Reticulofenestra asanoi

Classification: Coccolithophores -> Isochrysidales -> Noelaerhabdaceae -> Reticulofenestra -> R. pseudoumbilicus group -> Reticulofenestra asanoi
Sister taxa: R. calicis, R. pseudoumbilicus, R. haqii, R. minuta, R. minutula, R. asanoi, R. kahniae, R. rotaria, R. pospichalii,


Citation: Reticulofenestra asanoi Sato and Takayama, 1992.
Rank: Species
Synonyms: Reticulofenestra sp. A Matsuoka & Okada 1989
Notes & discussion: Probably derived from P. lacunosa, from which it is distinguished by the absence of slits in the distal shield, see Matsuoka & Okada 1989 for detailed data. The species is also discussed in Maiorano & Marino (2004)

Distinguishing features: Coccoliths >6.5µm, sub-circular or broadly elliptical, intergrades with P. lacunosa.

Farinacci & Howe catalog pages: Reticulofenestra asanoi *

Search data:
TagsLITHS: placolith, elliptical, sub-circular, CA: grill, vacant,
CSPH: spherical, equant, monomorphic, V-UNITS: none, R-UNITS: all, c-str, distal shield, prox shield, tube, R-prominent, DETAILS: ca_conjunct, isogyres kinked, isogyres oblique, rim-unicyclic,
MetricsLith size: 5->7µm;
The morphological data given here can be used on the advanced search page. See also these notes

Geological Range:
Notes: Short interval within NN19. Approx MIS-34 to MIS-22 (0.7-1.2 Ma), with the first occurrence being more gradational than the last occurrence  (Raffi et al. 2006).
Last occurrence (top): within NN19 zone (0.44-1.93Ma, top in Ionian stage). Data source: Young 1998
First occurrence (base): within NN19 zone (0.44-1.93Ma, base in Gelasian stage). Data source: Young 1998

Plot of occurrence data:

  • Histogram - Neptune occurrence data from DSDP and ODP proceedings. Pale shading <50 samples in time bin. Interpret with caution & read these notes
  • Note to users in China - the diagram may not plot unless you use a VPN since I use google services on the website. If this is a problem please contact me 谢谢.
  • Taxon plotted: Reticulofenestra asanoi, synonyms included - Reticulofenestra ampla; Reticulofenestra asanoi; Reticulofenestra asanoi (>6 microns); Reticulofenestra asanoi n.sp.; Reticulofenestra astoni;
  • space-time plot :: Samples map :: Parent: R. pseudoumbilicus group


    Maiorano, P. & Marino, M. (2004). Calcareous nannofossil bioevents and environmental control on temporal and spatial patterns at the early–middle Pleistocene. Marine Micropaleontology. 53: 405-422. gs :: ::

    Matsuoka, H. & Okada, H. (1989). Quantitative analysis of Quaternary nannoplankton in the subtropical Northwestern Pacific Ocean. Marine Micropaleontology. 14: 97-118. gs :: ::

    Raffi, I. et al. (2006). A review of calcareous nannofossil astrobiochronology encompassing the past 25 million years. Quaternary Science Reviews. 25: 3113-3137. gs :: ::

    Sato, T. & Takayama, T. (1992). A stratigraphically significant new species of the calcareous nannofossil Reticulofenestra asanoi. In, Ishizaki, K. & Sato, T. (eds) Century of Japanese Micropalaeontology. Terra Scientific Tokyo, Tokyo 457-460. gs :: ::

    Young, J. R. (1998). Neogene. In, Bown, P. R. (ed.) Calcareous Nannofossil Biostratigraphy. British Micropalaeontological Society Publication Series. 225-265. gs :: ::


    Reticulofenestra asanoi compiled by Jeremy R. Young, Paul R. Bown, Jacqueline A. Lees viewed: 6-6-2020

    Taxon Search:
    Advanced Search

    Short stable page link: Go to to create a permanent copy of this page - citation notes

    Comments (1)

    Sort By
    Page 1 of 1
    Mike Styzen (Noble Energy, US)
    I've never been able to really embrace this species as I need some definite criteria for distinguishing it absolutely from Pseudoemiliania ovata on the one hand and any number of medium sized nondescript Reticulofenestras on the other. I've been told that R. asanoi may not be totaly devoid of slits on the distal shield, it may have a few. If this is the case what makes it different from just a big P. ovata? Is there a cutoff size? Other features to watch for?
    Jeremy Young (NHM, UK)
    I must admit I have had problems with this too. I tried arguing a long time ago (Young 1991) that we ought to get rid of Pseudoemiliania since it intergrades with Reticulofenestra, and the existence of R. asanoi makes it even worse. The best study I know of the group is still Matsuoka and Okada (1989) they used TEM to measure and count specimens, which is a good way to reliably spot the slits and give detailed data on morphotypes in the group in the mid Quatnary from a piston core in subtropical N.W. Pacific.
    They defined a Reticulofenestra sp. A , >5µm with no slits and showed that the >6µm examples of this morphotype had a limited range around the Jaramilo magnetochron (C1r.1n), which is the same as R. asanoi sensu e.g. Raffi et al. (2006). Their data also shows that large P. ovata specimens increase in abundance during this interval. So, yes R. asanoi will intergrade with smaller oval Reticulofenestra species and with P. ovata specimens with a few slits, but it is still useful to distinguish it.

    Matsuoka, H. & Okada, H. 1989. Quantitative Analysis of Quaternary Nanoplankton in the Subtropical Northwestern Pacific Ocean. Marine Micropaleontology 14, 97- 118.
    Raffi, I., Backman, J., Fornaciari, E., Palike, H., Rio, D., Lourens, L. J. & Hilgen, F. J. 2006. A review of calcareous nannofossil astrobiochronology encompassing the past 25 million years. Quaternary Science Reviews 25, 3113-3137. 
    Young, J. R. 1990. Size variation of Neogene Reticulofenestra coccoliths from Indian Ocean DSDP cores. Journal of Micropalaeontology 9, 71-86.
    Page 1 of 1

    Add Comment

    * Required information
    Captcha Image
    Powered by Commentics