatively short spongy arms. It occurs rarely and discontinuously in the upper part (mid-Oligocene) of the sections studied.
Lithocyclia ocellus Ehrenberg group
Lithocyclia ocellus Ehrenberg, 1854, pl. 36, fig. 30; 1873, p. 240; Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1970, p. 522, pl. 5, figs. 1, 2
Lophocyrtis (Cyclampterium) hadra Riedel and Sanfilippo
Lophocyrtis hadra Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1986, p. 168, pl. 7, figs. 12–15 Lophocyrtis (Cyclampterium) hadra (Riedel and Sanfilippo), Sanfilippo, 1990, p. 304, pl. I, figs. 11, 12
Lophocyrtis (Cyclampterium) milowi (Riedel and Sanfilippo)
Cyclampterium ? milowi Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1971, p. 1593, pl. 3B, fig. 3; pl. 7, figs. 8, 9; 1978, p. 67, pl. 4, fig. 14; Ling, 1975, p. 731, pl. 12, fig. 15 Lophocyrtis (Cyclampterium) milowi (Riedel and Sanfilippo), Sanfilippo, 1990, p. 306, pl. I, figs. 13–16; pl. II, figs. 1, 2 Remarks: The morphology of this species is highly variable and evolves through its relatively long range to a more open, less silicified thorax. As stated by Sanfilippo (1990), it appears to evolve from L. (C.) hadra; however, we see the transition occurring within the Cryptocarpium ornatum Zone (RP19), the uppermost Eocene. Lophocyrtis (Lophocyrtis) exitelus Sanfilippo Lophocyrtis (Lophocyrtis) exitelus Sanfilippo, 1990, p. 300, pl. I, figs. 1–4 Remarks: This species was very rare in the material studied.
Lophocyrtis (Lophocyrtis) jacchia (Ehrenberg)
Thyrsocyrtis jacchia Ehrenberg, 1873, p. 261; 1875, pl. 12, fig. 7 Lophocyrtis (?) jacchia (Ehrenberg), Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1970, p. 530; 1971, p. 1594, pl. 3C, figs. 4, 5; pl. 7, fig. 16 Lophocyrtis (Lophocyrtis) jacchia (Ehrenberg), Sanfilippo, 1990, p. 302, pl. I, figs.5–10; pl. III, fig. 6
Lophocyrtis (Sciadiopeplus) oberhaensliae Sanfilippo
Lophocyrtis (Sciadiopeplus) oberhaensliae Sanfilippo, 1990, p. 310, pl. II, figs. 10–14 Remarks: Only the late forms of this species (Sanfilippo, 1990, pl. 11, fig. 14) were clearly identified in this study, and then only as fragments. They first appear in the uppermost Eocene, shortly after the first appearance of L. milowi. Their last occurrence extends slightly beyond the last appearance of Dorcadospyris pseudopapilio and overlaps briefly with the earliest appearance of D. spinosa.
Lychnocanoma amphitrite Foreman
Lychnocanoma amphitrite Foreman, 1973, p. 437, pl. 11, fig. 10
Lychnocanoma babylonis (Clark and Campbell) group
Dictyophimus babylonis Clark and Campbell, 1942, p. 67, pl. 9, figs. 32, 36 Lychnocanoma babylonis (Clark and Campbell) group, Foreman, 1973, p. 437, pl. 2, fig. 1
Lychnocanoma turgidum (Ehrenberg)
Lychnocanium turgidum Ehrenberg, 1873, p. 245; 1875, pl. 7, fig. 6 [?] Lychnocanium pyriforme Haeckel, 1887, p. 1225, pl. 61, fig. 11 Gen. et sp. Indet.; Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1970, pl. 8, fig. 10 Lithochytris (Lithochytroides) turgidulum (sic) (Ehrenberg), Petrushevskaya and Kozlova, 1972, p. 552, pl. 27, figs. 8, 9 Lithochytris sp. T, Petrushevskaya and Kozlova, 1972, p. 552, pl. 27, fig. 6 Sethochytris cavipodis O’Connor, 1999, p. 28, pl. 4, figs. 22–27; pl. 7, figs. 24a–27 Lychnocanoma turgidum (Ehrenberg), Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 44, pl. P4, fig. 6
Podocyrtis (Lampterium) chalara Riedel and Sanfilippo
Podocyrtis (Lampterium) chalara Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1970, p. 535, pl. 12, figs. 2, 3; Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1978, p. 71, pl. 8, fig. 3; text-fig. 3
Podocyrtis (Lampterium) goetheana (Haeckel)
Cycladophora goetheana Haeckel, 1887, p. 1376, pl. 65, fig. 5 Podocyrtis (Lampterium) goetheana (Haeckel), Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1970, p. 535; Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 45, pl. P5, figs. 11, 12 Podocyrtis (Lampterium) mitra Ehrenberg Podocyrtis mitra Ehrenberg, 1854, pl. 36, fig. B20; 1873, p. 251; non Ehrenberg, 1875, pl. 15, fig. 4; Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1970, p. 534, pl. 11, figs. 5, 6; 1978, text-fig. 3; Sanfilippo et al., 1985, p. 698, fig. 30.10 Remarks: This study did not sample material within the stratigraphic range of this species; however, specimens were found in our samples along with other reworked, older microfossils.
