Tenuitella angustiumbilicata


Classification: pf_cenozoic -> Globigerinitidae -> Tenuitella -> Tenuitella angustiumbilicata
Sister taxa: T. iota, T. fleisheri, T. parkerae, T. clemenciae, T. angustiumbilicata, T. munda, T. gemma, T. praegemma, T. patefacta, T. insolita, T. sp.,

Taxonomy

Citation: Tenuitella angustiumbilicata (Bolli, 1957)
Rank: species
Basionym: Globigerina ciperoensis angustiumbilicata Bolli, 1957
Synonyms:
Taxonomic discussion:

Bolli (1957) described this form as a subspecies of Globigerina ciperoensis (=Ciperoella ciperoensis in this work) and always maintained the close affinity of the two forms (up to and including Bolli and Saunders, 1985). For Bolli, its distinguishing feature was the narrow umbilicus (angustus, L. = narrow). Fleisher (1974:1018) included angustiumbilicata in the macroperforate spinose genus Globigerina but regarded its wall texture as a “possible exception” from being spinose. Jenkins and Orr (1972), Quilty (1976), and Kennett and Srinivasan (1983) all illustrated what are clearly microperforate specimens under the name angustiumbilicata while other authors (e.g., Poore and Brabb, 1977) illustrated macroperforate forms which we would now assign to the Ciperoella group. Li (1987) reported that R. Fleisher had re-examined the holotype at the U.S. National Museum in December, 1986, and informed him that the test has a “microperforate wall texture rather than a spinose one” (quoted in Li, 1987:311). We confirm this observation with new SEMs of the holotype which is clearly microperforate and pustulose as opposed to macroperforate and pitted (see Plate 16.4, Figs. 1-3). Bolli’s figured paratype is, by contrast, macroperforate and of uncertain affinity. [Pearson et al. 2018]

As discussed above, Bolli (1957:109) distinguished his subspecies from ciperoensis by the small umbilicus. He also noted that “the aperture, which is umbilical in position, may in some specimens show a tendency towards an umbilical-extraumbilical position”. Li (1987), following long tradition in foraminiferal taxonomic practice, regarded the supposedly intraumbilical position of the aperture as a genus level character and named the genus Teneuitellinata for Tenuitella-like forms with an intraumbilical aperture. The genus was, for Li, a form-genus, because the intraumbilical position evolved more than once (in angustiumbilicata and a form he called ‘Tenuitellinata cf. pseudoedita’). Pearson and Wade (2009:213) noted that the apertural position in populations of angustiumbilicata is variable and that the holotype itself, which is a specimen with a very narrow umbilicus, has an intra-extraumbilical aperture (see Plate 16.4, Fig. 1). For these reasons we follow Pearson and Wade (2009) in regarding Tenuitellinata as synonymous with Tenuitella. [Pearson et al. 2018]

Blow (1969) described Globigerina stainforthi praestainforthi from the Mosquito Creek outcrop locality in the Cipero Fm., Trinidad. Given our modern understanding of wall textures, it is quite clear from Blow’s own images of stainforthi and praestainforthi that the two are unrelated, notwithstanding their similarity in gross morphology: stainforthi is a cancellate macroperforate form whereas praestainforthi is clearly microperforate and pustulose. Li (1987) pointed out the close similarity between praestainforthi and angustiumbilicata. Pearson and Wade (2009) re-collected from the type locality and illustrated a specimen similar to the holotype (Pearson and Wade, 2009, pl. 8, figs. 5a-e) and also showed the wall in cross-section, demonstrating a radial crystalline structure typical of the glutinata-type wall (Chapter 15, this volume). Following Li, they emphasized the strong similarity to Tenuitella angustiumbilicata, which is very common in the Cipero Fm., except for the large umbilical bulla and strongly pustulose surface texture. They suggested that angustiumbilicata and praestainforthi “may be morphs of the same biospecies”, the latter being a late ontogenetic stage (i.e., with gametogenic features). The two forms have virtually identical stratigraphic ranges, both becoming extinct at the same level in the early Miocene (Li and others, 1992:581). Here we place them formally in synonymy, consistent with our view that the presence or absence of an umbilical bulla is not a species-defining characteristic. [Pearson et al. 2018]

