Daughter taxa (time control age-window is: 0-800Ma) | Granddaughter taxa | ||||
 |  |  | Acrosphaera arktios neptune records: 1 | ||
 |  |  | Acrosphaera australis neptune records: 83 | ||
 | Acrosphaera collina neptune records: | ||||
 |  |  |  | Acrosphaera cyrtodon neptune records: | |
 | Acrosphaera flammabunda neptune records: | ||||
 labrata, img1067.jpg) |  labrata, img1634.jpg) |  labrata, img1635.jpg) |  labrata, img1636.jpg) | Acrosphaera labrata neptune records: 48 | |
 |  |  | Acrosphaera lappacea neptune records: 8 | ||
 |  |  |  | Acrosphaera mercurius neptune records: 40 | |
.jpg) |  |  |  | Acrosphaera murrayana neptune records: 61 | |
 |  | Acrosphaera pseudarktios neptune records: | |||
 | Acrosphaera setosa neptune records: | ||||
 |  |  |  | Acrosphaera spinosa neptune records: 17 | |
| Acrosphaera transformata neptune records: | |||||
 |  |  |  | Acrosphaera trepanata neptune records: | |
| Acrosphaera sp. neptune records: 40 | |||||
Polysolenia Ehrenberg 1872 was one of several genera for tubular collosphaerids, based on the number of tubes -Disolenia, Trisolenia etc, w. Polysolenia for 6+ tubes. Ehrenberg did not designate types (the concept had not been established then).
Haeckel 1887 rejected the base assumption of Ehrenberg, considering tube number to be infraspecific variation, but, instead of modifying Ehrenbergs's names and retaining one for his new broad concept rejected them all and introduced a new name Solenosphaera for tubular forms, and without pores or other structures on the tubes.
Haeckel also introduced Acrosphaera - briefly in 1881, w. description and species in 1887, for collosphaerids with spines, not tubes. All of his species were new to him except Ehrenberg's Polysolenia setosa 1872, now A.setosa. The oldest described species in Acrosphaera was Haeckel's Collosphaera spinosa 1862, now A. spinosa. Haeckel did not designate type species for his genera.
Strelkov and Reshetnyak 1971 published the first modern monograph on collosphaerids. They accepted Haeckel's primacy of tubes vs spines, and rejected the proposed use (by Campbell 1954 and Nigrini 1967) of Polysolenia as the senior synonym of Acrosphaera, as this would violate Haeckel's tube vs spine concept. (Strelkov and Reshetnyak more generally reject the 'artificial' narrow focus on technical priority of Campbell, and call his publication 'unsatisfactory' and 'a step backward'.) Most workers since Strelkov and Reshetnyak have followed their nomeclature for the collosphaerid family. Strelkov and Reshetnyak 1971 do not designate type species for their genera.
Given that Haeckel clearly had a different concept for the genus Acrosphaera than Ehrenberg's Polysolenia, his explicit inclusion of P. setosa into Acrosphaera should have made clear that setosa should not be used as the type for Polysolenia. Thus [IMHO] Campbell's designation of setosa as the type for Polysolenia is in error. If one of Ehrenberg's names for tubular forms should be retained (instead of e.g. Solenosphaera or other of Haeckel's replacements), the type species for this would need to be chosen from something that reflects the concept of Ehrenberg - tubes - and which has not previously been transferred to a new genus concept ie Acrosphaera by Haeckel. Thus Campbell's proposed type by SD must be rejected.
Matsuzaki 2015 argued that since Campell designated P. setosa as the type for Polysolenia then setosa can't be the type also for Acrosphaera, tho it is not clear where Matsuzaki found the type species designation for Acrosphaera. It is not stated in Haeckel's 'Entwurf' of 1882 or in his 1887 Challenger monograph. Matsuzaki also incorrectly cites Bjørklund and Goll 1979 as stating that Polysolenia should be used, and Acrosphaera be a junior synonym of Polysolenia. Bjørklund and Goll explicitly say the opposite "we conclude that the name Polysolenia should be suppressed and have chosen to follow Haeckel, 1881 and later authors in the use of Acrosphaera for this genus" (Bjørklund and Goll p. 1308). Matsuzaki then decides that Acrosphaera is a junior synonym of Polysolenia -ignoring the differences in morphology and concept established by both Haeckel and Strelkov and Reshetnyak and followed by essentially all subsequent authors, as well as accepting the [IMHO] invalid SD of setosa as the type for Polysolenia by Campbell. Matsuzaki's argument, and the re-assignment of established Acrosphaera species back to Polysolenia is not accepted here. - dl
Catalog entries: Acrosphaera
Original description: 1. Subfamilia: Acrosphaerida. Symbelaria testis clathratis simplicibus subglobosis irregularibus.
B. testa spinosa, spinis basi clathratis.
Translated description: 1. Subfamily: Acrosphaerida. Symbelaria with simple, irregular subspherical latticed tests.
B. With test spiny, the spines latticed at the base. (Translated from Latin by E.M.R. and W.R.R.)]
Remarks on original description: [Synonymized with Polysolenia Ehrenberg by Nigrini, 1967]
Geological Range:
Last occurrence (top): Extant. Data source: Total of ranges of the species in this database
First occurrence (base): within Paleogene Period (23.03-66.04Ma, base in Danian stage). Data source: Total of ranges of species in this database
Plot of occurrence data:
References:
 |
Acrosphaera compiled by the radiolaria@mikrotax project team viewed: 4-10-2024
Short stable page link: https://mikrotax.org/radiolaria/index.php?id=202989 Go to Archive.is to create a permanent copy of this page - citation notes |