Back
Teneridinium
From Williams et al., 2017:
[Teneridinium, Krutzsch, 1962, p. 41
Type species: Teneridinium magnoides, Krutzsch, 1962 (pl.10, figs.3–5)]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original description: [Krutzsch, 1962]: (Translation: Stover and Evitt, 1978, p. 239):
A genus of the Deflandreidae with a very thin central body and a similarly thin outer body. Both are less than 1 µm thick and always have numerous, crumpled folds. Test with a distinctive relatively long apical horn and two similar antapical horns. Outline five-sided, elongate, sides concave, walls smooth or shagreen. Equatorial furrow absent (vestigial), often faintly indicated at the edge of the outline. The vertical furrow is likewise more or less completely vestigial. Test without tabulation and no opening was observed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modified description:
Stover and Evitt, 1978, p. 239-240:
Synopsis:
Cysts cavate, compressed peridinioid, with a moderately well-developed apical horn and two antapical horns; essentially no indications of paratabulation or of archeopyle.
Description:
Shape: Compressed peridinioid with concave lateral margins; apical and antapical horns bluntly rounded.
Wall relationships: Cavate; endocyst thin-walled; large, relatively to equally thin-walled pericyst; apical and antapical pericoels always present; lateral pericoels may also be present.
Wall features: Parasutural features absent or vaguely indicated. Walls smooth or faintly ornamented.
Paratabulation: Not indicated.
Archeopyle: Apparently not developed.
Paracingulum: Absent or faintly indicated along the lateral margins.
Parasulcus: Not indicated.
Size: Large.
Affinities:
Teneridinium differs from Geiselodinium in having better developed apical and antapical horns. The distinction between these genera is slight and retention of both seems hardly justified. Tenerodinium differs from Deflandrea in lacking evidently, an archaeopyle.
[Teneridinium, Krutzsch, 1962, p. 41
Type species: Teneridinium magnoides, Krutzsch, 1962 (pl.10, figs.3–5)]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original description: [Krutzsch, 1962]: (Translation: Stover and Evitt, 1978, p. 239):
A genus of the Deflandreidae with a very thin central body and a similarly thin outer body. Both are less than 1 µm thick and always have numerous, crumpled folds. Test with a distinctive relatively long apical horn and two similar antapical horns. Outline five-sided, elongate, sides concave, walls smooth or shagreen. Equatorial furrow absent (vestigial), often faintly indicated at the edge of the outline. The vertical furrow is likewise more or less completely vestigial. Test without tabulation and no opening was observed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modified description:
Stover and Evitt, 1978, p. 239-240:
Synopsis:
Cysts cavate, compressed peridinioid, with a moderately well-developed apical horn and two antapical horns; essentially no indications of paratabulation or of archeopyle.
Description:
Shape: Compressed peridinioid with concave lateral margins; apical and antapical horns bluntly rounded.
Wall relationships: Cavate; endocyst thin-walled; large, relatively to equally thin-walled pericyst; apical and antapical pericoels always present; lateral pericoels may also be present.
Wall features: Parasutural features absent or vaguely indicated. Walls smooth or faintly ornamented.
Paratabulation: Not indicated.
Archeopyle: Apparently not developed.
Paracingulum: Absent or faintly indicated along the lateral margins.
Parasulcus: Not indicated.
Size: Large.
Affinities:
Teneridinium differs from Geiselodinium in having better developed apical and antapical horns. The distinction between these genera is slight and retention of both seems hardly justified. Tenerodinium differs from Deflandrea in lacking evidently, an archaeopyle.