Li (1987:312) distinguished a form as Tenuitellinata cf. T. pseudoedita (Subbotina) based on the “slightly convex spiral side and low arched (often variable) aperture, which is strongly anterioumbilical”. We have been unable to confirm a clear distinction between these morphs and so regard them as within the variability of populations of T. angustiumbilicata. [Pearson et al. 2018]

BouDagher-Fadel (2012a, pl. 5.3, figs. 3, 4) attempted to establish a new species Tenuitellinata praepseudoedita. The two published images (one an umbilical view, the other a side view) are both reproduced from Li (1987) without acknowledgment or attribution. In the caption to the plate, both images are indicated as the holotype, but actually they are two different specimens (No. P52020 and P52022 as documented by Li, 1987:301). There is no formal description, diagnosis or notice of repository. We regard the taxon as invalid because of 1) inadequate identification of the true nature of the type material, and 2) ambiguity as to which of the figured specimens is the holotype. When these facts were brought to her attention, BouDagher-Fadel (2012b) attempted to amend and validate praepseudoedita in a taxonomic note by citing Li (1987) and providing a short diagnosis. However the ambiguity over the type specimen was not resolved and hence the taxon remains invalid. We should also bear in mind Recommendation 73B of the code: “An author should designate as a holotype a specimen actually studied by him or her, not a specimen known to the author only from descriptions or illustrations in the literature” (International Code of Zoological Nomeclature, 1999). [Pearson et al. 2018] 

Catalog entries: Globigerina ciperoensis angustiumbilicata

Type images:

Distinguishing features: Like Tenuitella gemma but chambers more inflated, especially in edge and umbilical view, and slightly higher trochospiral, and also by typically has 4½ (vs. 5-6) chambers in final whorl. Wall texture is distinctly more pustulose.

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 Tenuitella gemma by its more inflated chambers, especially as seen in edge and umbilical view, and slightly higher trochospiral, and also by typically having 4½ rather than 5-6 chambers in the final whorl. The wall texture is distinctly more pustulose. [Pearson et al. 2018] 


Wall type: Microperforate glutinata-type wall, surface smooth to finely pustulose, pustules irregularly scattered on both sides of test. May become densely pustulose, especially in bullate individuals.

Test morphology: Test small, very low trochospiral, equatorial periphery lobate, circular in outline, axial periphery rounded; chambers globular to slightly subquadrate, slightly compressed and inflated on the umbilical side, 4-5 in the final whorl, 10-12 comprising adult tests, increasing slowly in size; sutures straight, radial, depressed on spiral and umbilical sides; umbilicus narrow, deep, sometimes closed; aperture arched, bordered by a narrow lip, variable in position, either intraumbilical or intra-extraumbilical in position. Specimens may exhibit a single, encroaching umbilical bulla with 3-5 small, arched, infralaminal apertures (‘praestainforth’ morphotype). [Pearson et al. 2018]

Size: Holotype 0.16 mm diameter; hypotypes 0.13-0.17 mm diameter, 0.70-0.80 mm breadth. [Pearson et al. 2018]

Character matrix

test outline:Lobatechamber arrangement:Trochospiraledge view:Equally biconvexaperture:Extraumbilical-peripheral
sp chamber shape:Globularcoiling axis:Lowperiphery:N/Aaperture border:Thin lip
umb chbr shape:Globularumbilicus:Narrowperiph margin shape:Broadly roundedaccessory apertures:None
spiral sutures:Moderately depressedumb depth:Shallowwall texture:Finely pustuloseshell porosity:Microperforate: <1µm
umbilical or test sutures:Strongly depressedfinal-whorl chambers:4.0-5.0 N.B. These characters are used for advanced search. N/A - not applicable

Biogeography and Palaeobiology


Geographic distribution: Global, from the tropics to high latitudes. [Pearson et al. 2018