Podocyrtis (Lampterium) trachodes Riedel and Sanfilippo
Podocyrtis (Lampterium) trachodes Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1970, p. 535, pl. 11, fig. 7; pl. 12, fig. 1; Sanfilippo et al., 1985, p. 699, fig. 30.14 Remarks: This study did not sample material within the stratigraphic range of this species; however, specimens were found in our samples (especially Site U1333) along with other reworked, older microfossils.
Podocyrtis (Podocyrtis) papalis Ehrenberg
Podocyrtis papalis Ehrenberg, 1847, p. 55, fig. 2; Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1970, p. 533, pl. 11, fig. 1; Sanfilippo and Riedel, 1973, p. 531, pl. 20, figs. 11–14; pl. 36, figs. 2, 3 Podocyrtis (Podocyrtis) papalis Ehrenberg, Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 46, pl. P5, fig. 13
Podocyrtis (Podocyrtopsis) apeza Sanfilippo and Riedel
Podocyrtis (Podocyrtopsis) apeza Sanfilippo and Riedel, 1992, p. 14, pl. 3, figs. 13–15
Pteropilium sp. aff. Pterocanium contiguum (Ehrenberg)
?Pterocanium contiguum Ehrenberg, 1873, p. 255; 1875, pl. 17, fig. 7 Pteropilium? sp. aff. Pterocanium contiguum Petrushevskaya and Kozlova, 1972, pl. 29, figs. 8–10 Pteropilium sp. O’Connor, 1999, p. 36, pl. 9, fig. 39 Pteropilium sp. aff. Pterocanium contiguum (Ehrenberg), Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 47, pl. P5, fig. 2 Remarks: This very rare species is most consistently found in the uppermost Eocene and lower Oligocene; however, a few specimens were found well below the E/O boundary.
Rhopalocanium ornatum Ehrenberg
Rhopalocanium ornatum Ehrenberg, 1847, fig. 3; 1854, pl. 36, fig. 9; 1873, p. 256; 1875, pl. 17, fig. 8; Foreman, 1973, p. 439, pl. 2, figs. 8–10; pl. 12, fig. 3; Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 47, pl. P4, figs. 15, 16
Sethochytris triconiscus Haeckel
[?] Sethochytris triconiscus Haeckel, 1887, p. 1239, pl. 57, fig. 13; Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1970, p. 528, pl. 9, figs. 5, 6; Sanfilippo et al., 1985, p. 680, fig. 22.1a–22.1d Remarks: This study did not sample material within the stratigraphic range of this species; however, specimens were found in our samples along with other reworked, older microfossils.
