Cassigerinella chipolensis


Classification: pf_cenozoic -> Guembelitrioidea -> Cassigerinellidae -> Cassigerinella -> Cassigerinella chipolensis
Sister taxa: C. chipolensis, C. eocaenica, C. sp.,

Taxonomy

Citation: Cassigerinella chipolensis (Cushman & Ponton 1932)
Rank: Species
Basionym: Cassidulina chipolensis
Synonyms:

(Note: in this synonymy list we focus on Oligocene occurrences and taxonomically important works)

Taxonomic discussion:

This species has been widely recognized in the literature under the name Cassigerinella chipolensis (Cushman and Ponton). However it was probably first described as long ago as 1857 as Cassidulina globulosa Egger. Egger (1857) illustrated a specimen in three views and also provided an interpretative sketch of the irregular chamber arrangement. Although he did not provide a scale, he noted that test size ranges up to 250 µm. As pointed out by Pokorný (1955:138) the specimen illustrated by Egger is undoubtedly referable to Cassigerinella (Plate 18.1, Fig. 1). Rögl (1985:319) suggested that Egger’s taxon is specifically distinct from chipolensis, being distinguished by its more compressed, ovate chambers, and in making this distinction he was followed Premoli Silva and Spezzaferri (1990) and Spezzaferri (1994) (see discussion below under Cassigerinella eocaenica). However, the evidence for this morphological distinction is unclear either in Egger’s type illustrations or on the small additional illustrations of specimens from Bavaria provided by Rögl (1985). In the taxonomy presented here, and following Huber and others (2006), the more compressed morphotypes of Cassigerinella are assigned instead to C. eocaenica. We regard globulosa as a probable prior synonym of chipolensis, but we note that Egger’s specimen is lost and nomenclatorial stability is best served by regarding it as nomen dubium non conservandum. We note also that Egger’s identification has often been erroneously recorded as being from 1957, and the illustrations are on plate 7, not plate 11 of his work as has generally been reported. [Pearson et al. 2018]

Pokorný (1955) distinguished his species boudecensis (the type species of Cassigerinella) from chipolensis on the basis of its supposed pustulose wall texture. Various authors have maintained this distinction (e.g., Rögl, 1985; Li, 1986) but others have combined the two taxa. Pokorný himself, in a personal communication reported by Blow and Banner (1962:83), said that boudecensis was “probably conspecific with chipolensis”; others who have combined the taxa are Blow and Banner (1962), Cordey (1968), Jenkins (1971), Raju (1971), Saito and Biscaye (1977), Blow (1979), Li and McGowran (1996), Huber and others (2006), and Pearson and Wade (2009). Note that while Li (1986) upheld the distinction, in a later work (Li and McGowran, 1996) he subsumed the two species into one. Huber and others (2006:485) pointed out that the distinction is hard to maintain with the light microscope and has never been proven to be of stratigraphic value. Pearson and Wade (2009:198) argued that the degree of pustule development was a variable feature on individual tests, among populations, and between localities, making it difficult to sustain the distinction. To further investigate this issue we have obtained a population of ~40 topotype specimens from the type locality of boudecensis and examined a number of them in SEM. We find the degree of pustule development to be quite variable even in this material, with some nearly smooth forms and others distinctly pustulose, hence we maintain the species in synonymy (compare Plate 18.1, Figs. 13-16; see also Chapter 15, this volume, Plate 15.3, Figs. 4a-5b). [Pearson et al. 2018]

Ivanova (1958:57) described a new species Cassigerinella globolocula but did not provide criteria for distinguishing it from other species. Pokorný (in a personal communication reported by Blow and Banner, 1962) indicated that globolocula was “certainly conspecific” with his species boudecensis and hence, in this work, also with chipolensis. Blow (1969:212) suggested that the paratypes of globolocula were referable to Cassigerinella eocaena (sic, = eocaenica) of Cordey but the type material of this species has apparently been lost and we cannot confirm this observation. Ivanova’s illustrations appear to us to fall within the normal range of variation observed in chipolensis. [Pearson et al. 2018]

