Chiloguembelina cubensis


Classification: pf_cenozoic -> Guembelitrioidea -> Chiloguembelinidae -> Chiloguembelina -> Chiloguembelina cubensis
Sister taxa: C. adriatica, C. cubensis, C. andreae, C. ototara, C. parallela, C. trinitatensis, C. wilcoxensis, C. crinita, C. subtriangularis, C. midwayensis, C. morsei, C. sp.,

Taxonomy

Citation: Chiloguembelina cubensis (Palmer 1934)
Rank: Species
Basionym: Guembelina cubensis
Synonyms:
Taxonomic discussion:

Hornibrook (1990) studied primary types of Palmer’s species and illustrated two specimens under SEM. These clearly show well-developed longitudinal costae which he contrasted with specimens of C. ototara from New Zealand. However, when poorly preserved it is very difficult to distinguish C. ototara, C. cubensis and C. adriatica. In this case it is necessary to make SEM images and compare fine wall texture details. In well-preserved material it is easier to distinguish costate forms of C. cubensis and C. adriatica from finely pustulose C. ototara or the smooth test surface at C. andreae. Under light microscope, the costate surface is better distinguished in C. cubensis than in C. adriatica which have more discontinuous costae. In addition, C. cubensis specimens possess longer and narrower tests whereas C. adriatica is usually characterized by shorter and wider outline. See Huber and others (2006) for expanded synonymy and previous remarks on this species. [Premec Fucek et al. 2018]

The type descriptions of both Guembelina garretti Howe and Guembelina barnardi Ansary refer to longitudinal striations on the test, hence both are probably referable to this taxon pending further study. Poore and Gosnell (1985) placed C. cubensis in Streptochilus based on observation of an internal plate connecting the foramina of all but the final two chambers. Resig (1993) tentatively reassigned C. cubensis to Chiloguembelina noting that its aperture is typically lower arched and the position of the internal plate is off-centered compared to species of Streptochilus. Observation of costae in this species may require use of an SEM. [Huber et al. 2006]

Catalog entries: Guembelina cubensis, Guembelina barnardi, Guembelina garretti

Type images:

Distinguishing features: Like C. ototara but with fine costae parallel to the long axis of the test.

NB These concise distinguishing features statements are used in the tables of daughter-taxa to act as quick summaries of the differences between e.g. species of one genus.
They are being edited as the site is developed and comments on them are especially welcome.

Description


Diagnostic characters:

Distinguished from Chiloguembelina adriatica by its smaller apical angle, greater number of chambers, moderate increase in chamber size and generally more elongated and narrower test. It differs from Chiloguembelina ototara by the presence of fine, generally continuous costae that are aligned parallel to the elongate axis of the test [Premec Fucek et al. 2018]


Wall type: Microperforate, bilamellar, the wall is 4-5 μm thick, the inner layer is usually very thin (0.4-0.5 μm), the outer layer has a submicron-scale, granular to columnar texture, granule size is 0.2-0.4 μm (Pl. 17.3, Figs. 19, 20), (ototara-type wall; Chapter 15, this volume); surface texture finely pustulose on youngest chambers, later becoming faintly but distinctly costate in rows aligned with the long axis of the test; the wall is evenly perforated by pores that are usually about 0.7-0.8 μm in diameter, but can exceed 1 μm as a result of dissolution, pore channels are straight. [Premec Fucek et al. 2018]

Test morphology: Test biserial, elongate, subtriangular in outline, moderately expanding, periphery rounded rather than compressed; chambers increase moderately in size, up to 16 chambers in adult specimens; sutures depressed, perpendicular to slightly oblique to the growth axis; aperture a low, moderately narrow to broad symmetrical arch centered or slightly off-center from the base of the final chamber, bordered on one side by a narrow collar that thickens away from its attachment point on the chamber face. Apical angle varies from 35-45°. [Premec Fucek et al. 2018]

Size: Hypotypes (USNM P5756, P5757) length 0.12-0.25 mm (Beckmann, 1957); Topotypes length 0.18-0.24 mm, width 0.13 mm, breadth 0.08 mm (Hornibrook, 1990).

Size of measured populations: Mid-latitude (Adriatic Sea): Length 0.12-0.21 mm; width 0.07-0.12 mm; breadth 0.06-0.07 mm. Low latitude (Syria): Length 0.16-0.22 mm; width 0.08-0.12 mm; breadth 0.06-0.08 mm.

