Back
Gochteodinia phoenix
From Fensome et al., 2019:
Gochteodinia? phoenix (Duxbury, 1980, p.124–125, pl.13, figs.5–6; text-fig.9) Duxbury, 2019, p.194. Holotype: Duxbury, 1980, pl.13, figs.5–6; text-fig.9; Fauconnier and Masure, 2004, pl.19, figs.4–11. Originally Hystrichosphaeridium?, subsequently Surculosphaeridium?, thirdly Cymososphaeridium?, fourthly (and now) Gochteodinia?. Questionable assignment: Duxbury (2019, p.194). In the caption to his text-fig.3, Duxbury (2019, p.193) indictaed that he was emending this species, but he did not specifically provide an emended description or equivalent. NIA. Age: Barremian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original description (Duxbury, 1980):
Hystrichosphaeridium ? phoenix n. sp.
PL 13, figs. 5, 6; text-fig. 9
Derivation of Name: From the Latin phoenix, a date palm — in reference to the morphology of each process.
Holotype: PI. 13, figs. 5, 6; text- fig. 9.
Type Locality: Division UB, Speeton Clay, Speeton, England.
Diagnosis: A chorate cyst with a small, smooth central body which is spheroidal, though usually extensively folded and which bears long (up to 3/4 main body diameter), solid processes. The processes are smooth and may number up to 20 per individual. Each process flares proximally, and distally divides into a number (usually 6—8) of slender, flat spines. The overall diameter of the process terminations may exceed the main body radius.
Observed Dimensions: Holotype — 76 x 73 μm
Overall — 84 (71) 57 x 76 (65) 52 μm
Specimens Measured — 14
Remarks: Hystrichosphaeridium ? phoenix is a most distinctive species but may be compared with other taxa, particularly Melitasphaeridium choanophorum (Deflandre & Cookson, 1955) Harland & Hill, 1979, Hystrichosphaeridium recurvatum (White, 1842), Davey & Williams, 1966b, Bacchidimum polypes (Cookson 6c Eisenack, 1962) Davey, 1979a and Taleisphaera hydra Duxbury (1979). H. recurvatum and M. choanophorum both have hollow processes with distal spines (or fringes with spines) around the distal tubular margins. This contrasts with the solid processes of H. ? phoenix. B. polypes and T. hydra possess solid processes but the number of such processes is markedly greater than in H. ? phoenix.
Also, the first two taxa have a constantly greater main body/overall diameter ratio than the latter. T. hydra has angularity to the main body and penitabular crests and neither of these features is demonstrated by H. ? phoenix.
The archeopyle type in H. ? phoenix is debatable. It is possibly tetratabular apical, as in such taxa as H. recurvatum, single-paraplate precingular, as in M. choanophorum, or two paraplate precingular as in T. hydra and (probably) B. polypes. The presence of solid processes tends to suggest that H. ? phoenix may be closer to the B. polypes/T. hydra group of cysts than to others. Rather than describe a new genus based on H. ? phoenix, whose archeopyle is uncertain, the author chooses to place this species tentatively in Hystrichosphaeridium.
Gochteodinia? phoenix (Duxbury, 1980, p.124–125, pl.13, figs.5–6; text-fig.9) Duxbury, 2019, p.194. Holotype: Duxbury, 1980, pl.13, figs.5–6; text-fig.9; Fauconnier and Masure, 2004, pl.19, figs.4–11. Originally Hystrichosphaeridium?, subsequently Surculosphaeridium?, thirdly Cymososphaeridium?, fourthly (and now) Gochteodinia?. Questionable assignment: Duxbury (2019, p.194). In the caption to his text-fig.3, Duxbury (2019, p.193) indictaed that he was emending this species, but he did not specifically provide an emended description or equivalent. NIA. Age: Barremian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original description (Duxbury, 1980):
Hystrichosphaeridium ? phoenix n. sp.
PL 13, figs. 5, 6; text-fig. 9
Derivation of Name: From the Latin phoenix, a date palm — in reference to the morphology of each process.
Holotype: PI. 13, figs. 5, 6; text- fig. 9.
Type Locality: Division UB, Speeton Clay, Speeton, England.
Diagnosis: A chorate cyst with a small, smooth central body which is spheroidal, though usually extensively folded and which bears long (up to 3/4 main body diameter), solid processes. The processes are smooth and may number up to 20 per individual. Each process flares proximally, and distally divides into a number (usually 6—8) of slender, flat spines. The overall diameter of the process terminations may exceed the main body radius.
Observed Dimensions: Holotype — 76 x 73 μm
Overall — 84 (71) 57 x 76 (65) 52 μm
Specimens Measured — 14
Remarks: Hystrichosphaeridium ? phoenix is a most distinctive species but may be compared with other taxa, particularly Melitasphaeridium choanophorum (Deflandre & Cookson, 1955) Harland & Hill, 1979, Hystrichosphaeridium recurvatum (White, 1842), Davey & Williams, 1966b, Bacchidimum polypes (Cookson 6c Eisenack, 1962) Davey, 1979a and Taleisphaera hydra Duxbury (1979). H. recurvatum and M. choanophorum both have hollow processes with distal spines (or fringes with spines) around the distal tubular margins. This contrasts with the solid processes of H. ? phoenix. B. polypes and T. hydra possess solid processes but the number of such processes is markedly greater than in H. ? phoenix.
Also, the first two taxa have a constantly greater main body/overall diameter ratio than the latter. T. hydra has angularity to the main body and penitabular crests and neither of these features is demonstrated by H. ? phoenix.
The archeopyle type in H. ? phoenix is debatable. It is possibly tetratabular apical, as in such taxa as H. recurvatum, single-paraplate precingular, as in M. choanophorum, or two paraplate precingular as in T. hydra and (probably) B. polypes. The presence of solid processes tends to suggest that H. ? phoenix may be closer to the B. polypes/T. hydra group of cysts than to others. Rather than describe a new genus based on H. ? phoenix, whose archeopyle is uncertain, the author chooses to place this species tentatively in Hystrichosphaeridium.