Back
Dorocysta

From Williams et al., 2017:

[Dorocysta, Davey, 1970, p. 358

Type species: Dorocysta litotes, Davey, 1970 (pl.5, fig.6; text-fig.2A)]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original description: [Davey, 1970]:

Description:
Shell small, broad-based with sides converging anteriorly to small apical face. Cingulum typically present and occasionally precingular and postcingular plate boundaries. Small number of processes, simple or branched; usually 4 at anterior and 5 at posterior of shell. Angular archaeopyle commonly present in centre of anterior face.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modified description:

Stover and Evitt, 1978, p. 40:

Synopsis:
Cysts skolochorate, body flask-shaped with a few processes (four to five) around each polar area; paratabulation indicated incompletely by faint parasutural markings that are absent in polar areas; archeopyle apical, type uncertain.

Description:
Shape: Broadly flask-shaped with apical area narrower than antapical area.
Wall relationships: Autophragm only.
Wall features: Parasutural features confined to precingular, paracingular, and postcingular areas. Apical end with four processes, antapical end with four or five processes; processes simple or branched, and spaced more or less equidistant around the polar areas. Autophragm smooth.
Paratabulation: Indicated by paracingulum and occasionally also by faint longitudinal, parasutural, linear markings adjacent to the paracingulum; formula unknown.
Archeopyle: Apical, type uncertain; exact shape of archeopyle and operculum unknown.
Paracingulum: Indicated by low transverse parallel thickenings.
Parasulcus: Not indicated.
Size: Small.

Affinities:
Dorocysta differs from Stenopyxinium and Cauca in having an apical rather than a combination archeopyle. It differs further from Cauca in having its processes confined to the polar areas instead of being distributed over almost all areas of the cyst.

Showing all species

Feedback/Report bug