As noted above, the morphospecies C. chipolensis is distinguished from the other valid species in the genus, C. eocaenica, by being more inflated and globular overall, and slightly larger. The two morphospecies intergrade throughout their combined range, and in the absence of biometric data, it is not at all obvious that these features are consistent through time and diagnose distinct biospecies. We maintain the taxonomic distinction because it seems to have biostratigraphic utility insofar as the C. chipolensis morphospecies is seemingly absent in the Eocene (see discussion below). [Pearson et al. 2018]

Catalog entries: Cassidulina chipolensis, Cassigerinella boudecensis, Cassigerinella globolocula, Cassidulina globulosa

Type images:

Distinguishing features: Like C. eocaenica but test broader and more globular with a planispirally or pseudoplanispirally enrolled coiling mode rather than biserially enrolled.

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:

This species is distinguished from Cassigerinella eocaenica Cordey by having a larger, more globular test, more inflated chambers, faster chamber size increase and higher arched aperture. [Pearson et al. 2018]


Wall type: Microperforate to medio-perforate with pore diameters ranging from 0.5-2.0 µm; surface may be smooth or covered in pore mounds; microgranular internal structure with minute endospikes distributed on the interior chamber surfaces (chipolensis-type wall; see Chapter 15, this volume). [Pearson et al. 2018]

Test morphology: Test small, globular with irregular outline. From the earliest stages chambers are in an enrolled-biserial arrangement with successive chambers facing one another; the axis of enrollment commonly changes through ontogeny; 6-8 chambers per enrollment, relatively compressed and compact initially but becoming strongly inflated or ovate in last whorl. Sutures straight and depressed to incised. Aperture interiomarginal, asymmetrical, highly arched to virguline in shape, surrounded by an irregular lip, commonly with laterally asymmetrical flanges. [Pearson et al. 2018]

Size: Small, mostly <200 µm. [Pearson et al. 2018]

Character matrix

test outline:Ovatechamber arrangement:Pseudoplanispiraledge view:Inequally biconvexaperture:Extraumbilical
sp chamber shape:Inflatedcoiling axis:N/Aperiphery:N/Aaperture border:Thick lip
umb chbr shape:Inflatedumbilicus:Narrowperiph margin shape:Broadly roundedaccessory apertures:None
spiral sutures:Strongly depressedumb depth:Deepwall texture:Smoothshell porosity:Finely Perforate: 1-2.5µm
umbilical or test sutures:Strongly depressedfinal-whorl chambers:5.0-6.0 N.B. These characters are used for advanced search. N/A - not applicable

Biogeography and Palaeobiology


Geographic distribution:

This species is most abundant in the lower latitudes (Premoli Silva and Boersma, 1988; Spezzaferri, 1995). It is absent from high latitude sites (e.g. the Southern Ocean and ODP Site 647 in the Labrador Sea) although it occurs sporadically as far south as the latitude of New Zealand (Jenkins, 1971; Jenkins and Srinivasan, 1986).

[Pearson et al. 2018]

Isotope paleobiology: Cassigerinella chipolensis has stable isotope ratios indicative of a warm surface water habitat (Boersma and Shackleton, 1978; Pearson and Wade, 2009). It probably bloomed opportunistically in response to seasonal productivity peaks (Pearson and Wade, 2009). [Pearson et al. 2018]

Phylogenetic relations:

Probably a direct descendant of Cassigerinella eocaenica and part of the same evolving lineage (Cordey, 1968; Blow, 1979).[Pearson et al. 2018]

Most likely ancestor: Cassigerinella eocaenica - at confidence level 4 (out of 5). Data source: Huber et al. 2006; Pearson et al. 2018.