Spongatractus pachystylus (Ehrenberg)
Spongosphaera pachystyla Ehrenberg, 1873, p. 256; 1875, pl. 26, fig. 3 Spongatractus pachystylus (Ehrenberg), Sanfilippo and Riedel, 1973, p. 519, pl. 2, figs. 4–6; pl. 25, fig. 3
Theocorys puriri O’Connor
Theocorys puriri O’Connor, 1997, p. 88, pl. 4, figs. 5–8; pl. 10, figs. 5–8; pl. 11, fig. 7; Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 48, pl. P4, figs. 17, 18 Remarks: In the samples studied we found this species to range downward into the lowermost Oligocene with its first occurrence near that of Theocyrtis tuberosa. Because the distinctive abdomen of this species does not always preserve well and because there are several other species with a similar cephalis and thorax, it is often difficult to identify it in only moderately preserved samples. In such samples, the lack of a distinct collar stricture and a somewhat oblate cephalis are distinctive.
Theocorys spongoconus Kling
Theocorys spongoconus Kling, 1971, p. 1087, pl. 5, fig. 6; Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 48, pl. P4, figs. 19–21 Remarks: This species appears slightly after the first appearance of Theocorys puriri, which we believe is its ancestor.
Theocotylissa ficus (Ehrenberg)
Eucyrtidium ficus Ehrenberg, 1873, p. 228; 1875, pl. 11, fig. 19 Theocotylissa ficus (Ehrenberg), Sanfilippo and Riedel, 1982, p. 180, pl. 2, figs. 19, 20; Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 49, pl. P5, fig. 1
Theocyrtis careotuberosa Nigrini and Sanfilippo
Theocyrtis tuberosa Riedel, Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1970, pl. 13, figs. 9, 10 Theocyrtis sp. aff. T. tuberosa Riedel, Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1971, pl. 3D, figs. 16–18 Theocyrtis tuberosa Sanfilippo et al., 1985, fig. 32.1a, 32.1b; Saunders et al., 1984, pl. 5, fig. 10 (only) Theocyrtis careotuberosa Nigrini and Sanfilippo, in Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 50–51, pl. P5, figs. 15–18
Thyrsocyrtis aff. T. careotuberosa Nigrini and Sanfilippo
Remarks: This form is similar to T. careotuberosa but is devoid of plicae. Its range starts near the disappearance of T. careotuberosa and ends below the last occurrence of T. tuberosa. It is likely that T. careotuberosa is its ancestor.
Theocyrtis perpumila Sanfilippo
Theocyrtis sp. Sanfilippo and Riedel, 1992, pl. 1, fig. 23 (only); (see also same reference, pl. 1, figs. 20–22) Theocyrtis perpumila Sanfilippo, in Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 51, pl. P5, figs. 19–22
Theocyrtis tuberosa Riedel, emend. Sanfilippo et al.
Theocyrtis tuberosa Riedel, 1959, p. 298, pl. 2, figs. 10, 11; Sanfilippo et al., 1985, p. 701, fig. 32.1a–32.1d; Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 53, pl. P6, fig. 6 Remarks: Early forms are difficult to distinguish from T. careotuberosa, its ancestor—especially if the plicae on T. careotuberosa are corroded. However, the thoracic pores on T. careotuberosa are usually (but not always) uniformly circular in shape and longitudinally aligned with plicae present as a sharp thickening of the shell between pore rows, whereas in the early forms of T. tuberosa the thoracic pores tend to be more irregular in alignment and shape—especially in the lower part of the thorax.
Thyrsocyrtis (Pentalacorys) krooni Sanfilippo and Blome
Thyrsocyrtis tetracantha (Ehrenberg), Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1970, p. 527 (partim); Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1978, p. 81 (partim), pl. 10, fig. 9 Thyrsocyrtis (Pentalacorys) tetracantha (Ehrenberg), Sanfilippo and Riedel, 1982, p. 176 (in part), pl. 1, fig. 11; Sanfilippo et al., 1985, p. 690 (partim), fig. 26.8b Thyrsocyrtis (Pentalacorys) krooni Sanfilippo and Blome, 2001, p. 207, fig. 7a–7e Remarks: T. (P.) krooni first appears before either T. (P.) tetracantha or T. (P.) orthotenses and, as indicated by Sanfilippo and Blome (2001), probably derives from T. (P.) triacantha. See comments under T. (P.) tetracantha
Thyrsocyrtis (Pentalacorys) lochites Sanfilippo and Riedel
Thyrsocyrtis (Pentalacorys) lochites Sanfilippo and Riedel, 1982, p. 175, pl. 1, fig. 13; pl. 3, figs. 5–9
Thyrsocyrtis aff. T. (Pentalacorys) lochites Sanfilippo and Riedel
Remarks: As noted in Nigrini et al. (2006), “rare thick-walled forms with tubercles on the thorax and/or abdomen were observed in the early part of range of T. lochites.” We believe this form not only overlaps the range of T. lochites but is the ancestor of T. lochites and extends somewhat below its range.
