Back
Cannosphaeropsis
From Fensome et al., 2019:
Cannosphaeropsis, Wetzel, 1933b, p.6.
Emendations: Williams and Downie, 1966c, p.222; Duxbury, 1980, p.114; Marheinecke, 1992, p.41.
This name was not validly published in Wetzel (1932, p.136) since it was merely used in anticipation of future acceptance of the name (ICN Article 36.1). This interpretation is in contrast to that of Lentin and Williams (1993, p.77).
Type: Wetzel, 1933b, pl.3, figs.9a–b, as Cannosphaeropsis utinensis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original description: [O.Wetzel 1933]: (Translation: Stover and Evitt, 1978):
Description:
Similar to the radiolarian Cannosphaera, from which it differs (also from Coelacantha) externally by the lack of a true pylome, by the number and arrangement of radial rods, as well as by the construction of the meshwork.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emended description:
Deflandre, 1937b: (Translation: Stover and Evitt, 1978):
Description:
Micro-organisms of seemingly chitinous composition; formed of a central, globular body that is connected to a tubular, enveloping meshwork by some hollow appendages. Meshwork with large lumina between the radial appendages.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modified description:
Stover and Evitt 1978, p. 143-144:
Synopsis:
Cysts chorate, body subspherical, without parasutural lines and surrounded by a network (ectophragm) of single parasutural trabeculae supported by varying number of processes; triradiate accessory branches of trabeculae present at gonal positions, and two short branches (one on each side of trabeculum) may occur intergonally; paratabulation gonyaulacacean, archeopyle precingular, Type P.
Description:
Shape: Body subspherical; surrounding trabecular network more or less concentric to body.
Wall relationships: Autophragm surrounded by an ectophragmal network of single parasutural trabeculae supported by varying number of processes.
Wall features: Single parasutural trabeculae form a large-mesh ectophragmal network connected to distal ends of gonal processes; short triradiate branches, each ray located between two trabeculae; branches present at gonal positions, even if shafts are not developed; two short branches, one on each side of trabeculum and opposite each other, may occur at intergonal positions. Autophragm between processes smooth, normally thin, and often complexly folded.
Paratabulation: Indicated by parasutural and gonal features and the archeopyle; gonyaulacacean, paratabulation commonly undecipherable
owing to distortion of trabeculae and the varying number of processes.
Archeopyle: Precingular, Type P (3`` only); operculum free; archeopyle obscure if autophragm is folded severely.
Paracingulum: Indicated by linear series of elongate lumina in network of trabeculae.
Parasulcus: Rarely recognizable, but may be indicated by parasutural trabeculae.
Size: Intermediate
Affinities:
Cannosphaeropsis differs from Nematosphaeropsis in having single parasutural trabeculae between gonal positions. In Nematosphaeropsis, ectophragmal trabeculae represent extensions of the triradiate tips of the gonal processes so that at least two trabeculae connect adjacent processes. Additionally, parasutural ridges or septa supposedly connect the bases of processes (which are typically more numerous in Nematosphaeropsis than in Cannosphaeropsis) but the ridges or septa are rarely discernible.
Cannosphaeropsis, Wetzel, 1933b, p.6.
Emendations: Williams and Downie, 1966c, p.222; Duxbury, 1980, p.114; Marheinecke, 1992, p.41.
This name was not validly published in Wetzel (1932, p.136) since it was merely used in anticipation of future acceptance of the name (ICN Article 36.1). This interpretation is in contrast to that of Lentin and Williams (1993, p.77).
Type: Wetzel, 1933b, pl.3, figs.9a–b, as Cannosphaeropsis utinensis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original description: [O.Wetzel 1933]: (Translation: Stover and Evitt, 1978):
Description:
Similar to the radiolarian Cannosphaera, from which it differs (also from Coelacantha) externally by the lack of a true pylome, by the number and arrangement of radial rods, as well as by the construction of the meshwork.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emended description:
Deflandre, 1937b: (Translation: Stover and Evitt, 1978):
Description:
Micro-organisms of seemingly chitinous composition; formed of a central, globular body that is connected to a tubular, enveloping meshwork by some hollow appendages. Meshwork with large lumina between the radial appendages.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modified description:
Stover and Evitt 1978, p. 143-144:
Synopsis:
Cysts chorate, body subspherical, without parasutural lines and surrounded by a network (ectophragm) of single parasutural trabeculae supported by varying number of processes; triradiate accessory branches of trabeculae present at gonal positions, and two short branches (one on each side of trabeculum) may occur intergonally; paratabulation gonyaulacacean, archeopyle precingular, Type P.
Description:
Shape: Body subspherical; surrounding trabecular network more or less concentric to body.
Wall relationships: Autophragm surrounded by an ectophragmal network of single parasutural trabeculae supported by varying number of processes.
Wall features: Single parasutural trabeculae form a large-mesh ectophragmal network connected to distal ends of gonal processes; short triradiate branches, each ray located between two trabeculae; branches present at gonal positions, even if shafts are not developed; two short branches, one on each side of trabeculum and opposite each other, may occur at intergonal positions. Autophragm between processes smooth, normally thin, and often complexly folded.
Paratabulation: Indicated by parasutural and gonal features and the archeopyle; gonyaulacacean, paratabulation commonly undecipherable
owing to distortion of trabeculae and the varying number of processes.
Archeopyle: Precingular, Type P (3`` only); operculum free; archeopyle obscure if autophragm is folded severely.
Paracingulum: Indicated by linear series of elongate lumina in network of trabeculae.
Parasulcus: Rarely recognizable, but may be indicated by parasutural trabeculae.
Size: Intermediate
Affinities:
Cannosphaeropsis differs from Nematosphaeropsis in having single parasutural trabeculae between gonal positions. In Nematosphaeropsis, ectophragmal trabeculae represent extensions of the triradiate tips of the gonal processes so that at least two trabeculae connect adjacent processes. Additionally, parasutural ridges or septa supposedly connect the bases of processes (which are typically more numerous in Nematosphaeropsis than in Cannosphaeropsis) but the ridges or septa are rarely discernible.