Back
Areoligera tenuicapillata ssp. pinopollina
From Fensome et al., 2019:
Areoligera tenuicapillata subsp. pinopollina (Wetzel, 1933b, p.42–43, pl.4, fig.22 ex Downie and Sarjeant, 1965, p.86) Lentin and Williams, 1973, p.16. Holotype: Wetzel, 1933b, pl.4, fig.22. Originally Hystrichosphaera tenuicapillata
forma pinopollina (name not validly published), subsequently Areoligera tenuicapillata forma pinopollina,
thirdly (and now) Areoligera tenuicapillata subsp. pinopollina. Lejeune-Carpentier (1938a, p.B167)
speculated that this taxon might be based on coniferous pollen. Lentin and Williams (1989, p.26) believed
it may be a damaged specimen of Hystrichosphaeridium (now Florentinia?) flosculus. The name
Hystrichosphaera tenuicapillata forma pinopollina was not validly published in Wetzel (1933b), since the
species name was not validly published until 1937. Age: Senonian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areoligera tenuicapillata subsp. pinopollina (Wetzel, 1933b, p.42–43, pl.4, fig.22 ex Downie and Sarjeant, 1965, p.86) Lentin and Williams, 1973, p.16. Holotype: Wetzel, 1933b, pl.4, fig.22. Originally Hystrichosphaera tenuicapillata
forma pinopollina (name not validly published), subsequently Areoligera tenuicapillata forma pinopollina,
thirdly (and now) Areoligera tenuicapillata subsp. pinopollina. Lejeune-Carpentier (1938a, p.B167)
speculated that this taxon might be based on coniferous pollen. Lentin and Williams (1989, p.26) believed
it may be a damaged specimen of Hystrichosphaeridium (now Florentinia?) flosculus. The name
Hystrichosphaera tenuicapillata forma pinopollina was not validly published in Wetzel (1933b), since the
species name was not validly published until 1937. Age: Senonian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------