Recent Comments

This page gives a list of the comments on the site, sorted by date. So you can use it to see what has been discussed recently - to join in follw the link on any comment and add another comment on that page. se the forum age fro discussion of the site and general nanno stuff

Dictyocha fibula by Ines Galovic (2017-03-16)
Dictyocha pentagona (Schulz) Bukry & Foster 1973-record paleocene-recent: Arabian Sea (bas. Dictyocha fibula var pentagona Schulz 1928, syn. Dictyocha fibula f. pentagona (Schulz) Frenguelli 1935, Dictyocha pentagona (Lemm.) Martini, 1971; Dictyocha pentagona (Schulz)Ciesielski) 1975Dictyocha rhombica (Schulz) Deflandre 1941-record: Paleocene to recent: Atlantic, Japan, Arabian Sea (Bas. Dicty

Stephanocha by Ines Galovic (2017-03-16)
Distephanopsis schauinslandii (Lemmermann) Desikachary & Prema 1996 -record: Eocene to recent:Pacific (basionym: Distephanus schauislandii Lemmermann 1901, syn. Distephanus crux var. schauislandii (Lemm) Schulz 1928).Distephanopsis staurodon (Ehrenberg) Desikachary & Prema 1996- record: Miocene-recent: Mexican gulf, Indian Ocea, Adriatic Sea (basionym: Dictyocha staurodon Ehrenberg 1844, s

Stephanocha by Ines Galovic (2017-03-16)
Yes, Stephanocha rotunda (Stöhr) K.McCartney & R.W.Jordan 2015 -recorded from Creataceous to recent (basionym: Distephanus rotundus Stöhr 1880)Stephanocha speculum var. ornamentum (Ehrenberg) K.McCartney & R.W.Jordan in Jordan & McCartney 2015 -records from early Eocene to recent (basionym Dictyocha ornamentum Ehrenberg 1844, syn. Distephanus ornamentum (Ehrenberg) Haeckel 1887). Thi

Stephanocha by Jeremy Young (2017-03-16)
Thanks - the coverage of silicoflagellates here is minimal, just a list of the extant species. Do you know which species was recoded from the Late Cretaceous and if it would be included in modern Stephanoca?

Chiasmolithus titus by Jeremy Young (2017-03-16)
Vann - fair point they are every similar. They are being separated based on C. titus having one crossbar that is really hook-shaped (and the other more or less straight) as opposed to C. nitidus having one crossbar that is curved (and the other more or less straight). Dunkley Jones et al. (2009) use this explicitly and it does correspond to the original descriptions. [NB I have now edited the diag

Chiasmolithus titus by Vann Smith (2017-03-15)
How is Chiasmolithus titus distinguished from C. nitidus? They look very similar to me.

Dictyocha by Ines Galovic (2017-03-09)
Its first fossil record: Upper Cretaceous

Stephanocha by Ines Galovic (2017-03-09)
Its first occurrence: Upper Cretaceous (Desikachary & Prema, 1996).

Helicosphaera wallichii by Ines Galovic (2017-03-08)
The base is in the mid Miocene (Badenian) of Paratethys (Slovenia, Austria, Croatia, Romania...). All the articles you can find if you combined the species name with the Paratethys at the google search.Best wishes :)

Helicosphaera HOL dalmaticus type by Ines Galovic (2017-03-08)
This is also characteristic Paratethyan species for mid-Miocen (Badenian) of Slovenia, Croatia and Romania (our article).

Acri-forum by Jeremy Young (2017-01-10)
This is a test comment to check that the system does work

Fasciculithus varolii by dummy user (2017-01-10)
this is a test comment

Futyania petalosa by Jeremy Young (2017-01-08)
test comment using new version of commentics

Ascidian spicules by magdalena lukowiak (2016-11-30)
Thanks guys for such a possitive reactions to our latest paper! :) we are glad that you liked it. If you are interested in fossil ascidian spicules, I also recommend my article from 2012: _ukowiak, M. 2012. First Record of Late Eocene Ascidians (Ascidiacea, Tunicata) from Southeastern Australia: Journal of Paleontology 86 (3): 521–526If any of you want a pdf of this paper, please, do not hesitat

Helicosphaera walbersdorfensis by Ines Galovic (2016-11-22)
First occurrence is observed in Paratethian NN4b subzone of Badenian (Andreyeva-Grigorovich et al., 2001), which belongs to Mediterranean MNN4b respectinely (Fornaciari et al, 1996).

Coccolithus tenuiforatus by Jeremy Young (2016-10-11)
This is not a very well worked out taxon but C. staurion has a more robust cross that nearly fills the c area and is clearly visible in LM. By contrast in C. tenuiforatus the cross is delicate and not really visible in LM.

Coccolithus tenuiforatus by Juan P. Pérez Panera (2016-10-11)
Which will be the difference with Coccolithus staurion?

Ascidian spicules by Jeremy Young (2016-09-21)
thanks for the tip - I just found it and and yes it is a nice paper , i will add mention of it on the page as it has modern references etc.Lukowiak, M.; Dumitriu, S. & Ionesi, V., (2016). First fossil record of early Sarmatian didemnid ascidian spicules (Tunicata) from Moldova. Geobios, 49: 201-209.

Ascidian spicules by Ines Galovic (2016-09-21)
Very nice article about ascidian spicules at Researchgate published in April 2016 in Geobios. Unfortunatelly I couldn't add a link here. :(

Parhabdolithus marthae by Jeremy Young (2016-08-30)
Thanks Kevin - you are of course quite right and I have now corrected this. Please do keep pointing out errors!

Parhabdolithus marthae by Kevin Cooper (2016-08-18)
I think the stratigraphic range is wrong for this species you have assign it to NJ3 zoned, based on Bown & Cooper 1998. However in that publication it range is give as NJ2a subzone restricted significantly older

forum by Jeremy Young (2016-08-15)
I don't think so - probably the closest is the INA Facebook page

forum by fatemeh (2016-08-13)
Hi Is there any Channel about calcareous nannofossils in telegram or other social networks?

forum by fatemeh (2016-08-13)
hi That's great,thanks.

Watznaueria barnesiae by Jeremy Young (2016-08-07)
There does seem to be a reduction in the frequency of W. barnesiae in the Coniacian but you should look at this as an indication that there may be something happening rather than definite proof, it may just be noise in the data. Interestingly though there is also an increase in the frequency records in W. biporta, W. communis and W. brittannica at this time - so one possibility is that forms with

Watznaueria barnesiae by H K Sabot (2016-08-07)
Why W barnesae has less abundance in Coniacian, although it being a resistant ? whether reproductivity is low or sea regressed at that time ?

Micula staurophora by H K Sabot (2016-08-07)
Dear Nannotax, This is to appreciate your effort to make available your data in open forum. Thank you.

forum by Jeremy Young (2016-07-02)
Update to range plots - I have now changed the way range data is plotted on species pages, the histograms still show the data from the Neptune database but the nannotax range is now directly compared to it. Also the background image shows the stages using GTS colours (hover mouse over the plot to see stage names).

forum by Masykur Widhiyatmoko (2016-06-17)
Hi, I am new in learning nannoplankton from Geological Research and Development Centre, Geological Agency, Indonesia...Many thanks to all contributor of this website.Thaks,Masykur

Coronosphaera mediterranea HOL hellenica type by Jeremy Young (2016-06-13)
OK I have updated the reference list. The publication date I have left as 2016 as the website gives the date for this issue as February 2016. Do you know if it was printed in 2015? Then again if there is no new taxonomy the exact date is not very important and it may be easiest to use the cover-date (which is 2015).

