Back
Trichodinium granulatum
From Fensome et al., 2019:
Trichodinium? granulatum (Horowitz, 1975, p.25, pl.1, fig.4) Fensome et al., 2019a, p.56.
Holotype: Horowitz, 1975, pl.1, fig.4; Fensome et al., 2019a, fig.20G.
Originally Doidyx, subsequently Cyclonephelium?, thirdly (and now) Trichodinium?. Questionable assignment: Fensome et al. (2019a. p.56). Conway and Cousminer (1983, p.35) questioned the age assigned to this species.
Age: Late Triassic (probably not in place).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original description (Horowitz, 1975): translation PKB 2024
Holotype: slide P 431, Zohar 9 survey, depth 2014 m, Upper Triassic, South of Israel.
Description: Proximal Dinoflagellate cyst. Biconical cyst, asymmetrical, apical cone a little wider, apex sometimes open. Equatorial cingulum clear, tabulation barely visible. Delicate membrane, approximately 112 IL thick, slightly granular. Very small spines, l-2 IL long, covering the cyst in a few places, irregularly distributed.
Average dimensions: 15 X 67 ll, 20 specimens.
Discussion: This species differs from other species of the Doidyx genus by the small size of its spines, which give a grainy appearance.
Origin of the name: after the granular appearance of the cyst.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Fensome et al., 2019a:
This species is clearly a gonyaulacacean with a precingular archaeopyle, and it possesses short spines (referred to in the original description and contrasting with the granulation suggested by the epithet), and thus seems to fit the circumscription of Trichodinium. Hence, we tentatively assign it to that genus. Although the holotype was recorded from supposedly Triassic strata, it was most probably caved from younger horizons (Conway & Cousminer 1983, p. 35). Given the questions surrounding its generic assignment and its problematic provenance, we recommend that the name be restricted to the holotype.
Stratigraphical occurrence. Horowitz (1975) considered this species to be from the Upper Triassic of Israel. However, the specimens are from uncased wells and so probably represent material caved fron higher in the section.
Trichodinium? granulatum (Horowitz, 1975, p.25, pl.1, fig.4) Fensome et al., 2019a, p.56.
Holotype: Horowitz, 1975, pl.1, fig.4; Fensome et al., 2019a, fig.20G.
Originally Doidyx, subsequently Cyclonephelium?, thirdly (and now) Trichodinium?. Questionable assignment: Fensome et al. (2019a. p.56). Conway and Cousminer (1983, p.35) questioned the age assigned to this species.
Age: Late Triassic (probably not in place).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original description (Horowitz, 1975): translation PKB 2024
Holotype: slide P 431, Zohar 9 survey, depth 2014 m, Upper Triassic, South of Israel.
Description: Proximal Dinoflagellate cyst. Biconical cyst, asymmetrical, apical cone a little wider, apex sometimes open. Equatorial cingulum clear, tabulation barely visible. Delicate membrane, approximately 112 IL thick, slightly granular. Very small spines, l-2 IL long, covering the cyst in a few places, irregularly distributed.
Average dimensions: 15 X 67 ll, 20 specimens.
Discussion: This species differs from other species of the Doidyx genus by the small size of its spines, which give a grainy appearance.
Origin of the name: after the granular appearance of the cyst.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Fensome et al., 2019a:
This species is clearly a gonyaulacacean with a precingular archaeopyle, and it possesses short spines (referred to in the original description and contrasting with the granulation suggested by the epithet), and thus seems to fit the circumscription of Trichodinium. Hence, we tentatively assign it to that genus. Although the holotype was recorded from supposedly Triassic strata, it was most probably caved from younger horizons (Conway & Cousminer 1983, p. 35). Given the questions surrounding its generic assignment and its problematic provenance, we recommend that the name be restricted to the holotype.
Stratigraphical occurrence. Horowitz (1975) considered this species to be from the Upper Triassic of Israel. However, the specimens are from uncased wells and so probably represent material caved fron higher in the section.