Isotope paleobiology: Inhabited the warm surface mixed-layer (Poore and Matthews, 1984; van Eijden and Ganssen, 1995; Pearson and others, 1997; Pearson and Wade, 2009). [Pearson et al. 2018]

Phylogenetic relations: This species is very rare in the lower Oligocene but becomes more abundant at higher levels. Presumably it evolved from Tenuitella munda which has a similar wall texture and morphology, although transitional forms have yet to be identified. [Pearson et al. 2018]

Most likely ancestor: Tenuitella munda - at confidence level 3 (out of 5). Data source: Pearson et al. 2018.

Biostratigraphic distribution

Geological Range:
Notes: The earliest confirmed occurrences are in the lower Oligocene. Premoli Silva and Spezzaferri (1990) record a clear lowest occurrence along with Cassigerinella chipolensis in the lower part of Zone P18 (= Zone O1) in ODP Site 709. According to van Eijden and Smit (1991) and Li and others (1992) it is very rare in the lower Oligocene, becoming abundant only in the upper Oligocene: this pattern seems to be true globally. The highest reliable occurrences are in the lower Miocene (Tenuitella minutissima Zone of ODP Hole 747A, Kerguelen Plateau; Li and others, 1992:585: probably equivalent to (sub)tropical Zone M2). Reported occurrences throughout the Neogene by various authors are considered doubtful in view of the homeomorphy within this group but this question is reserved for future study. [Pearson et al. 2018]
Last occurrence (top): within M2 zone (19.30-21.12Ma, top in Burdigalian stage). Data source: Pearson et al. 2018 f16.1
First occurrence (base): within O1 zone (32.10-33.90Ma, base in Priabonian stage). Data source: Pearson et al. 2018 f16.1

Plot of occurrence data:

Primary source for this page: Pearson et al. 2018 - Olig Atlas chap.16 p.443

References:

Blow, W. H. & Banner, F. T. (1962). The mid-Tertiary (Upper Eocene to Aquitanian) Globigerinaceae. In, Eames, F. E. , Banner, F. T. , Blow, W. H. & Clarke, W. J. (eds) Fundamentals of mid-Tertiary Stratigraphical Correlation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 61-151. gs

Blow, W. H. (1969). Late middle Eocene to Recent planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy. In, Bronnimann, P. & Renz, H. H. (eds) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Planktonic Microfossils, Geneva, 1967. E J Brill, Leiden 380-381. gs

Bolli, H. M. & Saunders, J. B. (1985). Oligocene to Holocene low latitude planktic foraminifera. In, Bolli, H. M. , Saunders, J. B. & Perch-Neilsen, K. (eds) Plankton Stratigraphy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK 155-262. gs

Bolli, H. M. (1957b). Planktonic foraminifera from the Oligocene-Miocene Cipero and Lengua formations 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: 97-123. gs

BouDagher-Fadel, M. K. (2012). Biostratigraphic and Geological Significance of Planktonic Foraminifera (1st Edition). Elsevier., . 1-319. gs

Chaisson, W. P. & Leckie, R. M. (1993). High-resolution Neogene planktonic foraminifer biostratigraphy of Site 806, Ontong Java Plateau (Western Equatorial Pacific). Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results. 130: 137-178. gs

Fleisher, R. L. (1974a). Cenozoic planktonic foraminifera and biostratigraphy, Arabian Sea, Deep Sea Drilling Project, Leg 23A. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project. 23: 1001-1072. 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

Jenkins, D. G. & Orr, W. N. (1972). Planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy of the east equatorial Pacific--DSDP Leg 9. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project. 9: 1059-1193. gs

Jenkins, D. G. (1965b). Planktonic Foraminiferal zones and new taxa from the Danian to lower Miocene of New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics. 8(6): 1088-1126. gs

Keller, G. (1985). Depth stratification of planktonic foraminifers in the Miocene Ocean. In, Kennett, J. P. (ed.) The Miocene Ocean: Paleoceanography and Biogeography. GSA Memoir. 163: 1-337. gs