Coronosphaera mediterranea HOL hellenica type by Maria Triantaphyllou (2016-06-12)
actually it is published in 2015

Coronosphaera mediterranea HOL hellenica type by Maria Triantaphyllou (2016-06-12)
The correct reference for the new combination coccospheres is:TRIANTAPHYLLOU, M.V, KARATSOLIS, B., DIMIZA, M.D., MALINVERNO, E., CERINO, F., PSARRA, S., JORDAN, R.W., YOUNG, J.R., 20156. Coccolithophore combination coccospheres from the NE Mediterranean Sea: new evidence and taxonomic revisions. Micropaleontology, 61(6): 457-472.

Watznaueria barnesiae by Jeremy Young (2016-04-18)
Thanks for the feedback, always appreciated. The image you mention is one I took a long time ago but i think from Early Maastrichtian or Late Campanian of Tunisia. Zeugrhadotus taxonomy is problematic but Z. sigmoides would be a normal identification fro this, and Jackie Lees conformed this. [

Watznaueria barnesiae by Alessandro Menini (2016-04-16)
Very nice job here. I was curious about the species of Zeugrhabdotus in pic JRYlm-Wb16.JPG. Which species is it ?

forum by Magdy Girgis (2016-04-16)
Many thanks Jeremy for your swift response and guiding me to the information requested. I really appreciate it.Magdy

Discoaster berggrenii by Jeremy Young (2016-04-15)
Hi MagdyA copy of the diagram is here.

Discoaster berggrenii by Magdy (2016-04-15)
Mike...Thanks for producing sketches for the Discoaster quinqueramus/berggrenii plexus. I found it very useful. Some how I lost the original copy. Could you tell where you have posted this document, hopefully I will be able to download it.RegardsMagdy

forum by Jeremy Young (2016-03-05)
hi BaptisteIf you let me know what you want I can almost certainly send you the data Jeremy

Cribrocentrum isabellae by Baptiste Sucheras-Marx (2016-02-26)
The FO and LO are inversed.

Arkhangelskiella confusa by Jeremy Young (2016-02-18)
Hi BaptisteYou are quite right it would be a very useful to have good data on coccolith sizes and this is one of the things we would like to add - but the problem is to find useful compendiums of data. If you have any suggestions for data sources please feel free to make them. .. but thanks anyway for the feedback.Jeremy

forum by Baptiste Sucheras-Marx (2016-02-18)
Hi,I am doing a little study sort of updating Aubry et al. 2005 on Mesozoic cocco size. To do so, I saw that we can plot coccolith from nannotax with stratigraphic range. But I wonder we can extract those data in .txt? It would save me thousands of copy/paste.ThanksBap

Arkhangelskiella confusa by Baptiste Sucheras-Marx (2016-02-18)
Hi,I think it would be great in the future development of nannotax to add for each species information on size like size range, mean, etc with a small indication if it is from a large amount of specimen or not.Thank you very and congratulations again for this brilliant website.Baptiste

Nannoconus steinmannii by Elliott Burden (2016-02-16)
I am looking for a contact that may help locate an old 1970's vintage coccolith sample perhaps housed/curated at Elf or Total in France. Basic questioning of my few contacts in the Calgary oil patch have not lead me to any French contacts.

Scyphosphaera hamptonii by Tamsin (2016-02-01)
Hi, I was wondering about the published age for this species - it's stated on here as NN2-NN4, however looking at the original publication, it suggests NN11. Any thoughts?

Acanthoica laffittei by Jeremy Young (2016-01-18)
thanks! I have corrected that nowJeremy

Acanthoica laffittei by Ines Galovic (2016-01-18)
the missing part of the last reference is: ...des invirons de Pan_evo (Yougoslavie). Bull. Sci. Yougoslavie, A16(207)

forum by Jeremy Young (2016-01-04)
Hi Fatemeh - there is more information on the user guide page

forum by fatemeh (2016-01-02)
Hi thanks for your reply,I tried in that way but It didn't work or I need more guide. Regards

Sphenolithus by Jeremy Young (2015-12-21)
good point - do you have a pdf copy of the paper. it would be nice to include your reconstruction of sphenolithus sphere.

Sphenolithus by Kenneth M. Towe (2015-12-20)
This old paper should be added to the list of references...1979 K.M. Towe, Variation and systematics in calcareous nannofossils of the genus Sphenolithus. AMERICAN ZOOLOGIST, v. 19, p. 555-572.It should give pause to the discussion of various "species" in this genus.

Sphenolithus pseudoradians by Jeremy Young (2015-12-04)
Hi SimonYes it is a good point - the age ranges in nannotax are not heavily researched data from the literature and they are stored in whatever units the original sources used - eg NN zones or Cretaceous stages - the conversion of these to Ma ages is just for convenience but I think people are bit liable to misinterpret them.Jeremy

Trochoaster martinii by Jeremy Young (2015-12-04)
Indeed Actiniscus and Trochoaster can look really similar in SEM - but of course in LM there is no problem to separate them, as Actiniscids are siliceous

forum by Jeremy Young (2015-12-04)
Hi EmiliaIt might be worth trying posting that on the coccoliths list server, that may work better for getting general comments. Synthesising an reviewing data almost always proves useful in my experience though so your idea sounds well worth thinking about. Jeremy

forum by Jeremy Young (2015-12-04)
Hi Fatemeh The main way you can do an age related search is to go to Tools/Prefs & Time Control. There you can set the time interval you are interested in (e.g. Oligocene or Albian or 100 to 102 Ma) and the taxa which fall within that time interval will be highlighted. If you wanted something a bit different to that then feel free to explain a bit more. All the bestJeremy

Helicosphaera compacta by Ines Galovic (2015-11-24)
Maybe in IAP LO of the species marks the end of E. Oligocene, but in other Oceans (ODP, IODP and in other articles) its rare appearance certainly is in the Late Oligocene i.e. NP25, like in Adriatic (Mediterranean area)-mine observation.

forum by Emilia (2015-11-20)
I would like to know if someone is working with calcareous nannofossils from Eastern Equatorial Pacific, my field work is in this area. I found very few publication on Cenozoic calcareous nannofossils for this area. I am wondering if it is worth to make a review paper for this Pacific side and construct a geographic data using ArcGIS.

Trochoaster martinii by Ines Galovic (2015-10-23)
It looks like Actiniscus pentasterias (Ehrenberg) Ehrenberg.

forum by fatemeh (2015-10-18)
hi, thanks for good website.If you have a possibility of sorting all specious of nannofossils based on each stages(age range) for search, it will be more helpfull. Regards.

Sphenolithus pseudoradians by Simon Cole (2015-10-15)
Like my comment just now about H. compacta; again, I don't believe this species goes to the top of NP24 (and therefore not to 26.84Ma). P-N, 1985 dashes to NP24 so I don't think we should be referencing that as the source of the date for the LO of this species without a question-mark at least.Because I have found the same issue for H. compacta and S. pseudoradians in the last few minutes,

Helicosphaera compacta by Simon Cole (2015-10-15)
Hi JeremyI've always put the LO of H. compacta intra-NP24, approximated to the top of the Early Oligocene (28.09 according to GTS2012). I believe this is where de Kaenel & Villa, 1996 observed it too in most of their sections from the Iberia Abyssal Plain. Would you consider amending the absolute age here to reflect this?Cheers,Simon

Craticullithus clathrus by Jason Crux (2015-10-12)
Jeremy,One of your specimens clearly appears to be a Sollasites horticus.Jason

Ceratolithus by SHIVANGI TIWARI (2015-10-12)
Has a type species been defined for Ceratolithus?

forum by Alessandro Menini (2015-10-04)
Hi. I'm a usual user of Nannotax. I was only wondering if it's goin to be available in the future a sort of "mobile application"of the website in order to make the most of it also on mobile devices.Thanks and good nannopaleontology to anyone ! A.

