Back
Veryhachium trisulcum
Veryhachium trisulcum Deunff, 1951 ex Deunff, 1959
See also Hystrichosphaeridium trisulcum (nomen nudum) and Veryhachium trispinosum ssp. trisulcum (an acritarch subspecies; combination not validly published). Deunff, 1959 cited as the holotype a specimen which he designated as
"A-87" and indicated that he was not illustrating that specimen. However, on the same page, he also cited specimen "A-87" as a paratype and illustrated it in his pl.1, fig.4. Subsequent authors, including Eisenack et al., 1979 have stated that the
holotype was illustrated in Deunff, 1951, text-fig.3. Since the specimen illustrated in Deunff, 1951 is not demonstrably the same as "A-87", the specimen illustrated in Deunff, 1959, pl.1,fig.4 is assumed to be the holotype. The names Hystrichosphaeridium trisulcum and Veryhachium trisulcum were nomina nuda respectively in Deunff, 1951 and Deunff, 1954. Wicander, 1983 excluded this taxon from his synonymy list for Veryhachium trispinosum. Cramer and Diez, 1979 implied that Veryhachium trisulcum (or Veryhachium trispinosum) may be synonymous with the acritarch species Hystrichosphaeridium (now Deunffia)
monacanthum Deunff, 1951. Beju, 1972 and Tynni, 1975 misspelled the specific epithet as "trisulcatum".
Holotype: Deunff, 1959, pl.1, fig.4
Age: Middle Ordovician
See also Hystrichosphaeridium trisulcum (nomen nudum) and Veryhachium trispinosum ssp. trisulcum (an acritarch subspecies; combination not validly published). Deunff, 1959 cited as the holotype a specimen which he designated as
"A-87" and indicated that he was not illustrating that specimen. However, on the same page, he also cited specimen "A-87" as a paratype and illustrated it in his pl.1, fig.4. Subsequent authors, including Eisenack et al., 1979 have stated that the
holotype was illustrated in Deunff, 1951, text-fig.3. Since the specimen illustrated in Deunff, 1951 is not demonstrably the same as "A-87", the specimen illustrated in Deunff, 1959, pl.1,fig.4 is assumed to be the holotype. The names Hystrichosphaeridium trisulcum and Veryhachium trisulcum were nomina nuda respectively in Deunff, 1951 and Deunff, 1954. Wicander, 1983 excluded this taxon from his synonymy list for Veryhachium trispinosum. Cramer and Diez, 1979 implied that Veryhachium trisulcum (or Veryhachium trispinosum) may be synonymous with the acritarch species Hystrichosphaeridium (now Deunffia)
monacanthum Deunff, 1951. Beju, 1972 and Tynni, 1975 misspelled the specific epithet as "trisulcatum".
Holotype: Deunff, 1959, pl.1, fig.4
Age: Middle Ordovician