pforams@mikrotax - Morozovella aragonensis

Citation: Morozovella aragonensis (Nuttall 1930)

Basionym: Globorotalia aragonensis

Synonyms:

Globorotalia aragonensis Nuttall, 1930:288, pl. 24: figs. 6-8, 10-11 (10-1l: lectotype USNM 59500 selected by Blow, 1979:990) [lower Eocene Aragon Fm., La Antigua, Rio La Puerta, Tampico Embayment, Mexico].—Glaessner, 1937:10, pl. 1: figs. 5a-c [lower Eocene Lower Foraminiferal Beds, Il’skaya, north west Caucasus].— Subbotina, 1953:215, pl. 18: figs. 6a-c [Zone of conical globorotaliids, Foraminiferal Beds, F1 unit, Nal’chik, Khieu River section, North Caucasus]; ?7a-c [Zone of compressed globorotaliids, lower White (subfish) Fm., Kolodets Koshak, Mangyshlak Peninsula, former soviet union].—Bolli, 1957a:75, pl. 18, figs. 7-9 [G. aragonensis Zone, upper Lizard Springs Fm., Trinidad].—Bolli, 1957b:167, pl. 38: figs. 1a-c [middle Eocene Hantkenina aragonensis Zone, Navet Fm., Trinidad].—Mallory, 1959:252, pl. 35: figs. 2a-c [lower Eocene Lodo Fm., Ulatisian Stage, Devils Den, Fresno Co., California].— Luterbacher, 1964:696-698, figs. 121a-c, 122a-c [G. aragonensis Zone]; figs. 123a-c, 124a-c, 125a-126c [G. bullbrooki Zone, Gubbio section, Apennines, Italy].— Postuma, 1971:172, figs. on p. 173 [topotypes from La Antigua, Rio La Puerta, Tampico region, Mexico].— Luterbacher, 1975a:726, pl. 2: figs. 5a-c [Globorotalia aragonensis Zone, DSDP Site 305, South Atlantic Ocean].—Toumarkine, 1975:736 (not listed on p. 736 in 10:CC; compare Table 2, p. 737), pl. 2, figs. 9,10 [probably Zone E9, but given as “G. lehneri to T. rohri Zone”, DSDP Site 305, South Atlantic Ocean]. —Cifelli and Belford, 1977:102-103, pl. 1: figs. 7-9 [lectotype, CC NO. 64893 designated; lower Eocene Aragon Fm., La Antigua, Rio La Puerta, Tampico Embayment, Mexico, referred to Truncorotaloides (Morozovella)].—Toumarkine and Luterbacher, 1985:112, text-figs. 16.4a-c [=Nuttall, 1930, pl. 24, figs. 6-8 reillustrated; not holotype as stated; cf. Cifelli and Belford, 1977:102-103 and Blow, 1979:990 who chose other illustrated specimen(s) as lectotype(s)]; 16.5a-c [reillustration of Bolli, 1957a, pl. 18, figs. 7-9]; 16.6a-c [Subbotina, 1953, pl. 18: figs. 6a-c reillustrated].
Globorotalia (Truncorotalia) aragonensis Nuttall.—Cushman and Bermúdez, 1949:38, pl. 7: figs. 13-15 [Zone P9=E7, Universidad Fm., Avenida de los Presidentes, Vedado, Havana, Cuba].
Pseudogloborotalia aragonensis (Nuttall).—Bermúdez, 1961:1338-1340, pl. 16: figs. 5a-c [lower Eocene Zone P9, Universidad Fm., Havana, Cuba].
Morozovella aragonensis aragonensis (Nuttall).—Fleisher, 1974:1029, pl. 14: fig. 11 [Zone P11, DSDP Site 219, Indian Ocean].
Morozovella aragonensis (Nuttall) .—Berggren, 1977:244, Chart No. 9, (various forms reillustrated from literature).— Pearson, and others, 1993:124, pl. 2: figs. 1-3 [Zone P11, DSDP Site 523, South Atlantic Ocean].—Warraich, Ogasawara and Nishi, 2000:293, fig. 17. 6,11,12 [Zone P7, Dungan Fm., Rakhi Nala River, Sulaiman Range, Pakistan].—Warraich and Ogasawara, 2001:37 [Zone P7, Dungan Fm., Rakhi Nala River, Sulaiman Range, Pakistan]._Pearson and others, 2004:37, pl. 2, fig. 12 [middle Eocene, Zone P11, Tanzania Drilling Project Site 2, Kilwa Masoko, Tanzania].
Globorotalia (Morozovella) aragonensis Nuttall.—Blow, 1979:990, pl. 134: fig. 6 [Zone P8b, DSDP Hole 47.2, Shatsky Rise, northwest Pacific Ocean]; pl. 141: figs. 1,2, pl. 226, fig. 6 (detail of pl. 141, fig. 2) [Zone P8b, DSDP Site 5, Atlantic Ocean] and figs. 4-9 [Zone P8b, DSDP Site 5, Atlantic Ocean]; pl. 146, figs. 1, 2 [Zone P9, DSDP Hole 47.2, Shatsky Rise, northwest Pacific Ocean]; pl. 147: figs. 5-7; pl. 152: figs. 1-5 [Zone P9, Kane 9-C piston core, Endeavour Seamount, equatorial Atlantic Ocean]; pl. 164: figs. 6-9; pl. 227, figs. 1-3; pl. 228: figs. 4,5 [Zone P10, Kane 9-C piston core, Endeavour Seamount, equatorial Atlantic Ocean]; pl. 167: figs. 6-9; pl. 227: fig. 4; pl. 228, figs. 1-3; pl. 228: fig. 6 [Zone P11, Sample RS24, Kilwa area, Tanzania].
Globorotalia marksi Martin, 1943:115, pl. 8: figs. 1a-c [holotype, No. 7402, lower Eocene M. aragonensis Zone, Lodo Fm., Lodo Gulch, Fresno County, California].
Globorotalia naussi Martin, 1943:116, pl. 8: figs. 5-6 [holotype No. 7403, Lodo Fm type section, Lodo Gulch, Fresno Co., California].