Isolithus by Ines Galovic (2015-09-29)
This species is very common for restricted, shallow and alkaline environments of Miocene to recent sediments. I'm going to take some pictures for You of modern sediments (try to do my best with it) and would emailed with upper Miocene pictures.

Isolithus by Jeremy Young (2015-09-15)
Interesting - I presume those are modern or Holocene sediments? Do you have photos?

Isolithus by Ines Galovic (2015-09-15)
I found it in the first few centimeters of Adriatic coastal lake sediments (Ba_ina Lakes).

Calcidiscus pataecus by Jeremy Young (2015-09-08)
Intersting point, but the range in our paper would have applied to the paratethys only. I have seen the morphotype much higher in the Miocene, so will emend the range.

Calcidiscus pataecus by Ines Galovic (2015-08-17)
The Zone NN6 is given by our publication (Galovi_ & Young, 2012). Bown & Dunkley Jones, 2012 couldn't give this data because thay were investigated mostly Paleogene sediments, not middle Miocene. In their article the source of this zone is missing.

Actiniscus by Ines Galovic (2015-08-13)
I'm sending a SEM and LM figures of fossil and recent A. pentasterias that differs from your images. I'm sorry for bad scan. Unfortunately, AlgaeBase are not complete and missing lot of species, descriptions, references and their synonyms from Paratethyan and Adriatic Sea. (invalid-image)

forum by Marites Villarosa Garcia (2015-08-05)
I'm only just now looking through the comments section, despite having heavily used (and continuing to use) the nannotax database for my dissertation (I'm probably responsible for a chunk of that summer of 2014 traffic). I know the comments section exists, but I tend to forget about it. I also don't feel compelled to post comments unless I encounter some issue and I haven't had any

Sphenolithus avis by Jeremy Young (2015-08-03)
OK I have corrected the FAD/LAD error.

Sphenolithus avis by Mohammed Aljahdali (2015-08-01)
Thanks Jeremy for posting this at the NANNOTAX3. Under the stratigraphic distribution it should be FAD rather than LAD. Many thanks again, Mohammed

forum by Jeremy Young (2015-07-20)
A few more recent updates: Farinacci catalog pages are now all available as PDFs with selectable text Image file names can now be shown below the images (see Tools/Prefs & Time Control) A lot of extra Mesozoic images have been added

Calcidiscus macintyrei by Kevin Jackson (2015-07-20)
This page references Raffi et al., (2006), yet the top occurrence (~0.44Ma) doesn't appear to reflect the updated top occurrence of ~1.64Ma. Regarding the base occurrence Raffi (2006) states "LO of Calcidiscus macintyrei (alternative marker for CN3–CN4 boundary): highly contradictory stratigraphic positions are reported for this biohorizon in the literature and partly related to the amb

Discoaster toralus by Alonso Rincon (2015-07-07)
Hi! D. toralus, have any relationship with D. wisei?, and why you not include this fossil (D. wisei) in Nannotax? it is not an official nannofossil? In fact, dont have much information about this nannofossil.. why? Thanks.

Actiniscus by Jeremy Young (2015-06-02)
In the modern plankton it is generally accepted that there is only one species, A. pentasterias and these are quite typical specimens.

Stephanocha speculum by Ines Galovic (2015-05-25)
It is stephanocha instead of stephanoca, probably just mistake in typing.I'm so happy to see that silicoflagellate taxonomy is finally going to be done correctly. Nice work and best wishes to authors.

Sphenolithus spiniger by Alonso Rincon (2015-05-08)
thank you very much for your comments, I found it very helpful. Alonso.

Sphenolithus spiniger by Jeremy Young (2015-05-08)
Hi AlonsoInteresting question - however a quick check of Bown 2005 (Tanzania paper) shows that he is quoting the occurrences observed in that area and that they had a gap in coverage from NP15 to mid NP17 so his data is not incompatible with a consistent LAD in NP17. I will adjust the nannotax entry following the reference you cite. Jeremy

Sphenolithus spiniger by Alonso Rincon (2015-05-07)
Hello everyone. Some authors placed the extinction of S. spiniger in the biozone NP15 (Bown, 2005), but others authors in the biozone NP17 (Fornaciari et al, 2010; Shamrock 2010; Fensome, 2008; Toffanin et al, 2013. This can be attributed to the different geographical areas of studies? Greetings!!

Syracosphaera halldalii by Jeremy Young (2015-04-28)
very true - id like to see at least one more specimen but I will add some text on both pages and a link between them

Syracosphaera halldalii by Maria Triantaphyllou (2015-04-28)
Combination coccosphere with Calyptrolithina divergens var. tuberosaTRIANTAPHYLLOU, M.V., DIMIZA, M.D.*, DERMITZAKIS, M.D., 2004. Syracosphaera halldalii and Calyptrolithina divergens var. tuberosa life-cycle association and relevant taxonomic remarks. Micropaleontology 50 (1): 121-126.

Calcidiscus gallagheri by Jeremy Young (2015-04-15)
thanks Dave that was typo of mine - I'll correct it!

Calcidiscus gallagheri by David Bord (2015-04-15)
I notice you put the first occurrence at NP5, but da Gama & Varol 2013 restrict this species to NP25. Is this a mistake or have you heard differently?

Syracosphaera tanzanensis by Jeremy Young (2015-04-14)
True - and in the original publication it is labelled as S. cf. S. tanzanensis - I will move this image to Syracosphaera sp.

forum by Jeremy Young (2015-03-27)
Farinacci catalog update. We have now completed a major update of the Farinacci catalog with additional entries for most taxa described since Anna Farinacci stopped compiling the catalog in 1989 and now there are both PDF and jpeg versions of most pages. The PDF version are better quality but the jpeg versions are quicker to use so we will leave them on the site. There also is more metadata for ta

forum by Jeremy Young (2015-03-17)
Adding data from the neptune databaseFor the INA15 meeting in the Philipines we have done a series of further updates, including adding a lot more Mesozoic images. The BIG change though is that we have now added occurrence data from the Neptune database. This provides useful information on the abundance of taxa through time - BUT READ THE NOTES PAGE. From the menu bar - About Nannotax/The Neptune

Coccolithus pauxillus by Ryan Weber (2015-03-12)
It appears that the original description is Bown (2005), and the species name is from Bown (2010). Would this be correct?

Calciosolenia corsellii by Ines Galovic (2015-03-11)
In our article smaller forms (fig. 15-16) are also presented with spurs which is a consequence of warm and oligotroph water. Larger specimens without spurs are more characreristic for transition (of climate, current mixing, water exchanges, flooding, more nearshore influences, seasonality...)

Calciosolenia sp. by Ines Galovic (2015-03-11)
We put species in our article of revised taxonomy to Calciosolenia brasiliensis that some of Calciosolenia sp. could be included, and even smaller forms see figures in article or our data from NHM.

Syracosphaera tanzanensis by Ines Galovic (2015-03-11)
The last SEM picture doesn't look like to represent diagnosed species. It is much smaller and has different developed central plate (not so wide central area) with spine.

spinose microspheres by Ines Galovic (2015-03-06)
This is Archaeomonas cysts (Chrysophyceae), known from Miocene sediments of Paratethys (Hajos M., 1968).

non_cocco by Ines Galovic (2015-03-03)
I hope you'll put some Ebridians in non cocco too, with time.

Diatoms by Ines Galovic (2015-03-03)
Stratigraphical range for Th. nitzschoides is from Eger (Paratethys) to Recent (Adriatic).

Diatoms by Ines Galovic (2015-03-03)
SEM pic (5) is Thalassionema nitzschioides (Grunow, 1862) Mereschkowsky, 1902.

Actiniscus by Ines Galovic (2015-03-03)
I found A. stella (Ehrenberg,1840)Ehrenberg, 1854, in middle Miocene i.e. Sarmatian (Croatia) and A. pentasterias from Karpatian (Austria) to Recent (Adriatic).