[Premec Fucek et al. 2018]

Character matrix

test outline:Triangularchamber arrangement:Biserialedge view:Equally biconvexaperture:Interiomarginal
sp chamber shape:Globularcoiling axis:N/Aperiphery:N/Aaperture border:Thin lip
umb chbr shape:Globularumbilicus:N/Aperiph margin shape:Broadly roundedaccessory apertures:None
spiral sutures:Moderately depressedumb depth:N/Awall texture:Finely costateshell porosity:Microperforate: <1µm
umbilical or test sutures:Moderately depressedfinal-whorl chambers:2.0-2.0 N.B. These characters are used for advanced search. N/A - not applicable

Biogeography and Palaeobiology


Geographic distribution: Cosmopolitan. [Premec Fucek et al. 2018]

Isotope paleobiology: Poore and Matthews (1984) recorded this species as having amongst the most negative oxygen isotope ratios in an assemblage from DSDP Site 366, suggesting that it inhabited the surface mixed-layer. Similarly, Barrera and Huber (1991, 1993) recorded C. cubensis as having more negative oxygen isotope and more positive carbon isotope values than co-occurring species in uppermost Eocene and lower Oligocene at ODP Site 738 (southern Indian Ocean). Zachos and others (1992) also recorded more negative oxygen isotope and more positive carbon isotope values in middle and upper Eocene and lower Oligocene sediments at southern low latitude ODP Site 748 (Kerguelen Plateau). [Premec Fucek et al. 2018]

Phylogenetic relations: Probably evolved from C. ototara during the middle Eocene (Huber and others, 2006). [Premec Fucek et al. 2018]

Most likely ancestor: Chiloguembelina ototara - at confidence level 3 (out of 5). Data source: Huber et al. 2006, f16.2.
Likely descendants: Chiloguembelina adriatica;

Biostratigraphic distribution

Geological Range:
Notes: Middle Eocene Zone E10 through upper Oligocene Zone O7. Many authors identified C. cubensis from Eocene sediments (Beckmann, 1957; Resig, 1993; Li and others, 2003; Huber and others, 2006; Luciani and others, 2010). In the middle and late Eocene C. cubensis was rare and had a patchy distribution, but its abundance increased and became cosmopolitan by the early Oligocene. The highest common occurrence (HCO) of this species defines the base of Zone O5. At that level it disappears in some places and in others there is a patchy distribution above (King and Wade, 2017).

Beckmann (1957) recorded the highest occurrence (HO) of C. cubensis in the Globorotalia opima opima Zone of Trinidad, and Berggren and others (1995) placed its “last common occurrence” at the top of Subzone P21a (=Zone O3/O4) in mid-Chron 10, at 28.5 Ma. Wade and others (2007) revised this datum to 28.4 Ma. Hornibrook (1990) records continuous occurrences of C. cubensis into the upper Oligocene of New Zealand and lowermost Miocene of Chatham Island. Pearson and Chaisson (1997) observed an abrupt extinction of C. cubensis on Ceara Rise at the end of Zone O4, while Leckie and others, (1993) reported this species in the equivalent of Zone O6 at ODP Holes 803D and 807A, supporting Hornibrook’s (1990) observations. From the Umbria-Marche region, Central Italy, Coccioni and others (2008, 2013) reported the last common occurrence of C. cubensis at the end of Zone O4, and last appearance of this species at the end of Zone O5. Alegret and others (2008) observed the HO of C. cubensis in the Fuente Caldera section in Spain in Zone O4.

In this study, we confirm that the HCO of C. cubensis is a useful biohorizon that defines the base of Zone O5. However, the species sporadically continues in very rare abundance up to the latest Oligocene at low latitudes (Syria, Palmyride region; Pl. 17.3, Fig. 15). Above the HCO in Zone O4 at mid-latitudes (Adriatic Sea, Alpine-Mediterranean region) this species become rare and sporadic and last occurs at the end of Zone O5. These data are consistent with the study of Boersma and Premoli Silva (1989) who reported that following a peak near the end of Subzone P21a (= Zone O3/O4), biserial heterohelicids become rare in all but lower latitudes and a few, warm mid-latitude areas (i.e., Gulf of Mexico and Rio Grande Rise in the warm Brazil Current). In most other regions of the Atlantic and its surrounding seas, biserial heterohelicids are absent from Subzone P21b (=Zone O5) to the end of the Oligocene.