Thyrsocyrtis (Pentalacorys) orthotenes Sanfilippo
Thyrsocyrtis sp. Petrushevskaya and Kozlova, 1972, pl. 34, fig. 5 Thyrsocyrtis (Pentalacorys) orthotenes Sanfilippo, in Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 54–55, pl. P5, figs. 4–5 (not fig. 3) Remarks: in this study we exclude forms that have thoracic and abdominal pore structure and feet more similar to T. (P.) triacantha (Nigrini et al., 2006, pl. P5, fig. 3). By restricting the taxonomic usage in this manner we can define the first appearance of this species within Zone RP16. In the admittedly limited stratigraphic range of this study we cannot follow the line of evolutionary change that is outlined in Nigrini et al. (2006, p. 55). We do not find forms that clearly belong to this species (as used here) in the oldest samples studied. However we do note that the T. (P.) orthotenses having large abdominal pores (Nigrini et al., 2006, pl. P5, figs. 4–5) first appear slightly above the first appearance of T. (P.) tetracantha, suggesting that this form may derive from T. (P.) tetracantha or T. (P.) triacantha (see remarks under T. (P.) tetracantha). In this restricted sense, T. (P.) orthotenses has similar pore size and structure to those of T. (P.) tetracantha; however, it can be distinguished by its three (only) straight, downwardly directed feet.
Thyrsocyrtis (Pentalacorys) tetracantha (Ehrenberg)
Podocyrtis tetracantha Ehrenberg, 1873, p. 254; 1875, pl. 13, fig. 2 Thyrsocyrtis (Pentalacorys) tetracantha (Ehrenberg), Sanfilippo and Riedel, 1982, p. 176, pl. 1, figs. 11, 12; pl. 3, fig. 10 Remarks: The first appearances of T. (P.) tetracantha and T. (P.) orthotenses are marked by considerable variability in their morphology. In some cases, a specimen will show two or three strong cylindrical feet with another “foot,” more consistent with the termination of T. krooni. In other cases there are multiple shorter, more delicate feet extending from an abdominal termination that otherwise resembles T. krooni. In the case of the earliest appearance of T. (P.) orthotenses, T. (P.) tetracantha can often show very straight, thick cylindrical feet typical of T. (P.) orthotenses, but having four feet (rather than three) in number. In addition, when T. (P.) tetracantha terminates with three thick cylindrical feet, two may be straight in the style of T. (P.) orthotenses, whereas the third foot deviates in some way from straight down. It seems possible that both T. (P.) tetracantha and T. (P.) orthotensis derive from T. (P.) krooni, either directly or with T. (P.) krooni giving rise to T. (P.) tetracantha, which in turn gave rise to T. (P.) orthotenses.