Actiniscus by Ines Galovic (2015-03-03)
It looks like more to A. stella (Ehr.)Ehrenberg than A. pentasterias (Ehrenberg)Ehrenberg.

Octactis pulchra by Ines Galovic (2015-03-03)
This is Octactis octonaria (Ehrenberg) Hovasse 1964. All the mentioned species including O. pulchra should be in syn. with Dictyocha octonaria Ehrenberg, 1844, Distephanus octonarius (Ehrenb.) Haeckel 1887 and Distephanus pulchra (Schiller) Ling & Takahashi 1985 as well.

Stephanocha speculum by Ines Galovic (2015-03-03)
In nomenclature it should be Dictyocha speculum Ehrenberg 1839. Geological range is the same as D. fibula.

Dictyocha fibula by Ines Galovic (2015-03-03)
Stratigraphic range for D. fibula is from Upper Cretaceous to Recent (Desikachary & Prema, 1996).

Reticulofenestra sp. by Ines Galovic (2015-03-02)
I think it should be R. producta for smaller forms and R. perplexa for larger forms.

Reticulofenestra sp. by Ines Galovic (2015-03-02)
The second pic looks like Dictyococcites antarcticus (Farinacci catalog) i.e. D. productus (fig. 22 in Pujos, 1987).

N. truitti group by maryam (2015-02-20)
Hi pro, Thank you very much for answer to my questions and guide me and Help me With the new Pictures. Good luck.

Stephanolithion by maryam (2015-02-11)
Good luck always and a lot thanks for your good and excellent informations.

Watznaueria ovata by Simun Ascic (2015-02-10)
Is it questionable a range of W. ovata, FO maybe in Middle/Late Jurassic? Thanks, Simun

Watznaueria britannica by Jeremy Young (2015-02-09)
Hi MaryamCentrifuging is not a very precise preparation technique with nannos and times will vary between centrifuges. Actually few workers use centrifugation now. Jeremy

Watznaueria britannica by maryam (2015-02-09)
many thanks for pictures and diagnosis but I have encountered a problem for centrifuge time.What time could be better for centrifuge? I did 30 seconds.

Nannoconus steinmannii by Jeremy Young (2015-02-09)
Thanks - it is good to hear you find the site useful

Nannoconus steinmannii by maryam (2015-01-31)
Thank you very much for very good information and Description of jurassic samples , nannofossils of lower cretaceous.Yours sincerely "maryam".

Discoaster obtusus by Mandur (2014-12-20)
Thanks

Syracosphaera bannockii HOL by Jeremy Young (2014-12-06)
Good point and I should definitely mention this on the relevant pages. I think I'd like to see HET-HOL combination cells though before changing the names

Syracosphaera bannockii HOL by Maria Triantaphyllou (2014-11-16)
The combination coccospheres found (Dimiza et al., 2008, Pl.2, figs1-6) involving Z. amoena, S.bannockii HOL-solid and transitional forms to S. bannockii HOL- bridged implies that all three taxa should belong to the same species. Syracosphaera Lohmann 1902 has priority over Zygosphaera Kamptner 1937 emend. Heimdal 1982 and the species Z. amoena Kamptner 1937 has priority over S.bannockii (Borsetti

Campylosphaera differta by Jeremy Young (2014-11-01)
Thanks for pointing that out - curiously though in the paper the only record is from NP10, but I guess it is a very rare species and you found it during imaging but not during the taxon count?

Campylosphaera differta by Jean Self-Trail (2014-10-30)
You list the geologic range of Camplyospheara differta as being from NP9 to NP10. However, one of the images (mine) is from NP11. Therefore, you need to adjust the geologic range of this species.Thanks!

forum by Jeremy Young (2014-09-30)
Progress update. In preparation fro the upcoming workshop on living coccoithophores I have just now completed an overhaul of the coverage of extant nannos including adding 1000 more images and a separate module for non-coccolithophres. The non-coccos module is very much a work in progress, so comments and suggestions are welcome.

Discoaster bellus by Jeremy Young (2014-09-23)
good points - I have had samples where this was a very real problem. I have now edited the text to note this.

Discoaster bellus by Aaron Avery (2014-09-16)
On second thought Mike, you are right. I have been looking through the section again and noticed some very small 5 rayed forms that I could only describe as thin prepentaradiatus.

Discoaster bellus by Aaron Avery (2014-09-16)
I would argue that bellus is quite useful. I am working with material from the pacific where there is a clear difference between D. bellus and D. prepentaradiatus. In otherwords, the material is preserved well enough that D. prepentaradiatus and D. bellus appear together and make for useufl zonal constraint within certain assemblages. In my experience prepentaradiatus is much more robust. The argu

forum by Ines Galovic (2014-09-03)
Regarding to Time scale I have also a comment. The first occurrence of Catinaster coalitus in the Mediterranean is noted at 10,73-10,74 Ma (Hilgen et al., 2003). But, its FO of which defines the base of the NN8 zone, is rare or absent in many Mediterranean sections. Radiometric analyses from the Paratethys (Poland and Eastern Slovakian Basin) placed the period between 11,3-10,9 Ma (Vass, 1999; Kov

forum by Jeremy Young (2014-08-26)
Hi AaronWe have not used GTS2012 for nannofossil ranges (only for age calibrations) so there may well be discrepancies. In this particular case I suspect someone has entered LAD into a database when they should have written FAD. O. serratus definitely occurs from NN2 to NN6 (it may of course have a longer range but there are plenty of records of specimens through that age range).

forum by Aaron Avery (2014-08-25)
I'm curious why the datums included in the Gradstein 2012 geologic timescale book seem to be outdated or in conflict with ranges posted on this site, which I rely on heavily as an excellent reference? I post here because, for instance, Top (downhole)O. serratus is listed at NN2 the bottom of its range noted here NN2-NN6.

forum by Jeremy Young (2014-07-16)
Hi SteveFirst thing to note here is that ages are always given as some sort of primary data - e.g. a chronostrat stage or nanno zone then the translation into Ma age.The primary data is stored in the database and the Ma age conversion is done by the program as needed, using a look-up table provided by Jim Ogg, with the age quoted being that of either the top or the bottom of the time interval, as

forum by Steve Starkie (2014-07-16)
Hi JeremyI have been working closely over the Santonian - Turonian section and I am not sure the Millions of year ages match for some taxa in the database?. So you know I have been comparing the database with what I observed, Jackie and various other papers along with Timescale Creator but was not sure what to do about really any suggestions?

forum by Jeremy Young (2014-07-15)
Latest innovations - I have made a couple of improvements in the last week or so. First google translate is now enabled so you can read descriptions in almost any language you like, I hope this will especially help students who don't speak english.Second - I have finally got links from the Farinacci page to the main pages. This was a quite an interesting little coding problem and then required

forum by Jeremy Young (2014-07-01)
I am a bit surprised at how few comments there are on the site, especially since I can see from google analytics that the site is very well used. Any suggestion why this is?

forum by Jeremy Young (2014-06-10)
Just now I completed one of the major items from my to do list for the site - enabling proper referencing. You will now find a reference list at the bottom of each page, as well as the master reference list from the utilities menu. This is only semi-automated so we will need to correct and update the reference lists but it is a significant step forward. .. and if you think a particular reference s

forum by Jeremy Young (2014-05-30)
Hi SteveThanks for the encouragement, it is always nice to know the site is appreciated. Ways to hep? more images are always appreciated or you could go through taxa which you know well and add comments on edits which would be useful

forum by Steve Starkie (2014-05-27)
Hi JeremyGreat job on the website it is really easy to navigate and thanks for all you obvious hard work that has gone into it. If there is any assistance I can offer to ease your burden please let me know. Cheers Steve

N. infans group by Jeremy Young (2014-05-09)
OK - I have corrected that now and also on a couple of other pages. To heck this you can use the google search box on the search page which allows you to check quickly for everywhere a name occurred on the site the last itme google checked it.

