arrayname: original 
pforams@mikrotax - Rectoguembelina cretacea pforams@mikrotax - Rectoguembelina cretacea

Rectoguembelina cretacea


Classification: pf_cenozoic -> Guembelitrioidea -> Heterohelicidae -> Rectoguembelina -> Rectoguembelina cretacea
Sister taxa: R. cretacea, R. sp.

Taxonomy

Citation: Rectoguembelina cretacea Cushman 1932
Taxonomic rank: species
Basionym: Rectoguembelina cretacea
Synonyms:
Taxonomic discussion: The Paleocene holotype of T. laevigata Loeblich and Tappan is very similar to the R. cretacea holotype (Plate 13: Figures 1,2) except for the presence of more globular chambers in the uniserial growth stage. Paleocene specimens of Rectoguembelina from DSDP Site 357, however, bear uniserial chambers that range in shape from the globular forms of the T. laevigata holotype to forms identical to the R. cretacea holotype (Plate 71: Figures 24-26). It is on this basis that T. laevigata is considered a junior synonym of R. cretacea. [Olsson et al. 1999]

Catalog entries: Rectoguembelina cretacea, Tubitextularia laevigata

Type images:

Distinguishing features:
Parent taxon (Rectoguembelina): Transition from biserial to uniserial portion of test very abrupt, occurring after first four or more pairs of biserial chambers, without an intervening interval of gradually increasing chamber overlap. Apertures on biserial portion interiomarginal with a small, narrow arch; apertures on uniserial chambers terminal, circular, and aligned in rectilinear fashion, without lip or toothplate. Wall calcareous, microperforate; surface smooth to finely pustulose.
This taxon: Distinguished by its small, elongate biserial to uniserial test, usually with two to four uniserial chambers arranged in a rectilinear fashion and bearing a simple, terminal, round to oval-shaped aperture on a short neck.

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 by its small, elongate biserial to uniserial test, usually with two to four uniserial chambers arranged in a rectilinear fashion and bearing a simple, terminal, round to oval-shaped aperture on a short neck. [Olsson et al. 1999]

Character matrix
test outline:Elongatechamber arrangement:Biserialedge view:Equally biconvexaperture:Terminal
sp chamber shape:Globularcoiling axis:N/Aperiphery:N/Aaperture border:Thin lip
umb chbr shape:Globularumbilicus:N/Aperiph margin shape:Moderately roundedaccessory apertures:None
spiral sutures:Strongly depressedumb depth:N/Awall texture:Smoothshell porosity:Microperforate: <1µm
umbilical or test sutures:Strongly depressedfinal-whorl chambers:1-1 N.B. These characters are used for advanced search. N/A - not applicable

Biogeography and Palaeobiology


Geographic distribution

This species has a very irregular distribution, occurring only in near-shore sediments during the Maastrichtian and in offshore sediments at several deep sea sites during the Paleocene, ranging from the low to middle latitudes. [Olsson et al. 1999]

Isotope paleobiology
Stable isotopic evidence that R. cretacea inhabited upper surface waters is presented in Huber and Boersma (1994, table 1; = T. laevigata). The oxygen isotopic data reveal that R. cretacea was more than 1.5%o more negative than the co-occurring benthic species Nuttalites truempyi, and it was more than 0.5 %o more negative than three other planktonic species (Globoconusa daubjergensis, Globanomalina compressa, and Globanomalina sp.). [Olsson et al. 1999]

Phylogenetic relations
The origin ofR. cretacea is uncertain, but test dissections have revealed that apertures in the biserial growth stage are asymmetrically positioned and partially surrounded by a narrow lip of equidimensional thickness, which is identical to the apertures on biserial chambers of Zeauvigerina waiparaensis. This suggests that Rectoguembelina and Zeauvigerina shared a common phylogenetic stock, and Laeviheterohelix is suggested as the most closely related ancestral taxon based on similarities discussed in Huber and Boersma (1994). [Olsson et al. 1999]

Biostratigraphic distribution

Geological Range:
Notes: Maastrichtian through Zone P2. [Olsson et al. 1999]
Last occurrence (top): within P2 zone (62.29-62.60Ma, top in Danian stage). Data source: Olsson et al. 1999
First occurrence (base): within A. mayaroensis zone (67.64-69.27Ma, base in Maastrichtian stage). Data source: Olsson et al. 1999

Plot of occurrence data:

Primary source for this page: Olsson et al. 1999 - Atlas of Paleocene Planktonic Foraminifera, p. 94

References:

Cushman, J. A. (1932). Rectoguembelina, a new genus from the Cretaceous. Contributions from the Cushman Laboratory for Foraminiferal Research. 8(1): 4-7. 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

Olsson, R. K., Hemleben, C., Berggren, W. A. & Huber, B. T. (1999). Atlas of Paleocene Planktonic Foraminifera. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. (85): 1-252. gs


logo

Rectoguembelina cretacea compiled by the pforams@mikrotax project team viewed: 15-3-2025

Taxon Search:
Advanced Search

Short stable page link: https://mikrotax.org/pforams/index.php?id=100270 Go to Archive.is to create a permanent copy of this page - citation notes



Add Comment

* Required information
Captcha Image

Comments (2)

Avatar

Hi Jeremy, As this species spans the K/Pg it seems to have two entries and the one accessed through the Mesozoic database has a lot less info on it. Is it possible to remove this duplication by making sure that the link goes to the same page (the one in the Paleogene with more info and correct range info)? Cheers, Kirsty

Avatar

Hi Kirsty

Fair point , having separate Cenozoic and Mesozoic modules is a bit of a problem for the very few taxa which do go across. There is no neat solution to this (yet) but I will think abut it (and I am so looking forward to be ing able to merge the Neogene and Paleogene when we finally have the oligocene content).

Jeremy