[Premec Fucek et al. 2018]
Last occurrence (top): at top of O4 zone (100% up, 28.1Ma, in Rupelian stage). Data source: zonal marker (Wade et al. 2011). NB This is the HCO, sporadic occurrences continue into O7 (see notes)
First occurrence (base): within E10 zone (41.89-43.23Ma, base in Lutetian stage). Data source: Huber et al. 2006, f16.2

Plot of occurrence data:

Primary source for this page: Premec Fucek et al. 2018 - Olig Atlas chap.17 p.468; Huber et al. 2006 - Eocene Atlas, chap. 16, p. 473

References:

Alegret, L., L. E. , C., Fenero, R., Molina, E. O. , S. & Thomas, E. (2008). Effects of the Oligocene climatic events on the foraminiferal record from Fuente Caldera section (Spain, western Tethys). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 269: 94-102. gs

Ansary, S. E. (1955). Report on the foraminiferal fauna from the Upper Eocene of Egypt. Publications de l'Institut du Désert d'Egypte. 6: 1-160. gs

Barrera, E. & Huber, B. T. (1991). Paleogene and early Neogene oceanography of the southern Indian Ocean: Leg 119 foraminifer stable isotope results. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results. 119: 693-717. gs

Barrera, E. & Huber, B. T. (1993). Eocene to Oligocene oceanography and temperatures in the Antarctic Indian Ocean. In, Kennett, J. P. & Warnke, D. A. (eds) The Antarctic Paleoenviroment: A perspective on global change. Antartic Research Series. 60: 49-65. gs

Beckmann, J. P. (1957). Chiloguembelina Loeblich and Tappan and related foraminifera from the Lower Tertiay of Trinidad, B.W.I. In, Loeblich, A. R. , Jr. , Tappan, H. , Beckmann, J. P. , Bolli, H. M. , Montanaro Gallitelli & E. Troelsen, J. C. (eds) Studies in Foraminifera. U.S. National Museum Bulletin. 215: 83-95. gs

Boersma, A. & Premoli Silva, I. (1989). Atlantic Paleogene biserial heterohelicid foraminifera and oxygen minima. Paleoceanography. 4: 271-286. gs

Coccioni, R. et al. (2008). Integrated stratigraphy of the Oligocene pelagic sequence in the Umbria-Marche basin (Northeastern Apennines, Italy): A potential Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) for the Rupelian/Chattian boundary. Geological Society of America Bulletin. 120: 487-511. gs

Hernitz Kucenjak, M., Premec Fucek, V., Slavkovic, R. & Mesic, I. A. (2006). Planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy of the late Eocene and Oligocene in the Palmyride area, Syria. Geologia Croatica. 59: 19-39. gs

Hornibrook, N. d. B. (1990). Chiloguembelina cubensis (Palmer) and C. ototara (Finlay), in New Zealand. Journal of Foraminiferal Research. 20(4): 368-371. gs

Howe, H. V. (1939). Louisiana Cook Mountain Eocene foraminifera. Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Louisiana. 14: 1-122. gs

Huber, B. T. (1991c). Paleogene and Early Neogene Planktonic Foraminifer Biostratigraphy of Sites 738 and 744, Kerguelen Plateau (Southern Indian Ocean). Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results. 119: 427-449. gs

Huber, B. T., Olsson, R. K. & Pearson, P. N. (2006). Taxonomy, biostratigraphy, and phylogeny of Eocene microperforate planktonic foraminifera (Jenkinsina, Cassigerinelloita, Chiloguembelina, Streptochilus, Zeauvigerina, Tenuitella, and Cassigerinella) and Problematica (Dipsidripella). In, Pearson, P. N. , Olsson, R. K. , Hemleben, C. , Huber, B. T. & Berggren, W. A. (eds) Atlas of Eocene Planktonic Foraminifera. Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research, Special Publication. 41(Chap 16): 461-508. gs

Jenkins, D. G. & Srinivasan, M. S. (1985). Cenozoic planktonic foraminifera from the Equator to the Sub-Antarctic of the Southwest Pacific. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project. 90: 795-834. gs

Jenkins, D. G. (1971). New Zealand Cenozoic Planktonic Foraminifera. New Zealand Geological Survey, Paleontological Bulletin. 42: 1-278. gs

Kelly, D. C., Norris, J. C. & Nederbragt, A. J. (2003). Deciphering the paleoceanographic significance of Early Oligocene Braarudosphaera chalks in the South Atlantic. Marine Micropaleontology. 49: 49-63. gs

King, D. J. & Wade, B. S. (2017). The extinction of Chiloguembelina cubensis in the Pacific Ocean: implications for defining the base of the Chattian (upper Oligocene). Newsletters on Stratigraphy. 50: 297-309. gs

Leckie, R. M., Farnham, C. & Schmidt, M. G. (1993). Oligocene planktonic foraminifer biostratigraphy of Hole 803D (Ontong Java Plateau) and Hole 628A (Little Bahama Bank), and comparison with the southern high latitudes. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results. 130: 113-136. gs