N. infans group by Cristina Casellato (2014-05-09)
Hello, I just want to correct the name: Casellato, not Casselato.my best regards

Pseudoemiliania lacunosa by Jeremy Young (2014-05-07)
Thank you - you are quite correct and I have corrected the page now. Jeremy

forum by Jeremy Young (2014-05-07)
Thanks for pointing that out Jarrett, I have fixed it now but it is very useful to have errors flagged up. cheersJeremy

forum by Jarrett Cruz (2014-05-01)
I think I ran across a dead link, searching for Markalius inversus I get this error: ERROR: Could not open iNanno/Mesozoic/Heterococcoliths inc sedis/placoliths inc sedis/Markalius/Markalius inversus for reading! On another note this web site has been working wonders for me! Quite amazing!

Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilicus by Ines Galovic (2014-04-24)
Thank you Jeremy on explanation, I didn't check it is it a noun or not and rely on expert's knowledge, but haven't been sure till now.

Pseudoemiliania lacunosa by Ines Galovic (2014-04-24)
In syn. you put in bracket (Coccolithus). Did you mean Coccolithites for Coccolithites annulus Cohen, 1964?

Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilicus by Jeremy Young (2014-04-14)
Gartner did indeed call the taxon Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilica and this spelling was widely used. However, pseudoumibilicus is a noun not an adjective and so cannot change gender. Hence the correct spelling is pseudoumbilicus.

Reticulofenestra haqii by Jeremy Young (2014-04-13)
Reticulofenestra taxonomy is, of course, problematic and difficult to standardise. My approach in the Neogene is to use coccolith size and shape but not central area opening size. Hence for me all the illustrated forms fall in R. haqii.

Reticulofenestra haqii by Ines Galovic (2014-04-10)
It is clear on the holotype figures of both R. haqii and R minutula species (dimension around 4 µm and almoust the same number of elements) that R. haqii has smaller opening (around 1 µm) than minutula (around 2 µm) . Your figures of birefringence and last SEM here mostly are not presented by typical figures of haqii origin. Could you please give us (Paratethian workers who are not dealing with

Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilicus by Ines Galovic (2014-04-10)
Isn't it Gartners' Reticulofenestra from 1969 R. pseudoumbilica, that you refer to in Citation but as pseudoumbilicus or I missed something?

Clausicoccus fenestratus by Jeremy Young (2014-03-26)
Thanks - do you have a reference for that? I could put something like "Self Trail via comment" as the data source but ideally we are trying to get things properly documented.

Clausicoccus fenestratus by Jean Self-Trail (2014-03-26)
You should probably change the estimate on the first occurrence for this species from NP14 to NP12, as I find this species consistently in NP12 (Early Eocene) material.

Coccolithus pelagicus subsp. braarudii by Jeremy Young (2014-03-24)
That is surprising - I would definitely expect it to be C. pelagicus ssp. pelagicus in the high Arctic, and that is what I observed there in the plankton in June 2012.

Calcidiscus bicircus by Jeremy Young (2014-03-24)
C. bicircus certainly does resemble Biscutum but it occurs in Tanzania in sites with negligible reworking and has a consistent range there so it probably is an example of homoeomorphy not reworking.

forum by Jeremy Young (2014-03-24)
In the medium term I do still aim to convert things so that ages are quoted in more than one way. For now though we will stay with NP/NN zones because that is the system we know.

Chiasmolithus gigas by Jeremy Young (2014-03-24)
I have now transferred gigas to the bidens group. Gartner (1970) and Romein (1979) both place it in this group, on the basis of crossbar structure.

Chiasmolithus gigas by Jeremy Young (2014-03-23)
Very good point. I followed Perch-Nielsen (1985) and Varol (1992) here who did place gigas in this group but I am not sure that Gartner (1970) included gigas in his consuetus group. I will ask Paul Bown to take a look at this.

Chiasmolithus gigas by Ronald W. Morin (2014-03-23)
You have placed Chiasmolithus gigas in the Chiasmolithus consuetus group (bars undivided in XPL or crossed polarized light). However, the majority of your images of C. gigas show a clear median extinction line. In addition, the holotype of C. gigas (in XPL) appears to show a hint of a median extinction line in the bottom-left bar. It would be helpful if the holotype of C. gigas could be re-photogr

forum by Jeremy Young (2014-03-23)
AndreyUsing posted pictures - for use in talks there is no problem, a mention of the source (e.g. "images from Nannotax3 website") would be nice, but we would not expect to be asked. For use in something like a museum display or in a publication then I should be contacted for copyright permission - or the original author if that is clear in the image data.Higher resolution copies of imag

forum by Andrey (2014-03-22)
Hi, Jeremya friend of mine asked me to help her with some questions. Is it possible to use posted pics in her museum work, for example, to illustrate talks? also whether it's possible to get higher resolution images for posters or exhibition presentation?best regards, Andrey

forum by Jean Self-Trail (2014-03-05)
Very nice! I really like how easy it is to navigate the site. I'm waiting to hear from Mike Styzen, who really wanted a comments field.

forum by Jeremy Young (2014-03-05)
Cheers Jarrett - I can't claim much credit for the menu system but it does indeed work nicely

forum by Jarrett Cruz (2014-03-05)
Love the new lay out! Runs smooth and navigating around the website is very easy.

forum by Jeremy Young (2014-03-03)
Please feel free to add comments below

D. quinqueramus group by anon (2013-07-21)
Thank you for you introducing the TEP as I know nothing about it. as a worker in the oil and gas industry in China, in my work , I do see all the three species but never serously distinguished as they all appear in the NN11 zone, and suzones like NN11a are not included in my biostratigraphy division. I think your work is very meaningful to improve the biostratigraphy accuracy. For me, I will do so

D. quinqueramus group by anon (2013-07-20)
I think propose the lineage and sketches is very good. As for the above sketches, each one on the right there are four names by different authors? As for Fig 4, Discoaster berggrenii ([Da29] Shell, Arco, most others); wht do you mean by most others? most others regard the three as D. berggrenii? I think these are most likely D. quinqueramus as the rays are long and the central area are relatively

D. quinqueramus group by Mike Styzen (2013-07-20)
The Taxonomic Equivalency Project was mostly concerned with what people in the oil and gas industry in the US called marker taxa. We did this so when we traded data we would know what each other were referring to. Different members of the group interpreted descriptions differently. This group is useful in the late Miocene, and all of us agreed that there were more useful morphotypes than names

Coccolithus miopelagicus by Steve Starkie (2013-04-07)
I totally agree with you Mike. There is definitely a precursor top C. miopelagicus as you suggest C. cf. miopelagicus. I find it trickles up into NN9/10. I also use, I guess like most workers, the big size shift as a separate event.

Reticulofenestra dictyoda by AH Oman (2012-07-05)
I agree MIke, same size, same age range, just smaller central area. Perch-Nielsen, (1985) made the same comment about separating out R. gelida from R. pseudoumbilica. True, it may be environmental, but with some possibly stratigraphically useful exceptions, R. gelida seems to dominate the larger Retics from at least N5 up to the Late Mio Retic. pseudo/gelida acme point in lower N17. Art Water

Discoaster deflandrei by Mike Styzen (2012-05-24)
I don't see them very often, not even often enough to have a real handle on what kind of range they have. So stratigraphically the species is not useful. On the other hand those I've seen are virtually identical to the one illustrated in P. N. 1984 so I would say with a good degree of confidence that D. moorei should be considered a valid taxon. I don't have a photo, unfortunately.