Thyrsocyrtis (Pentalacorys) triacantha (Ehrenberg)
Podocyrtis triacantha Ehrenberg, 1873, p. 254; 1875, pl. 13, fig. 4 Thyrsocyrtis (Pentalacorys) triacantha (Ehrenberg), Sanfilippo and Riedel, 1982, p. 176, pl. 1, figs. 8–10; pl. 3, figs. 3, 4
Thyrsocyrtis (Thyrsocyrtis) bromia Ehrenberg group
Thyrsocyrtis bromia Ehrenberg, 1873, p. 260; 1875, pl. 12, fig. 2; Sanfilippo and Riedel, 1982, p. 172, pl. 1, figs. 17–20 Remarks: This species has a rather broad definition, particularly regarding pore size in the abdomen (Sanfilippo and Riedel, 1982). This has probably led to some misunderstanding regarding its taxonomy and its stratigraphic range. O’Connor discusses these problems in his description of Thyrsocyrtis (Thyrsocyrtis) pinguisicoides (O’Connor, 1999, p. 29–30), in which he disinguishes this new species as a form with smaller abdominal pores than what he considers to be T. (T.) bromia. It appears from our study that T. (T.) bromia, even if restricted to specimens with large abdominal pores, may represent at least two separate lineages. Our observations suggest that early in its development T. (T.) bromia may derive from T. (T.) krooni, with intermediate forms having a somewhat wavy peristome and a smooth, elongate conical apical horn. This form increases in abundance upsection (Tables T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, and T7) and then decreases, being replaced by a similar form with large abdominal pores, three short, toothlike feet, and an apical horn that may be roughened or thorny distally. This form becomes quite common upsection. The ancestor of this form may be Thyrsocyrtis (Thyrsocyrtis) cf. T. (T.) norrisi, through one or more intermediate forms (Thyrsocyrtis (Thyrsocyrtis) aff. T. (T.) pinguisicoides or Thyrsocyrtis (Thyrsocyrtis) pinguisicoides, see below).
Thyrsocyrtis (Thyrsocyrtis) cf. T. (T.) norrisi Sanfilippo and Blome
Thyrsocyrtis bromia, Dinkleman, 1973, p. 788, pl. 3. fig. 4 Thyrsocyrtis (Thyrsocyrtis) norrisi Sanfilippo and Blome, 2001, p. 207–208, fig. 7f–7j, 7l, 7m Remarks: Thyrsocyrtis (Thyrsocyrtis) norrisi was described from the tropical Atlantic, ODP Site 1051, and was not identified in our Pacific samples. The specimens figured herein and by Dinkelman (1973) have larger abdominal pores than any of the specimens illustrated by Sanfilippo and Blome (2001); however, the description of their new species allows for larger abdominal pores. The distal part of the apical horn is thorny, similar to T. (T.) norrisi. Although the peristome of this Pacific form is wide and hyaline, the feet are not particularly divergent. The form figured herein first occurs in the uppermost part of the Podocyrtis (Lampterium) goetheana Zone (RP16) (Tables T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, and T7), above the likely range of T. (T.) norrisi in the tropical Atlantic (Sanfilippo and Blome, 2001).
Thyrsocyrtis (Thyrsocyrtis) pinguisicoides O’Connor
?Thyrsocyrtis sp. Dinkleman, 1973, p. 788, pl. 3. figs. 7, 8 Theocotyle “pinguisicoides” O’Connor, Hollis et al., 1997, p. 65. pl. 6, figs. 10–12 (nom. nud.). Thyrsocyrtis (Thyrsocyrtis) pinguisicoides O’Connor, 1999, p. 29–30, pl. 4, figs. 28–32; pl. 7, figs. 28a–31 Remarks: O’Connor (1999) gives a long discussion of this species and its taxonomy as it is defined in samples from South Island, New Zealand. He notes that the forms illustrated by Dinkleman (1973) “have more irregularly arranged thoracic pores, a differently shaped thorax, and a wider abdomen with respect to the thorax,” and thus only tentatively includes this form in T. (T.) pinguisicoides. Here we accept this inclusion with some reservations. Specimens of this form in the samples studied occur in a stratigraphic position similar to that found by Dinkleman (1973) and O’Connor (1999). However, in addition to the differences mentioned above in the form illustrated by Dinkleman (1973), we also note that many specimens (but not all) have small toothlike feet projecting from the peristomal ring (Plate P9, fig. 13). Later in the development of this form the feet disappear and are replaced by a more delicate, very irregularly pored or spongy termination that is rarely well preserved. (Plate P9, figs. 15, 16). This extension is similar to the termination of Artophormis gracilis but appears to be more coarsely pored. Tiny, hairlike attachments to the peristome detectable in the Dinkleman (1973) illustrations may be remnants of this spongy apron. The small toothlike projections in the early specimens and the thorny character of the apical horn may indicate that this species is descended from Thyrsocyrtis (Thyrsocyrtis) cf. T. (T.) norrisi (see above), perhaps through the intermediate form Thyrsocyrtis (Thyrsocyrtis) aff. T. (T.) pinguisicoides (see below).
