Back
Spiniferites ramosus ssp. angustus
From Fensome et al., 2019:
Spiniferites ramosus ssp.? angustus (Wetzel, 1952, p.394, pl.A, fig.2; text-fig.2) Lentin and Williams, 1973, p.129. Emendation: Sarjeant, 1984c, p.125–126, as Spiniferites ramosus var. angustus. Holotype: Wetzel, 1952, pl.A, fig.2; text-fig.2; Sarjeant, 1984c, pl.8, figs.3–4. Originally Hystrichosphaera furcata subsp. angusta, subsequently (and now) Spiniferites ramosus? subsp. angustus, thirdly Spiniferites ramosus var. angustus. Lentin and Williams (1985, p.335) questionably retained this taxon as a subspecies of Spiniferites ramosus. Questionable assignment: Lentin and Williams (1973, p.129). Age: Danian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Locus typicus: North German drift, Kiel district, Germany
Stratum typicum: Danian
Translation W.Wetzel, 1952: Sarjeant, 1984
Original diagnosis: W. Wetzel, 1952, p. 394: Hystrichosphaera furcata ssp. angusta
. . . distinct ovoid form of the capsule with a clearly pointed pole..., proportionately short processes and dimensions rather below average. Thereby is an approach to H. speciosa Deflandre (1937), pl. 9 fig. 2 evoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emended diagnosis: Sarjeant, 1984c, p.126: Spiniferites ramosus var. angustus
A variety of Spiniferites ramosus having a markedly ovoidal to almost pyriform central body and relatively short gonal and sutural processes, united proximally by well-developed sutural crests and having only short distal branches.
Dimensions. Holotype: length 48 µm, length of central body 36 µm, breadth of central body 30 µm.
Discussion. In virtually all features, this variety accords with Spiniferites ramosus var. multibrevis Davey and Williams, 1966, differing only in the pyriform shape of its central body and perhaps in the style of branching of its processes. (Unfortunately, the holotype"s depth of burial in the containing flint made the precise distal structure of the spines hard to ascertain). It is likely, indeed, that the two taxa should be united. However, the uncertainties concerning the spine character of S. ramosus angustus make it seem preferable that use of the latter name continue to be restricted to its holotype.
Spiniferites ramosus ssp.? angustus (Wetzel, 1952, p.394, pl.A, fig.2; text-fig.2) Lentin and Williams, 1973, p.129. Emendation: Sarjeant, 1984c, p.125–126, as Spiniferites ramosus var. angustus. Holotype: Wetzel, 1952, pl.A, fig.2; text-fig.2; Sarjeant, 1984c, pl.8, figs.3–4. Originally Hystrichosphaera furcata subsp. angusta, subsequently (and now) Spiniferites ramosus? subsp. angustus, thirdly Spiniferites ramosus var. angustus. Lentin and Williams (1985, p.335) questionably retained this taxon as a subspecies of Spiniferites ramosus. Questionable assignment: Lentin and Williams (1973, p.129). Age: Danian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Locus typicus: North German drift, Kiel district, Germany
Stratum typicum: Danian
Translation W.Wetzel, 1952: Sarjeant, 1984
Original diagnosis: W. Wetzel, 1952, p. 394: Hystrichosphaera furcata ssp. angusta
. . . distinct ovoid form of the capsule with a clearly pointed pole..., proportionately short processes and dimensions rather below average. Thereby is an approach to H. speciosa Deflandre (1937), pl. 9 fig. 2 evoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emended diagnosis: Sarjeant, 1984c, p.126: Spiniferites ramosus var. angustus
A variety of Spiniferites ramosus having a markedly ovoidal to almost pyriform central body and relatively short gonal and sutural processes, united proximally by well-developed sutural crests and having only short distal branches.
Dimensions. Holotype: length 48 µm, length of central body 36 µm, breadth of central body 30 µm.
Discussion. In virtually all features, this variety accords with Spiniferites ramosus var. multibrevis Davey and Williams, 1966, differing only in the pyriform shape of its central body and perhaps in the style of branching of its processes. (Unfortunately, the holotype"s depth of burial in the containing flint made the precise distal structure of the spines hard to ascertain). It is likely, indeed, that the two taxa should be united. However, the uncertainties concerning the spine character of S. ramosus angustus make it seem preferable that use of the latter name continue to be restricted to its holotype.