Taxonomic discussion: Nuttall (1930) did not designate a holotype for this species when he described it from the lower-middle Eocene Aragon Formation of Mexico. In an examination of various species of Cenozoic planktonic foraminiferal taxa in the collections of the USNM, Cifelli and Belford (1977, p. 102, 103, pl. 1, figs. 7-9) designated one (PP 64893) of 5 paralectotypes in Nuttall’s original material (No. CC59499) as lectotype and provided a detailed description of its morphologic characters. The taxonomic characters of M. aragonensis were also discussed by Blow (1979, p. 990-993) who also attempted to designate a lectotype (USNM 59500) for the taxon. However, there is some confusion regarding Blow’s actions in this respect. There is also considerable confusion over Blow’s action in its own right because he did not adequately identify the collection number of the desired specimen. Blow (1979, p. 990) stated that Nuttall (1930) had “only selected two cotypes which were deposited in the Cushman Collection (numbers 59500 and 59499). The writer here selects the specimen registered as Cushman Collection no. 59500 as lectotype of the taxon Globorotalia aragonensis Nuttall 1930; this specimen is believed to be the one figured by Nuttall in dorsal and ventral views, on his plate 24, figs. 10 and 11...” However, we have been able to verify (Brian Huber, personal communication to WAB November 11/12, 2002) that there are currently 4 paralectotype specimen’s in Nuttall’s original CC59499 slide and 14 specimens in CC 59500! Since Cifelli and Belford selected a lectotype from a slide with 5 specimens it must have come from CC 59499. The mystery remains why Blow (1979, p. 990) stated that Nuttall (1930) had deposited only two “cotypes “ in the Cushman Collections. We suspect the answer may lie somewhere in the following: 1) Blow (1979, p. 990) may have chosen his lectotype without actually viewing the slide(s) in question at the USNM; 2) Blow (1979, p. 990) selected what he believed to be a single specimen illustrated by Nuttall (1930, pl. 24, figs. 10,11) to serve as the lectotype of Globorotalia aragonensis Nuttall; 3) he would have considered that figures 6-8, pl. 24 in Nuttall (1930) were three views of the second specimen in the slide; 4) Blow (1979, p. 990) considered that the “specimen” he had chosen as lectotype corresponds to CC no. 59500, whereas the other “specimen” (which he believed to correspond to pl. 24, figs. 6-8) corresponds to CC no. 59499; 5) however, the five illustrations (CC no. 59499) of Nuttall (1930, pl. 24, figs. 6-8, 10,11) that Blow (1979, p. 990) believed to represent two specimens are, in actual fact, five specimens (see above and also Cifelli and Belford, 1977: “The type material consists of five cotypes that were figured in the original description and another group of cotypes that were unfigured” [CC no. 59500]); 6) It is thus obvious that
Blow (1979) and Cifelli and Belford (1977) chose their respective lectotypes from the same sample (CC no. 59499) containing the five specimens deposited by Nuttall in 1930. Blow (1979, p. 990), however, had designated his lectotype based on two specimens; 7) it is difficult to state/determine which of the five specimens Cifelli and Belford (1977) designated as lectotype of aragonensis, although a comparison of their illustration (1977, pl. 1, figs. 7-9) with the five figured specimens of Nuttall (1930, pl. 24, figs. 6-8, 10,11) suggests it may well be that figured by Nuttall (1930, pl. 24, fig. 1) inasmuch as the illustration(s) of the spiral side of that specimen shows a strong similarity to that of Cifelli and Belford (1977, pl. 1, fig. 7). Blow had died in 1972 and his monograph did not appear (1979) until two years after the publication of the Cifelli and Belford paper (1977). Thus, his designation of a lectotype, while intriguing, is irrelevant to the taxonomic status of aragonensis.
Blow (1979, p. 990) indicated that he considered lensiformis to have been the direct ancestor of both crater and aragonensis. We agree with this viewpoint. Blow (1979, p. 1006, 1007) also considered marksi Martin and naussi Martin as “ex interc. lensiformis and aragonensis” and as “primitive aragonensis”, respectively, based on an examination of paratypes in the USNM. Examination of the holotypes of these two taxa (WAB) suggests that the morphologic differences between these forms and “typical” aragonensis are of a minor nature and that separate taxic distinction is not warranted.
Morozovella aragonensis is one of the most distinctive and widely cited morozovellids in Eocene literature. [Berggren & Pearson 2006]