Li, Q., McGowran, B. & James, N. P. (2003b). Eocene–Oligocene planktonic forminiferal biostratigraphy of Sites 1126, 1130, 1132, and 1134, ODP Leg 182, Great Australian Bight. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results. 182: 1-28. gs

Luciani, V., Giusberti, L., Agnini, C. F. , E., Rio, D., Spofforth, J. A. & Pälike, H. (2010). Ecological and evolutionary response of Tethyan planktonic foraminifera to the middle Eocene climatic optimum (MECO) from the Alano section (NE Italy). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 298: 82-95. gs

Malumian, N., Jannou, G. & Náñez, C. (2009). Serial planktonic foraminifera from the Paleogene of the Tierra del Fuego Island, South America. Journal of Foraminiferal Research. 39: 316-321. gs

Olsson, R. K., Hemleben, C., Huber, B. T. & Berggren, W. A. (2006b). Taxonomy, biostratigraphy, and phylogeny of Eocene Globigerina, Globoturborotalita, Subbotina, and Turborotalita. In, Pearson, P. N. , Olsson, R. K. , Hemleben, C. , Huber, B. T. & Berggren, W. A. (eds) Atlas of Eocene Planktonic Foraminifera. Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research, Special Publication. 41(Chap 6): 111-168. gs

Palmer, D. K. (1934). The Foraminiferal Genus Guembelina in the Tertiary of Cuba. Memorias de la Sociedad Cubana de Historia Natural. 8(2): 73-76. gs

Pearson, P. N. & Chaisson, W. P. (1997). Late Paleocene to middle Miocene planktonic foraminifer biostratigraphy, Ceara Rise. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results. 33-68. gs

Pearson, P. N. & Wade, B. S. (2015). Systematic taxonomy of exceptionally well-preserved planktonic foraminifera from the Eocene/Oligocene boundary of Tanzania. Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research, Special Publication. 45: 1-85. gs

Poore, R. Z. & Gosnell, L. B. (1985). Apertural features and surface texture of upper Paleogene biserial planktonic foraminifers: Links between Chiloguembelina and Streptochilus. Journal of Foraminiferal Research. 15: 1-5. gs

Poore, R. Z. & Matthews, R. K. (1984). Oxygen isotope ranking of late Eocene and Oligocene planktonic foraminifers: implications for Oligocene sea-surface temperatures and global ice-volume. Marine Micropaleontology. 9: 111-134. gs

Premec Fucek, V., Hernitz Kucenjak, M. & Huber, B. T. (2018). Taxonomy, biostratigraphy, and phylogeny of Oligocene Chiloguembelina and Jenkinsina. In, Wade, B. S. , Olsson, R. K. , Pearson, P. N. , Huber, B. T. & Berggren, W. A. (eds) Atlas of Oligocene Planktonic Foraminifera. Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research, Special Publication. 46(Chap 17): 459-480. gs

Resig, J. M. (1993). Cenozoic stratigraphy and paleoceanography of biserial planktonic foraminifers, Ontong Java Plateau. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results. 130: 231-244. gs

Spezzaferri, S. & Premoli Silva, I. (1991). Oligocene planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy and paleoclimatic interpretation from Hole 538A, DSDP Leg 77, Gulf of Mexico. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 83: 217-263. gs

Spezzaferri, S. (1994). Planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy and taxonomy of the Oligocene and lower Miocene in the oceanic record. An overview. Palaeontographia Italica. 81: 1-187. gs

Wade, B. S. & Kroon, D. (2002). Middle Eocene regional climate instability: Evidence from the western North Atlantic. Geology. 30: 1011-1014. gs

Wade, B. S., Berggren, W. A. & Olsson, R. K. (2007). The biostratigraphy and paleobiology of Oligocene planktonic foraminifera from the Equatorial Pacific Ocean (ODP Site 1218). Marine Micropaleontology. 62: 167-179. gs

Zachos, J. C., Berggren, W. A., Aubry, M. -P. & Mackensen, A. (1992b). Isotope and trace element geochemistry of Eocene and Oligocene foraminifers from Site 748, Kerguelen Plateau. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results. -. gs


logo

Chiloguembelina cubensis compiled by the pforams@mikrotax project team viewed: 13-12-2019

Taxon Search:
Advanced Search

Short stable page link: http://mikrotax.org/pforams/index.php?id=100055 Go to Archive.is to create a permanent copy of this page - citation notes



Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first!

Add Comment

* Required information
1000
Captcha Image
Powered by Commentics