Biostratigraphic distribution

Geological Range:
Notes:

Most confirmed occurrences of chipolensis are in the Oligocene and Miocene: Eocene occurrences of Cassigerinella have generally been referred to C. eocaenica. This apparently neat distinction may be more an artifact of fine taxonomic discrimination and the way in which the biozonation developed historically than it is for necessarily providing a clear and useful biohorizon. The overlap in the ranges of Cassigerinella chipolensis and Pseudohastigerina spp. was for a time part of the standard zonation (Blow and Banner, 1962; Bolli, 1966; Bolli and Saunders, 1985; see discussion in Chapter 2, this volume). Hence when Cassigerinella specimens were discovered in the Eocene it was found convenient to refer them to a different species based on relatively minor features. Sexton and others (2006) and Huber and others (2006) have recorded occasional “C. chipolensis” from the middle and upper Eocene but in this work we assign those occurrences to C. eocaenica. No detailed morphometric study of the early evolution of Cassigerinella has yet been conducted. The extinction of chipolensis has been recorded diachronously at various levels in the middle Miocene (e.g., Bolli, 1957; Martinotti, 1989; Chaisson and Leckie, 1993; Spezzaferri, 1994; Turco and others, 2002) but has not been investigated by us in detail. Intervals of relatively large-sized individuals may be of biostratigraphical utility for fine-scale correlation (Premoli Silva and Spezzaferri, 1990; Spezzaferri, 1994; Pearson and Chaisson, 1997).

[Pearson et al. 2018]
Last occurrence (top): within M13 zone (6.14-9.83Ma, top in Messinian stage). Data source: Huber et al. 2006
First occurrence (base): within E16 zone (33.90-34.68Ma, base in Priabonian stage). Data source: Huber et al. 2006

Plot of occurrence data:

Primary source for this page: Pearson et al. 2018 - Olig Atlas chap.18 p.483; Huber et al. 2006 - Eocene Atlas, chap. 16, p. 484

References:

Bermudez, P. J. (1961). Contribucion al estudio de las Globigerinidea de la region Caribe-Antillana (Paleoceno-Reciente). Editorial Sucre, Caracas. 1119-1393. gs

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

Blow, W. H. (1979). The Cainozoic Globigerinida: A study of the morphology, taxonomy, evolutionary relationships and stratigraphical distribution of some Globigerinida (mainly Globigerinacea). E. J. Brill, Leiden. 2: 1-1413. gs

Boersma, A. & Shackleton, N. J. (1978). Oxygen and carbon isotope record through the Oligocene, Site 366 (equatorial Atlantic). Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project. 41: 957-962. 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

Bolli, H. M. (1966). The planktonic foraminifera in well Bodonegore-l of Java. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae. 59: 449-465. gs

Bolli, H. M., Loeblich, A. R. & Tappan, H. (1957). Planktonic foraminiferal families Hantkeninidae, Orbulinidae, Globorotaliidae and Globotruncanidae. 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: 3-50. 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

Cordey, W. G. (1968a). A new Eocene Cassigerinella from Florida. Palaeontology. 11: 368-370. gs

Cushman, J. A. & Ellisor, A. C. (1945). The foraminiferal fauna of the Anahuac Formation. Journal of Paleontology. 19: 545-572. gs

Cushman, J. A. & Ponton, G. M. (1932a). An Eocene foraminiferal fauna of Wilcox age from Alabama. Contributions from the Cushman Laboratory for Foraminiferal Research. 8: 51-72. gs

Cushman, J. A. & Stainforth, R. M. (1945). The foraminifera of the Cipero Marl Formation of Trinidad, British West Indies. Cushman Laboratory for Foraminiferal Research, Special Publication. 14: 1-75. gs

Egger, J. G. (1857). Die Foraminiferen der Miocän-Schichten bei Ortenburg in Nieder-Bayern. Neues Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie, und Petrafaktenkunde (1857). 266-311. 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

Hofker, J. (1963). Cassigerinella Pokorny, 1955, and Islandiella Norvang, 1958. Micropaleontology. 9: 321-324. 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

