Back
Ceratiopsis
From Fensome et al., 2019:
"Ceratiopsis", Vozzhennikova, 1963, p.181.
Emendation: Bujak et al., 1980, p.27.
Name illegitimate -- senior homonym: Ceratiopsis de Wildeman, 1896.
Taxonomic senior synonym: Cerodinium, by implication in Lentin and Williams (1977b, p.20), who considered Ceratiopsis to be the senior name. Taxonomic senior synonym: Deflandrea, according to Lentin and Williams (1976, p.153) -- however, Lentin and Williams (1985, p.48) retained
Ceratiopsis. Lindgren (1985, p.670) maintained that the name Ceratiopsis was not validly published in Vozzhennikova 1963, stating that the species Ceratiopsis leptoderma was described, but not the genus Ceratiopsis and that the latter was not monotypic, containing three species. However, since only one species, Ceratiopsis leptoderma, was assigned to Ceratiopsis by Vozzhennikova (1963), the single description provided can be applied to both genus and species and the name Ceratiopsis can be deemed to have been validly published in Vozzhennikova
(1963) (ICN Article 38.5).
Type: Vozzhennikova, 1963, text-fig.8, as Ceratiopsis leptoderma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original description: [Vozzhennikova, 1963]: (Translation: Lees in Sarjeant, 1971, p. 245-246):
Description:
Theca elongate oval with well developed apical and antapical horns, the size of which are variable. Transverse furrow shallow, annulate, equatorial, dividing the theca into almost equal parts. Longitudinal furrow situated on the hypotheca and extending to the antapex. Internal body large, elliptical or ovoid, coloured deep yellow or pale brown, its surface smooth or finely granular. Theca coloured, thinwalled, delicate transparent and closely adpressed to the internal body. Pylome large, rounded trapeziform and situated below the transverse furrow where it corresponds in position to the third anterior equatorial plate. More rarely the pylome is not developed.
Affinities:
This differs from other genera in having a more elongated theca, a very large pylome which is situated in the equatorial part of the theca, and a distinctive outline.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emended description:
Bujak et al, 1980:
Diagnosis:
Pericyst ambitus rounded, ovoidal, pentagonal or peridinioid, elongated longitudinally, and produced into one distinct apical and two distinct antapical horns. The antapical horns are of approximately equal length. Endocyst spherical to ovoidal, or occasionally weakly peridinioid. Apical and antapical pericoels always present, sometimes connected by an ambital pericoel.
Periphragm smooth, chagrinate, granulate, denticulate, rugulate, verrucate, or striate, the ornament commonly being aligned longitudinally. Endophragm smooth, chagrinate, or granulate.
Paratabulation not evident.
Pericingulum present, commonly indented and planar or slightly helicoidal.
Perisulcus, when visible, longer and broader on the hypocyst.
Endocingulum and endosulcus not observed.
Periarchaeopyle intercalary, involving the second anterior intercalary paraplate (2a), hexa, with the archaeopyle length approximately equal to the breadth.
Perioperculum typically detached.
Endoarchaeopyle intercalary, involving between one and three of the anterior intercalary paraplates (la-3a).
Endoperculum detached or remaining partially attached.
Archaeopyle formula I/I (2a/2a) to I/3I (2a/la-3a).
"Ceratiopsis", Vozzhennikova, 1963, p.181.
Emendation: Bujak et al., 1980, p.27.
Name illegitimate -- senior homonym: Ceratiopsis de Wildeman, 1896.
Taxonomic senior synonym: Cerodinium, by implication in Lentin and Williams (1977b, p.20), who considered Ceratiopsis to be the senior name. Taxonomic senior synonym: Deflandrea, according to Lentin and Williams (1976, p.153) -- however, Lentin and Williams (1985, p.48) retained
Ceratiopsis. Lindgren (1985, p.670) maintained that the name Ceratiopsis was not validly published in Vozzhennikova 1963, stating that the species Ceratiopsis leptoderma was described, but not the genus Ceratiopsis and that the latter was not monotypic, containing three species. However, since only one species, Ceratiopsis leptoderma, was assigned to Ceratiopsis by Vozzhennikova (1963), the single description provided can be applied to both genus and species and the name Ceratiopsis can be deemed to have been validly published in Vozzhennikova
(1963) (ICN Article 38.5).
Type: Vozzhennikova, 1963, text-fig.8, as Ceratiopsis leptoderma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original description: [Vozzhennikova, 1963]: (Translation: Lees in Sarjeant, 1971, p. 245-246):
Description:
Theca elongate oval with well developed apical and antapical horns, the size of which are variable. Transverse furrow shallow, annulate, equatorial, dividing the theca into almost equal parts. Longitudinal furrow situated on the hypotheca and extending to the antapex. Internal body large, elliptical or ovoid, coloured deep yellow or pale brown, its surface smooth or finely granular. Theca coloured, thinwalled, delicate transparent and closely adpressed to the internal body. Pylome large, rounded trapeziform and situated below the transverse furrow where it corresponds in position to the third anterior equatorial plate. More rarely the pylome is not developed.
Affinities:
This differs from other genera in having a more elongated theca, a very large pylome which is situated in the equatorial part of the theca, and a distinctive outline.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emended description:
Bujak et al, 1980:
Diagnosis:
Pericyst ambitus rounded, ovoidal, pentagonal or peridinioid, elongated longitudinally, and produced into one distinct apical and two distinct antapical horns. The antapical horns are of approximately equal length. Endocyst spherical to ovoidal, or occasionally weakly peridinioid. Apical and antapical pericoels always present, sometimes connected by an ambital pericoel.
Periphragm smooth, chagrinate, granulate, denticulate, rugulate, verrucate, or striate, the ornament commonly being aligned longitudinally. Endophragm smooth, chagrinate, or granulate.
Paratabulation not evident.
Pericingulum present, commonly indented and planar or slightly helicoidal.
Perisulcus, when visible, longer and broader on the hypocyst.
Endocingulum and endosulcus not observed.
Periarchaeopyle intercalary, involving the second anterior intercalary paraplate (2a), hexa, with the archaeopyle length approximately equal to the breadth.
Perioperculum typically detached.
Endoarchaeopyle intercalary, involving between one and three of the anterior intercalary paraplates (la-3a).
Endoperculum detached or remaining partially attached.
Archaeopyle formula I/I (2a/2a) to I/3I (2a/la-3a).