Kennett, J. P. & Srinivasan, M. S. (1983). Neogene Planktonic Foraminifera. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co., Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. 1-265. 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. (1987). Origin, phylogenetic development and systematic taxonomy of the Tenuitella plexus (Globigerinitidae, Globigerininina). Journal of Foraminiferal Research. 17: 298-320. gs

Li, Q., Radford, S. S. & Banner, F. T. (1992). Distribution of microperforate tenuitellid planktonic foraminifers in Holes 747A and 749B, Kerguelen Plateau. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results. 120: 569-594. 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

Myatliuk, L. V. (1950). Stratigrafiya flishevykh osadkov severnykh Karpat v cveta dannykh fauny foraminifer [Stratigraphy of the flysch seditments of the Northern Carpathian Mountains in the light of the foraminiferal fauna.]. In, unknown (ed.) Microfauna of the USSR, 4. Proceedings of the Oil Research Geological Institute (VNIGRI). 51: 225-287. gs

Pearson, P. N. & Wade, B. S. (2009). Taxonomy and stable isotope paleoecology of well-preserved planktonic foraminifera from the uppermost Oligocene of Trinidad. Journal of Foraminiferal Research. 39: 191-217. gs

Pearson, P. N. (1995). Planktonic foraminifer biostratigraphy and the development of pelagic caps on guyots in the Marshall Islands group. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results. 144: 21-59. gs

Pearson, P. N., Shackleton, N. J., Weedon, G. P. & Hall, M. A. (1997b). Multispecies planktonic foraminifer stable isotope stratigraphy through Oligocene/Miocene boundary climatic cycles, Site 926. 154, 441-450. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results. 154: 441-450. gs

Pearson, P. N., Wade, B. S. & Huber, B. T. (2018c). Taxonomy, biostratigraphy, and phylogeny of Oligocene Globigerinitidae (Dipsidripella, Globigerinita, and Tenuitella). 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: 429-459. gs

Poore, R. Z. & Brabb, E. E. (1977). Eocene and Oligocene planktonic foraminifera from the Upper Butano sandstone and type San Lorenzo formation, Santa Cruz Mountains, California. Journal of Foraminiferal Research. 7(4): 249-272. 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

Poore, R. Z. (1984). Middle Eocene through Quaternary planktonic foraminifers from the southern Angola Basin: Deep Sea Drilling Project Leg 73,. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project. 73: 429-448. gs

Premoli Silva, I. & Spezzaferri, S. (1990). Paleogene planktonic foraminifer biostratigraphy and paleoenvironmental remarks on paleogene sediments from Indian Ocean sites, Leg 115. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results. 115: 277-314. gs

Quilty, P. G. (1976). Planktonic foraminifera DSDP Leg 34, Nazca Plate. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project. 34: 629-703. 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

Stainforth, R. M., Lamb, J. L., Luterbacher, H., Beard, J. H. & Jeffords, R. M. (1975). Cenozoic planktonic foraminiferal zonation and characteristics of index forms. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions. 62: 1-425. gs

Subbotina, N. N. (1953). Foraminiferes fossiles d'URSS Globigerinidae, Globorotaliidae, Hantkeninidae. Bureau de Recherches Geologiques et Minieres. 2239: 1-144. gs

van Eijden, A. J. M. & Ganssen, G. M. (1995). An Oligocene multi-species foraminiferal oxygen and carbon isotope record from ODP Hole 758A (Indian Ocean): paleoceanographic and paleo-ecologic implications. Marine Micropaleontology. 25: 47-65. gs

van Eijden, A. J. M. & Smit, J. (1991). Eastern Indian Ocean Cretaceous and Paleogene quantitative biostratigraphy. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results. 121: 77-123. gs


logo

Tenuitella angustiumbilicata compiled by the pforams@mikrotax project team viewed: 25-8-2019

Taxon Search:
Advanced Search

Short stable page link: http://mikrotax.org/pforams/index.php?id=104378 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