Discoaster pentaradiatus by Mike Styzen (2012-05-24)
The specimens I illustrated with the description in the Leg 135 volume were intended to show the typical morphology (the holotype) and one with the longest rays in proportion to the central area that I would include in my species concept (the paratype). That's about as far as I went with it. The specimen illustrated above with the longer rays would not be D. ono.

Discoaster deflandrei by Jeremy Young (2012-05-23)
hmm - fair call, that is not really an archetypal moorei type specimen. I have never been sure that the 5-rayed asymetric variants are really separate species but in some cases, most obviously D. asymettricus they certainly do have different ranges to the 6-rayed symettric forms. It would be interesting to know how useful people have found  the D. moorei morphotype. Also it would be good to h

Discoaster pentaradiatus by J Kell (2012-05-23)
I didn't phrase my original statement the best. I should have explained myself. I only meant that I would have gone with the other names that have been mentioned now (D. ono and D. misconceptus). It seems clear that the specimens pictured have rays that behave as seperate crystals, it's just that when the name pentaradiatus comes to mind I always associate the bifurcated tips with that name too.

Discoaster pentaradiatus by Jim Pospichal (2012-05-23)
No problem. Was just curious if you had an alternate interpretation of the fossils. As far as bifurcations go, it could be that they are just not preserved in these specimens...i.e., the preservational artefact problem mentioned above. In regards to D. ono, Mike, is there some kind of metric we can use (e.g., length of free rays vs. width of central area)?

Discoaster pentaradiatus by Jim Pospichal (2012-05-23)
Hey jkell, if not D. pentaradiatus or the related D. ono, what do believe it is?

Discoaster pentaradiatus by Mike Styzen (2012-05-23)
I just looked up my description for D. ono in the Leg 135 volume. The lower photo, above, the one with the reallyshort rays,is mine. That's the holotype. That one is more typical. The paratype, not pictured here is a really good one with all the options, including a faint knob in the center. I didn't make that the holotype because good ones like that are hard to find, and I didn't want people to t

Discoaster pentaradiatus by Mike Styzen (2012-05-23)
I've been on the fence myself about the possibility of D. ono being a preservational artifact. Generally they tend to be smaller than the central area of any of the well preserved D. pentaradiatus in the same sample. As I recall, I don't see D. ono all the way up to the extinction of D. pentaradiatus. If I had D. ono in the mix, I would call it At/Below that datum.

Discoaster pentaradiatus by Simon Cole (2012-05-23)
We use Discoaster ono Styzen 1994 for a stubby version of D. pentaradiatus (or D. misconceptus sensu Theodoridis, 1984 as we call it). I would include the bottom two figs in D. ono though would probably sway more towards D. pentaradiatus for the top two. D. ono is probably just a preservation artefact of D. pentaradiatus but it's any easy split to make so we do anyway. Mike did you ever found a

Discoaster pentaradiatus by J Kell (2012-05-23)
I don't believe either of these are D. pentaradiatus.[NB This comment refers to a pair of specimens illustrated by Young 1998 pl8 fig21 - this is the black and white set of four images in the collection of images on this page; JRY March 2014]

Discoaster deflandrei by Mike Styzen (2012-05-22)
I agree. I would just call this a 5 ray D. deflandrei. D. moorei by my concept is much less robust and very asymmetrical.

Discoaster deflandrei by J Kell (2012-05-22)
Shouldn't Discoaster moorei be asymetrical? It is in Perch-Nielsen's description on pg 476 of Plankton Statigraphy.

Discoaster musicus by Richard Denne (2012-05-21)
Discoaster musicus large of Denne

forum by J Kell (2012-05-10)
I was reading on the INA site that the catalog was also going to be put into a CD format. I was ondering if that has been done? If so, can you please tell me where I can find it. Thanks!

Helicosphaera wallichii by J Kell (2012-05-08)
Both here and in the black book the base is listed as NN9, but the link in the Neogene menu says NN ?11 and the range chart in the black book has it just into NN10b. I was wondering if anyone has any opinions or personal experience as to what the base of this species is?

Reticulofenestra dictyoda by Mike Styzen (2012-05-04)
As I conceptualize it, R. hillae bears the same relationship to R. umbilicus as R. gelida does to R. pseudoumbilicus. I've always chalked them up as probable environmental variants of the same species. I keep doingit because I figure that someday it might mean something, and I don't want to have to go back and split them out later.

Reticulofenestra dictyoda by Paul Bown (2012-05-04)
R. hillae was described as ranging from 14-20?m, so the same as R. umbilicus. There has been quite some discussion about whether R. hillae and R. umbilica are separate taxa, e.g. see Backman & Hermelin (1986).

Helicosphaera lophota by Simun Ascic (2012-05-04)
Is this \Helicosphaera lophota", on first image, maybe H. bramlettei?[I am not sure now which image this comment refered to - but some intermediate speciemens between these taxa do seem to occur - JRY March 2014]"""

Reticulofenestra dictyoda by Simun Ascic (2012-05-04)
Isn't here more similarity between R. dictyoda and R. hillae? R. hillae is smaller than R. umbilica.

Reticulofenestra umbilicus by Paul Bown (2012-05-04)
Well spotted! Just fixed it.

Reticulofenestra umbilicus by Simun Ascic (2012-05-04)
Description says <14µm. probably should be >14 µm

Discoaster distinctus by Paul Bown (2012-04-19)
The holotypes do look similar, but I think the wrench-like ray endings may be more angular in D. distinctus.

Discoaster distinctus by Mike Styzen (2012-04-19)
D. saundersi looks like an elvis species to me

Discoaster distinctus by Mike Styzen (2012-04-19)
Is this a synonym of Discoaster saundersi, Hay et al. 1967?

Discoaster distinctus by J Kell (2012-04-19)
hahaha

Discoaster distinctus by J Kell (2012-04-19)
I think the bifurcate ray-tips resemble wrenches. :)

Discoaster distinctus by Paul Bown (2012-04-19)
I agree! Spanner is UK English for wrench! Two nations divided by a common language!

Reticulofenestra circus by Jeremy Young (2011-11-14)
true - and corrected now

Reticulofenestra circus by Pat Diver (2011-11-14)
I believe you meant de Kaenel & Villa 1996 not de Kaenel & Villa 1966

Lithostromation perdurum by Mike Styzen (2011-09-29)
Bybell, L.M. 1975. Middle Eocene calcareous nannofossils at Little Stave Creek, Alabama. Tulane Stud.Geol. Paleontol., 11 (4) Plate 19 figure 6

Lithostromation perdurum by Mitch Covington (2011-09-29)
I'm pretty sure that what I saw down there was L. perdurum, not L. operosum. If my concept is correct, L. operosum is comparatively round, where L. perdurum is triangular (though can have some \bulging"on the sides). It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure I could recognize both back then. Valid question, of course! Thanks for the discussion"""

Lithostromation perdurum by Jean Self-Trail (2011-09-28)
I've recorded L. perdurum from middle Eocene sediments (NP15) and I checked Laurel's database and she has it recorded from NP16. These samples typically represent middle to outer neritic water depths.

Lithostromation perdurum by Mitch Covington (2011-09-28)
I'm pretty sure I've seen it down there as well... but the bug is so spotty down there its base is useless -- at least in the GoM.

Lithostromation perdurum by Mike Styzen (2011-09-28)
Part of the problem may be that in older material we are looking at deep water. Up in the Plio/Pleistocene we looked at a lot of shelf wells.

Lithostromation perdurum by Jeremy Young (2011-09-28)
So that places the top occurrence in the early Pleistocene, any idea how far down it goes?

Lithostromation perdurum by Mike Styzen (2011-09-28)
As I recall, I've seen it in Paleogene material. If it prefers shallow water settings throughout it's range as it appears to at the top, it may be necessary to look at sediment from shallower facies than we are used to working with for that answer.

