| Daughter taxa: (blue => in age window 0-800Ma) | ||||
| final chambers (sub)triangular | ||||
| | | Final 1-2 chambers globular, test large (up to 0.47 mm) | |
| | | Final 1-2 chambers laterally inflated, coiling compact and involute, tubulospines forward leaning. | |
| | | Like H. compressa but tubulospines absent on early adult chambers and test generally smaller. | |
| | | Final chambers triangular, with nearly continuous peripheral outline; tubulospines in the trans-sutural position and with forward-inclined orientation. | |
| | | Species showing features of H. dumblei and H. compressa, but unique in having posteriorly recurved tubulospines. | |
| | | Final chambers triangular, with nearly continuous peripheral outline, tubulospines in anterior (near sutural) position. | |
| final chambers elongate | ||||
| | | Final chambers elongate with tubulospines in forward position; peripheral outline distinctly stellate.
5-6 chambers in the final whorl. | |
| | | Like H. mexicana but with more compressed test, less stellate peripheral outline, and tubulospines in a more forward position. 4½-6 chambers in the final whorl. | |
| | | Final chambers elongate; tubulospines centrally positioned; peripheral outline distinctly stellate. 4-5 chambers in the final whorl. | |
| | | Final chambers very elongate with rudimentary terminal cylindrical extensions, but lacking true tubulospines. 4-5 chambers in the final whorl. | |
| Specimens which cannot be assigned to established species | ||||
[Coxall & Pearson 2006]
Catalog entries: Hantkenina
Distinguishing features: Final chambers with tubulospines
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.
Diagnostic characters: The most prominent feature of Hantkenina is the presence of tubulospines, which distinguish it from the ancestral genus Clavigerinella. Tubulospines also occur in closely related Cribrohantkenina, which differs from Hantkenina in having a multiple areal aperture system. The Cretaceous genus Schackoina, which is the only other planktonic foraminiferal genus to possess tubulospines, is readily distinguished from Hantkenina by having a microperforate wall, fewer chambers and much smaller test size (0.63-1.50 mm).
[Coxall & Pearson 2006]
Wall type: Smooth, normal perforate, probably nonspinose. [Coxall & Pearson 2006]
Test morphology: Planispiral, biumbilicate or showing a subtly raised spiral side and very shallow umbilicus; 4-7 chambers in the final whorl; chambers rounded in the early stages, adult chambers radially elongated, triangular, polygonal or spherical, laterally compressed or highly inflated; some or all of the adult chambers extend into hollow non-porous tubulospines, of variable length, shape and orientation, or, in the case of H. singanoae n. sp., the chambers possess a distinct terminal nub or porous “proto-tubulospine”; peripheral outline (excluding tubulospines) varies from stellate, with deep incisions between chambers, to angular, smooth-continuous or gently lobed; the aperture is a single equatorial arch bordered by a distinctive lip of variable width, symmetrical or slightly asymmetrical.
[Coxall & Pearson 2006]
Phylogenetic relations: Hantkenina evolved gradually from Clavigerinella caucasica in the latest early Eocene (Coxall and others, 2003). It gave rise to Cribrohantkenina in the late Eocene and the entire family went extinct at the Eocene/Oligocene boundary (33.7 Ma). [Coxall & Pearson 2006]
Most likely ancestor: Clavigerinella - at confidence level 4 (out of 5). Data source: Coxall & Pearson 2006.
Likely descendants: Cribrohantkenina;
Geological Range:
Last occurrence (top): at top of Priabonian Stage (100% up, 33.9Ma, in Priabonian stage). Data source: Total of range of species in this database
First occurrence (base): in upper part of Lutetian Stage (57% up, 44Ma, in Lutetian stage). Data source: Total of range of species in this database
Plot of occurrence data:
Primary source for this page: Coxall & Pearson 2006 - Eocene Atlas, chap. 8, p. 229
Bermudez, P. J. (1937). Nuevas especies de Foraminiferos del Eoceno de Cuba. Memorias de la Sociedad Cubana de Historia Natural. 11: +143-+. 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 Brönnimann, P. (1950b). The Genus Hantkenina Cushman in Trinidad and Barbados, B. W. I. Journal of Paleontology. 24(4): 397-420. gs Coxall, H. K. & Pearson, P. N. (2006). Taxonomy, biostratigraphy, and phylogeny of the Hantkeninidae (Clavigerinella, Hantkenina and Cribrohantkenina).. 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 8): 213-256. gs Coxall, H. K., Huber, B. T. & Pearson, P. N. (2003). Origin and morphology of the Eocene planktonic foraminifera Hantkenina. Journal of Foraminiferal Research. 33: 237-261. gs Cushman, J. A. (1924a). A new genus of Eocene foraminifera. Proceedings of the United States National Museum. 66(30): 1-4. gs Thalmann, H. E. (1942). Foraminiferal genus Hantkenina and its subgenera. American Journal of Science. 240: 809-820. gsReferences:
 |
Hantkenina compiled by the pforams@mikrotax project team viewed: 16-12-2019
Short stable page link: http://mikrotax.org/pforams/index.php?id=100154 Go to Archive.is to create a permanent copy of this page - citation notes |