Back
Cupritia
From Williams et al., 2017:
[Cupritia, Courtinat in Courtinat and Gaillard, 1980, p. 23
Acritarch genus, according to Stover and Williams, 1987, and Fensome et al., 1990
Type species: Cupritia minima, Courtinat in Courtinat and Gaillard, 1980 (pl.2, figs.7,10)]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original description: [Courtinat and Gaillard, 1980]: (Translation: Stover and Williams, 1987, p. 65):
Description:
Cyst acavate, polygonal; autophragm smooth to punctate. Projections of any kind absent.
Tabulation formula: ?0`, 6", ?0c, 5```, ?0p, ?0p.v, 1````.
Paracingulum reduced, parasulcus lozenge-shaped; archeopyle indefinite.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stover and Williams, 1987, p.55:
Remark:
Although the description of Cupritia is couched in terminology customarily applied more or less exclusively to dinoflagellate cysts, the affinity of this microfossil is equivocal. According to Jansonius (in Lentin and Wiliams, 1985, p. 84) Courbinat no longer considers this to be a dinoflagellate. Features that tend to favor an interpretation as a dinoflagellate cyst, but which are either lacking or expressed somewhat unusually on Cupritia are: 1. apparent absence of an archeopyle, 2. absence of a clearly delimited paracingulum, 3. the lozenge shape of the so-called parasulcus, and 4. the unusual outlines of the supposed paraplates.
[Cupritia, Courtinat in Courtinat and Gaillard, 1980, p. 23
Acritarch genus, according to Stover and Williams, 1987, and Fensome et al., 1990
Type species: Cupritia minima, Courtinat in Courtinat and Gaillard, 1980 (pl.2, figs.7,10)]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original description: [Courtinat and Gaillard, 1980]: (Translation: Stover and Williams, 1987, p. 65):
Description:
Cyst acavate, polygonal; autophragm smooth to punctate. Projections of any kind absent.
Tabulation formula: ?0`, 6", ?0c, 5```, ?0p, ?0p.v, 1````.
Paracingulum reduced, parasulcus lozenge-shaped; archeopyle indefinite.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stover and Williams, 1987, p.55:
Remark:
Although the description of Cupritia is couched in terminology customarily applied more or less exclusively to dinoflagellate cysts, the affinity of this microfossil is equivocal. According to Jansonius (in Lentin and Wiliams, 1985, p. 84) Courbinat no longer considers this to be a dinoflagellate. Features that tend to favor an interpretation as a dinoflagellate cyst, but which are either lacking or expressed somewhat unusually on Cupritia are: 1. apparent absence of an archeopyle, 2. absence of a clearly delimited paracingulum, 3. the lozenge shape of the so-called parasulcus, and 4. the unusual outlines of the supposed paraplates.