Thyrsocyrtis (Thyrsocyrtis) aff. T. (T.) pinguisicoides O’Connor
Remarks: This very robust form first appears just above the first appearance of Thyrsocyrtis (Thyrsocyrtis) cf. T. (T.) norrisi and has a few similar characteristics. The cephalis bears a stout apical horn that is often as wide as the cephalis itself. The horn is bladed proximally but becomes cylindrical a short distance above the cephalis and is roughened and thorny distally, similar to Thyrsocyrtis (Thyrsocyrtis) cf. T. (T.) norrisi. Also similar is a distinct hyaline peristome with three triangular feet extending from it. The thorax has relatively small, hexagonally arranged pores; however, these pores do vary in size and shape and thus make the arrangement less than perfectly regular. Spines are frequently preserved extending outward from the pore bars of the thorax. The abdomen is inflated to subcylindrical. The abdominal pores are two to more than four times larger than those of the thorax, but they are highly irregular in size, shape, and arrangement. Pore bars in the thorax are laterally compressed so that their radial thickness is distinctly greater than their lateral thickness. A thin ridge is often seen on the outer pore bars, from which rise numerous small spines. Larger spines or nodes are present at pore bar junctions. Remnants of a delicate, spongy extension are often preserved along the edge of the peristome and peristomal feet. In the upper part of the range of this form, the peristomal feet become smaller and eventually disappear, leaving only remnants of the spongy extension along the peristome.
Thyrsocyrtis (Thyrsocyrtis) rhizodon Ehrenberg
Thyrsocyrtis rhizodon Ehrenberg, 1873, p. 262; 1875, p. 94, pl. 12, fig. 1; Sanfilippo and Riedel, 1982, p. 173, pl. 1, figs. 14–16; pl. 3, figs. 12–17
Tristylospyris triceros (Ehrenberg)
Ceratospyris triceros Ehrenberg, 1873, p. 220; 1875, pl. 21, fig. 5 Tristylospyris triceros (Ehrenberg), Haeckel, 1887, p. 1033; Riedel, 1959, p. 292, pl. 1, figs. 7, 8; Sanfilippo et al., 1985, p. 665, fig. 10.3a, 10.3b; Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 56, pl. P3, figs. 7, 8 Remarks: This species is used in a restricted sense herein to include forms bearing three cylindrical primary feet varying from slightly divergent to semicircularly curved and three or more secondary feet that are shorter and thinner, varying in form from cylindroconical to thin lamellar (Nigrini et al., 2006).
Zealithapium cf. Z. anoectum (Riedel and Sanfilippo)
Lithapium anoectum Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1973, p. 516, pl. 24, figs. 6, 7 Zealithapium anoectum (Riedel and Sanfilippo), O’Connor, 1999, p. 5; Nigrini et al., 2006, p. 56, pl. P1, figs. 1–4 Remarks: This form was found sporadically in the upper Eocene by Nigrini et al. (2006), as it is here. In spite of its sporadic appearance in samples, is does seem to have a consistent last appearance datum (Table T8).
Zealithapium mitra (Ehrenberg)
Cornutella mitra Ehrenberg, 1873, p. 221; 1875, pl. 2, fig. 8 Lithapium (?) mitra (Ehrenberg), Riedel and Sanfilippo, 1970, p. 520, pl. 4, figs. 6, 7 Zealithapium mitra (Riedel and Sanfilippo), O’Connor, 1999, pp. 5, 6, pl. 9, fig. 47
Zygocircus cimelium Petrushevskaya
Zygocircus cimelium Petrushevskaya, in Petrushevskaya and Kozlova, 1972, p. 534, pl. 41, figs. 5, 6; Nigrini et al., 2006, pp. 56–57, pl. P3, figs. 9–12 Remarks: Illustrations, remarks, and measurements contained in Nigrini et al. (2006) are very helpful in recognizing this species, which is often present only as fragments. |
|||