Ivanova, L. G. (1958). in Bykova, N.K. (ed.) Novye Rody i Vidy Foraminifera. Trudy VNIGRI, 115, Mikrofauna SSR. 9: 4-81. 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. & Srinivasan, M. S. (1986). 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

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. & McGowran, B. (1996). The planktonic foraminifer Cassigerinella winniana (Howe) from southern Australia: Comments on its lineage recognition. Revista Española de Micropaleontología. 28: 97-103. gs

Li, Q. (1986). Ultrastructure, morphology, affinities and reclassification of Cassigerinella Pokorny (Foraminiferida: Globigerinina):. Journal of Micropalaeontology. 5: 49-64. gs

Liu, C., Browning, J. V., Miller, K. G. & Olsson, R. K. (1997). Upper Cretaceous to Miocene planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy: Results of Leg 150X, the New Jersey Coastal Plain Drilling Project. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results. 150X: 111-127. gs

Loeblich, A. R. & Tappan, H. (1957b). Planktonic foraminifera of Paleocene and early Eocene Age from the Gulf and Atlantic coastal plains. 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: 173-198. gs

Loeblich, A. R. & Tappan, H. (1988). Foraminiferal Genera and Their Classification (Volume I-II). Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York. 1-1059. gs

Martinotti, G. M. (1989). The last occurrence of Cassigerinella chipolensis in the Mediterranean region. Journal of Foraminiferal Research. 19: 180-184. gs

Miller, K. G. et al. (2008). Eocene-Oligocene global climate and sea-level changes: St. Stephens Quarry, Alabama. Geological Society of America, Bulletin. 120: 34-53. 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. (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. & 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

Pearson, P. N., Spezzaferri, S., Huber, B. T. & Kučera, M. (2018b). Taxonomy, biostratigraphy, and phylogeny of Oligocene Cassigerinella. 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 18): 481-494. gs

Pokorný, V. (1955). Cassigerinella boudecensis n. gen., n. sp. (Foraminifera, Protozoa) z Oligocénu ždánického flyše. Ústř. Úst. Geol., Vĕstnik, Prague. 30: 136-140. gs

Premoli Silva, I. & Boersma, A. (1988). Atlantic Eocene planktonic foraminiferal historical biogeography and paleohydrographic indices. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 67: 315-356. 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

Raju, D. S. N. (1971). Upper Eocene to Early Miocene planktonic foraminifera from the subsurface sediments in Cauvery Basin, India. Jahrbuch der Geologischen Bundesanstalt, Sonderband. 17: 7-68. gs

Rögl, F. (1985). Late Oligocene and Miocene planktic foraminifera from the Central Paratethys. In, Bolli, H. M. , Saunders, J. B. & Perch-Neilsen, K. (eds) Plankton Stratigraphy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK 315-328. gs

Saito, T. & Biscaye, P. E. (1977). Emendation of Riveroinella martinezpicoi Bermúdez and Seiglie, 1967, and synonymy of Riveroinella with Cassigerinella Pokorný, 1955. Micropaleontology. 23: 319-329. gs

Scott, T. M. (2001). Text to accompany the geologic map of Florida. Florida Geological Survey, open-File Report. 80: -. gs

Sexton, P. E., Wilson, P. A. & Pearson, P. N. (2006). Palaeoecology of late middle Eocene planktic foraminifera and evolutionary implications. Marine Micropaleontology. 60: 1-16. 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

Spezzaferri, S. (1995). Planktonic foraminiferal paleoclimatic implications across the Oligocene-Miocene transition in the oceanic record (Atlantic, Indian, and South Pacific). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 114: 43-74. gs

Turco, E. et al. (2002). Middle Miocene high resolution calcareous plankton biostratigraphy at Site 926 (Leg 154, equatorial Atlantic Ocean): palaeoecological and paleobiogeographical implications. Géobios. 35: 257-276. gs


logo

Cassigerinella chipolensis compiled by the pforams@mikrotax project team viewed: 13-11-2019

Taxon Search:
Advanced Search

Short stable page link: http://mikrotax.org/pforams/index.php?id=100039 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