Lithostromation perdurum by Mike Styzen (2011-09-28)
This taxon is used as a Pleistocene biostratigraphic marker in the Gulf of Mexico. I have heard it works other places as well. This utility is generally better in shelf areas (paleobathymetry of Outer Neritic or shallower) although it is often seen in material from below the stratigraphic top. It can be quite common in shallow water sediments. The placement of this marker is somewhat problema

Discoaster berggrenii by Mike Styzen (2011-09-28)
Discoaster quinqueramus/berggrenii plexus: I posted a document with some sketches from the original Gulf Coast Taxonomic Equivalency Project of this group in the forum.

Discoaster bergenii by Mike Styzen (2011-09-28)
Discoaster quinqueramus/berggrenii plexus: I posted a document with some sketches from the original Gulf Coast Taxonomic Equivalency Project of this group in the forum.

D. quinqueramus group by Mike Styzen (2011-09-28)
Discoaster quinqueramus/berggrenii plexus: I posted a document with some sketches from the original Gulf Coast Taxonomic Equivalency Project of this group in the forum. [this diagram is now incorporated on this page - JRY March 2014]

C. leptoporus group by Simun Ascic (2011-07-14)
Absolutely helps! I see there is a problem with taxonomy. These specimens have no grid in central area. It seems to me that central area is fully open. That means it's not C. carlae! Entire population have 5-10_m in diameter. Most of them have less than 10_m. They are represented with 90 and more percentage in slides and they are beautifully preserved, even entire coccospheres. There are still: H.

C. leptoporus group by Simun Ascic (2011-07-14)
I'm not sure we really have a handle on Calcidiscus taxonomy. There appears to be a repeating pattern of large and small forms with more open and closed central areas. Some with the open central areas have a visible grid. For me it boils down to form taxa. If I encountered that specimen I would call it C. tropicus if it was less than 10_m, or C. macintyrei if it was over 10_m. If it had a visible

C. leptoporus group by Mike Styzen (2011-07-05)
Take a look at this article: Knappertsbusch, Michael, 2000; MORPHOLOGIC EVOLUTION OF THE COCCOLITHOPHORID CALCIDISCUS LEPTOPORUS FROM THE EARLY MIOCENE TO RECENT Journal of Paleontology; July 2000; v. 74; no. 4; p. 712-730

C. leptoporus group by Simun Ascic (2011-07-05)
Is there possibility that C. tropicus and C. leptoporus diverged from same species, in early Miocene? In my analyses I have over 90% of Calcidiscus, in whole preparation, with small open central area, dimensions 5-10?m. I couldn't seen grill in central. It is a Central Paratethyan, probably NN5-NN6! Best regard, Simun Ascic

Discoaster surculus by Mike Styzen (2011-06-28)
Discoaster \9"(Shell US): On the GOM charts I published I have a marker slightly older than the LAD of D. brouweri that I base on the LAD of a species designated as Discoaster 9 (P 1.8). I have always regarded this taxon to be the last gasp of D. surculus, and thus the last gasp of the D. variabilis group. It is a robust six rayed form, usually between 5 and 10 microns with paralell sided rays w

Discoaster altus by Jeremy Young (2011-06-09)
good point Mike, I will try to get this done (not just now though, as I am on a ship with slow internet connection). Actually though there is no need for a warning sign against Bukry's descrition of D. tristellifer, I would argue that it is a better descrition than that of D. altus; the name does not have does not priority but the description and illustration are still first rate.[NB The type illu

Discoaster altus by Mike Styzen (2011-06-08)
It would be nice to include the original description of D. tristellifer here if it is available from the Catalog. Maybe you could post it with a circle with a slash superimposed like a no smoking sign...

Scyphosphaera pulcherrima by Mike Styzen (2011-05-19)
Pleistocene Marker GOM: On the charts I published for the Gulf of Mexico (Styzen 1996, Styzen and Jolley 2008) I have a marker (NP 1.65 in the Shell US nomanclature) based on the extinction of (what I identify as) this species. It is the first downhole occurence of a nice vase shaped Scyphosphaera. From the looks of things The age dates assigned to this part of the section on the 2008 chart (avai

Gephyrocapsa small by Mike Styzen (2011-05-19)
GOM Pleistocene marker: On the charts I published for the Gulf of Mexico (Styzen 1996, Styzen and Jolley 2008) I have a marker (NP 1.58 in the Shell US nomanclature) based on the first major acme (downhole) of small Gephyrocapsa which also contains common Pseudoemiliania spp. This event features Small Gephyrocapsa in probably it's greatest abundance with literally thousands per field of view. F

Pontosphaera multipora by Jeremy Young (2011-05-18)
good question - the name P. multipora seems to be used very broadly and I can well imagine that there are different forms with restricted ranges. In terms of taxonomy since Kamptner's type was from the Late Miocene there is no guarantee that the modern species is the same thing

forum by Alejandro Machado (2011-05-17)
Research Interests High resolution biostratigraphy with emphasis in foraminifera and calcareous nannoplankton. Use of calcareous microfossils as indicators of paleoclimatic, paleogeographic and paleoecological changes, during the Cretaceous to Neogene period. Current Research My research is focused in the study of foraminifera and calcareous nannoplaknton of the Neotropic region. At the present

C. leptoporus group by Mike Styzen (2011-04-20)
C. leptoporus/tropicus/macintyrei/carlae: My entirely utilitarian splitting of this group is a little different than above. I must never have seen assemblages young enough to include C. quadriperforatus as I have never seen a member of this group that large younger than C. macintyrei. I must admit that until very recently I never called anything C. tropicus. I did not see any practical reason to s

forum by Enis Kemal Sagular (2011-04-06)
Thank you for hearing my voice and commenting on the subject. I have been also working as a nanno-stratigrapher and a researcher on sedimentological means of nannofossil records in clastics since 1985. I have puzzled how could I make a generic distinction between nannofossil records in clastic rocks. I know that all the stratigraphic ranges of nannoplankton species and bioevents were truly define

forum by Mike Styzen (2011-03-28)
I've been working as a Biostratigrapher for over 30 years now. I've publishes a stratigraphic scheme for the late Cenozoic of the Gulf of Mexico which not only summarized my work but also generations of those who came before me. The conclusion I've drawn from all I've seen is that any system in this field is always a work in progress. The biggest folly one can make is thinking that one knows every

Coccolithus miopelagicus by Jeremy Young (2011-03-23)
Interesting point - the C. pelagicus lineage is certainly a fine target for a detailed study. However, as far C. miopelagicus goes I think the original description is correct in saying that C. miopelagicus has a smaller central area (cal= 0.5 x dsl) than C. eopelagicus of similar size (cal = 0.6 x dsl). I also find C. miopelagicus has flatter shields, this is readily observable in light microscope

Coccolithus miopelagicus by Mike Styzen (2011-03-23)
You are most probably right about the features described in the original description. Unfortunately, for biostratigraphic purposes, the C. miopelagicus LAD datum works better when combined with the size criteria. Generally from what I've seen, once they get as large as 10 µm they just about all exhibit those features. Those smaller forms, however, trickle up section and tend to make the marker mo

Coccolithus miopelagicus by Mike Styzen (2011-03-22)
Splitting C. pelagicus: The extinction of this species can be a good Miocene marker, but lower range of this species is problematic. Most of the other Neogene workers I've spoken with agree. Below NN4 you continue to periodically see pulses of very large C. pelagicus in this size range (> 13or 14 µm) all the way down into the Oligocene. Eventually, working down section, you start seeing specim

Prediscosphaera cretacea by Jeremy Young (2011-03-10)
It is on a cover slip, which does give a nice smooth surface, though i prefer now to use polycarboane filters as they are better for removing fine debris. NB These Prediscosphaera pages a prototype for the Mesozoic taxa, Jackie is currently building up the species list for these and then we should able to get pages populated quite rapidly.