Distinguishing features: Like M. lensiformis but test planoconvex and with more chambers in final whorl (5-7) and nearly circular; terminal chamber generally smooth.

Description

Diagnostic characters: This taxon is characterized by its tightly coiled, nearly circular test (giving the appearance of a truncated cone), narrow umbilicus, distinctly trapezoidal chambers on spiral side and strongly developed muricae on the early chambers.

Wall type: Muricate, nonspinose, normal perforate. [Berggren & Pearson 2006]

Test morphology: Test periphery nearly circular, weakly lobulate, planoconvex; 5-7 chambers in last whorl, triangular and inflated on umbilical side, trapezoidal to lozenge shaped on spiral side as a function of the strong curvature of intercameral sutures which are raised or flush with test surface, muricate/beaded and forming distinct, acute angle with periphery; intercameral sutures staight to slightly sinuous and moderately depressed on umbilical side; umbilicus
narrow, deep, and rimmed by rounded tips at circumumbilical chamber confluence; blunt-tipped muricae scattered over chambers of last whorl on umbilical side; terminal chamber generally smooth; strong/thick peripheral muricocarina; early chambers strongly muricate obscuring early whorl(s); muricae on early whorl(s) of test preclude accurate estimate of number of chambers and whorls on test; probably about 12-15 in about 3 whorls; in edge view umbilico-convex; spiral side flat or nearly so; primary aperture a low, umbilical-extraumbilical arch extending to peripheral margin. [Berggren & Pearson 2006]

Size: Lectotype dimension(s): not given by Cifelli and Belford (1977); average diameter: 0.6 mm (Nuttall, 1930, p. 288). [Berggren & Pearson 2006]

Biogeography and Palaeobiology

Geographic distribution: Widely distributed in (sub)tropical-Tethyan regions; common in Caribbean, Mediterranean-Pyrenees, North Caucasus, Indo-Pacific, among others. [Berggren & Pearson 2006]
Aze et al. 2011 summary: Low latitudes; based on Berggren & Pearson (2006)

Isotope paleobiology: Oxygen and carbon isotopes indicate a shallow mixed-layer habitat (Boersma and others, 1987; Pearson and others, 1993, 2001). [Berggren & Pearson 2006]
Aze et al. 2011 ecogroup 1 - Open ocean mixed-layer tropical/subtropical, with symbionts. Based on very heavy δ¹³C and relatively light δ¹⁸O. Sources cited by Aze et al. 2011 (appendix S3): Boersma et al. (1987); Pearson et al. (1993, 2001a)

Phylogenetic relations: This taxon evolved from M. lensiformis and does not appear to have left any descendants.
[Berggren & Pearson 2006]

Most likely ancestor: Morozovella lensiformis - at confidence level 4 (out of 5). Data source: Berggren & Pearson (2006) f11.1.

Biostratigraphic distribution

Geological Range:
Notes: Base of Zone E5 (by definition) to top of Zone E9 (by definition). [Berggren & Pearson 2006]
The LAD of Morozovella aragonensis marks the base of zone E10 / top of E9 (Wade et al. 2011)
The FAD of Morozovella aragonensis marks the base of zone E5 / top of E4 (Wade et al. 2011)
Last occurrence (top): at top of E9 zone (100% up, 43.2Ma, in Lutetian stage). Data source: zonal marker (Wade et al. 2011)
First occurrence (base): at base of E5 zone (0% up, 52.5Ma, in Ypresian stage). Data source: zonal marker (Wade et al. 2011)

Primary source for this page: Berggren & Pearson 2006 - Eocene Atlas, chap. 11, p. 349

References:

Berggren, W.A. & Pearson, P.N., (2006). Taxonomy, biostratigraphy, and phylogeny of Eocene Morozovella. In: Pearson, P.N. et al. (Editors), Atlas of Eocene Planktonic Foraminifera. Cushman Foundation Special Publication. 41 Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas, pp. 343-376.

Berggren, W.A., (1977). Atlas of Palaeogene Planktonic Foraminifera: some Species of the Genera Subbotina, Planorotalites, Morozovella, Acarinina and Truncorotaloides. In: Ramsay, A.T.S. (Editor), Oceanic Micropaleontology. Academic Press, London, pp. 205-300.

Bermudez, P.J., (1949). Tertiary smaller foraminifera of the Dominican Republic. Cushman Laboratory for Foraminiferal Research Special Publication, 25: 1-322.

Bermudez, P.J., (1961). Contribucion al estudio de las Globigerinidea de la region Caribe-Antillana (Paleoceno-Reciente). Mem. III Congreso Geol. Venez., 3. Editorial Sucre, Caracas, 1119-1393 pp.

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

Boersma, A.; Premoli Silva, I. & Shackleton, N.J., (1987). Atlantic Eocene planktonic foraminiferal paleohydrographic indicators and stable isotope paleoceanography. Paleoceanography, 2: 287-331.

Bolli, H.M., (1957). The genera Globigerina and Globorotalia in the Paleocene-Lower Eocene Lizard Springs Formation of Trinidad. In: Loeblich, A.R., Jr. et al. (Editors), Studies in Foraminifera, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 215. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., pp. 61-82.

Bolli, H.M., (1957). Planktonic foraminifera from the Eocene Navet and San Fernando formations of Trinidad. In: Loeblich, A.R., Jr. et al. (Editors), Studies in Foraminifera: U.S. National Museum Bulletin 215. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., pp. 155-172.

Cifelli, R. & Belford, D.J., (1977). The Types of Several Species of Tertiary Planktonic Foraminifera in the Collections of the U.S. National Museum of Natural History. Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 7: 100-105.

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

Glaessner, M.F., (1937). Studien über foraminiferen aus der kreide und dem Tertiär des Kaukasus. I. Die foraminiferen der ältesten Tertiärschichten des Nordwest-Kaukasus. Problemy Paleontologii, Paleontologicheskay Laboratoriya Moskovskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, 2-3: 349-410.

Glaessner, M.F., (1937). Planktonforaminiferen aus der Kreide und dem Eozän und ihre stratigraphische Bedeutung. Etyudy po Mikropaleontologiy, Paleontologicheskaya Laboratoriya Moskovskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. [Studies in Micropaleontology, Publications of the Laboratory of Paleontology, Moscow University], 1(1): 27-46.

Luterbacher, H.P., (1964). Studies in some Globorotalia from the Paleocene and Lower Eocene of the Central Apennines. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae, 57: 631-730.

Luterbacher, H.P., (1975). Paleocene and Early Eocene planktonic foraminifera Leg 32, Deep Sea Drilling Project. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, 32: 725-728.

Mallory, V.S., (1959). Lower Tertiary biostratigraphy of the California Coast Ranges. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 416 pp.

Martin, L.T., (1943). Eocene foraminifera from the type Lodo Formation, Fresno County, California. Stanford University Publications, University Series, Geological SciencesStanford University Press, Stanford University, CA, 1-35 pp.

Nuttall, W.L.F., (1930). Eocene Foraminifera from Mexico. Journal of Paleontology, 4: 271-293.

Pearson, P.N.; Shackleton, N.J. & Hall, M.A., (1993). Stable isotope paleoecology of middle Eocene planktonic foraminifera and multi-species isotope stratigraphy, DSDP Site 523, South Atlantic. Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 23: 123-140.

Pearson, P.N. & others, (2004). Paleogene and Cretaceous sediment cores from the Kilwa and Lindi areas of coastal Tanzania: Tanzania Drilling Project Sites 1–5. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 39: 25-62.

Toumarkine, M. & Luterbacher, H., (1985). Paleocene and Eocene planktic foraminifera. Plankton StratigraphyCambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 87-154 pp.

Toumarkine, M., (1975). Middle and Late Eocene planktonic foraminifera from the northwestern Pacific Ocean: Leg 32 of the Deep Sea Drilling Project. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, 32: 735-751.

Wade, B.S.; Pearson, P.N.; Berggren, W.A. & Pälike, H., (2011). Review and revision of Cenozoic tropical planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy and calibration to the geomagnetic polarity and astronomical time scale. Earth-Science Reviews, 104: 111-142.

Warraich, M.Y. & Ogasawara, K., (2001). Tethyan Paleocene-Eocene planktic foraminifera from the Rakhi Nala and Zinda Pir land sections of the Sulaiman Range, Pakistan. Science Reports of the Institute of Geosciences, University of Tsukuba, Section B = Geological Sciences, 22: 1-59.

Warraich, M.Y.; Ogasawara, K. & Nishi, H., (2000). Late Paleocene to early Eocene planktic foraminiferal blostratigraphy of the Dungan Formation, Sulaiman Range, central Pakistan. Paleontological Research, 4(4): 275-301, 18 figures, 3 appendices.

test outline:	Circular	chamber arrangement:	Trochospiral	edge view:	Planoconvex	aperture:	Umbilical
umb chamber shape:	Subtriangular	coiling axis:	High	periphery:	Imperforate band	aperture border:	N/A
sp chbr shape:	Petaloid	umbilicus:	Narrow	periph margin shape:	Subangular	accessory apertures:	None
umbilical or test sutures:	Moderately depressed	umb depth:	Deep	wall texture:	-	shell porosity:	Finely Perforate: 1-2.5µm
spiral sutures:	Raised costate	final-whorl chambers:	6.5-7.5

Morozovella aragonensis

Taxonomy

Description

Biogeography and Palaeobiology

Biostratigraphic distribution

Comments (0)

Add Comment