Minylitha convallis by Mike Styzen (2011-03-09)
Yes, but often it is more pronounced than what is illustrated in those photos.

Helicosphaera sellii by Mike Styzen (2011-03-09)
This species is widely used as a marker in the GOM. Unfortunately I think most workers would not pick it on a specimen resembling the holotype (figures 3and 4 in the original description). Most of us would wait till we saw one with the larger squared-off pores such as illustrated in the specimen illustrated in figures 5 and 6 before making the call.[The images refered to in this comment are those

Minylitha convallis by Jeremy Young (2011-03-09)
by the Y view do you mean the ones in the lower images of image 6-29 (LM image with side views)?

Minylitha convallis by Mike Styzen (2011-03-09)
in addition to the perspectives addressed above there is another common view which you can encounter, that ie a Y shape. When I'm training people to look for this species I talk about the I the Y and the pie!

Prediscosphaera cretacea by Mike Styzen (2011-03-08)
What is the smooth surface those bugs are sitting on?[NB This comment refers to SEM images 88-2.jpg and US027.jpg in the collection at the top of the page - JRY March 2014]

Sphenolithus abies by Mike Styzen (2011-03-07)
Sphenolithus verensis: I agree that S. verensis is probably a variant of S. abies (especially considering the very broad original description of S. abies!). The extinction of S. verensis can be a useful marker. The diagnosis for S. verensis is a little more complex than what is stated above. In the forms I refer to S. verensis the apical spine is extinct when paralell to the crossed nicols. lea

Discoaster bellus by Mike Styzen (2011-03-07)
Not just D. hamatus: I think sometimes some poorly preserved/broken D. prepentaradiatus get stuck in this taxon as well.

Discoaster bellus by Jeremy Young (2011-03-05)
fair question, I have always been in two minds on this, on the one hand I tend to agree that these are probably mostly small and/or poorly preserved D. hamatus specimens, on the other hand the count category \symmetric 5-rayed discoaster without bifurcations"is complex and D. bellus is a convenient name. As with many of these species a detailed study of samples with well preserved assemblages is p

Discoaster berggrenii by Jeremy Young (2011-03-05)
do you have the reference for the original description? It would be good to add it to the system.

Discoaster bellus by Mike Styzen (2011-03-03)
Just a junk box? I've always regarded this species as sort of a place to stash poorly preserved 5 rayed symmetrical discoasters which may really be several other things. Is there really an advantage to using \bellus"rather than something like \""Discoaster 5 ray\"""""

Discoaster berggrenii by Mike Styzen (2011-03-03)
Discoaster berggrenii extensus: A few years ago Wuchang Wei erected a new subspecies, Discoaster berggrenii extensus for forms in which the star in the central area extends beyond the central area. This taxon is used pretty universally in the GOM as a Late Miocene under the name of \Discoaster C". I think, however that the name D. berggrenii extensus should be supressed. I have started to see r

Calcidiscus bicircus by Enis Kemal Sagular (2011-01-27)
Its images seem to Biscutum blackii from Late Cretaceous species. If being so and found within NP14-NP17 zone assemblage, it may have been reworked from old sediments.

forum by J Kell (2011-01-16)
Zonations schemes: I have recently joined this site and have just begun to browse around. The first I have noticed though is the use of the NN/NP zonation by Martini. It is my understanding that this is the favored system in Europe, but wondered if you might consider including the CN/CP of Okada and Bukry as well?

forum by Jeremy Young (2010-05-06)
It is really encouraging that there is so much support for developing the nannotax system in general and specifically for producing Late Cretaceous coverage. The feedback I have had indicates that the current site is well-used by industrial micropalaeontologists, research students and undergraduate students and I really hope we can develop it as a prime online source of data on nannofossil taxonom

Cyclicargolithus abisectus by Richard Denne (2010-05-03)
I've always felt that the thicker collar and somewhat more elliptical opening of C. abisectus was a better way to differentiate it from C. floridanus than size. There is a large form (>13 microns) with a very thick collar that is found in frequent abundances within the lower NP25 that makes a relatively good assemblage marker (see photo of large Cyclicargolithus abisectus in the Noelaerhabdaceae

Calcidiscus tropicus by Richard Denne (2010-05-02)
Two comments: (1) C. carlae appears to be a valid species, as both its overall range (NN9? to NN16) and abundance patterns (prominent increases in basal NN16/uppermost NN15 and within NN11) are distinct from similar forms, and I have never seen anything that I would have called a C. macintyrei or C. tropicus that had a grill. (2) C. tropicus itself may be a catchall form. There is a very distinct

Calcidiscus tropicus by Mike Styzen (2009-12-14)
In the Gulf of Mexico the LAD of C. carlae (the type with a fine grill in the central area) is used as a marker equivalent in age to the LAD of Discoaster tamalis or slightly younger, depends on who you talk to. If you talk to me, they are equivalent. I found the same co-occurence of these two taxa in the South Pacific in the material from ODP leg 135. The grill is often difficult to discern with

Lanternithus minutus by Nidal (2009-12-02)
Oligocene nannofossil. Index fossil for Rupelian

Sphenolithus belemnos by Mike Styzen (2009-10-28)
If you look at the photos with the original description, you will see that what is illustrated here is clearly not the same bug. In the original photos the basal cycle, immediately below the apical spine is distinctly asymmetric with one of the two elements being much smaller. In the same view (at 45 degrees to the nichols) the column shows a single dark line with 2 visible elements not the 3 se

Reticulofenestra asanoi by Jeremy Young (2009-09-09)
I must admit I have had problems with this too. I tried arguing a long time ago (Young 1991) that we ought to get rid of Pseudoemiliania since it intergrades with Reticulofenestra, and the existence of R. asanoi makes it even worse. The best study I know of the group is still Matsuoka and Okada (1989) they used TEM to measure and count specimens, which is a good way to reliably spot the slits and

Reticulofenestra asanoi by Mike Styzen (2009-08-27)
I've never been able to really embrace this species as I need some definite criteria for distinguishing it absolutely from Pseudoemiliania ovata on the one hand and any number of medium sized nondescript Reticulofenestras on the other. I've been told that R. asanoi may not be totaly devoid of slits on the distal shield, it may have a few. If this is the case what makes it different from just a b

Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilicus by Mike Styzen (2009-08-27)
The extinction or LCO of the closed central area variant/morphotype/species, usually under the name Dictyococcites antarcticus, is used in the Gulf of Mexico as a stratigraphic marker in the Early Pliocene, probably within NN 15. Wei (1990) contended that this taxon is a junior synonym of Reticulofenestra perplexa (Burns) which was described as being an order of magnitude different in size. The (i

forum by Mike Styzen (2009-08-27)
Richard Howe assures me that he is getting very close to finishing the editing of the photos. When they are ready they will also be available on Nannotax.

Florisphaera profunda by AN Baizheng (2009-08-13)
Dear Jeremy,Your reply is very helpful to my research.Thank you, Sir.  

Florisphaera profunda by Jeremy Young (2009-08-04)
Dear AN BaizhengThank you for the query, and yes those small specimens in fig A are F. profunda coccoliths. F. profunda does produce rather varaible coccoliths/nannoliths and the smaller ones can be difficult to consistently identify, especially in sediments.Jeremy

Florisphaera profunda by AN Baizheng (2009-07-20)
Sir, I am not sure if the 3 small coccoliths in part A of this picture are Florisphaera profunda or not.When I do my reserch about the living coccolithophores in South China Sea,I found some even small coccoliths looks like the small ones in part A, so I am confused. I have taken some photographs in which both normal F. profunda and small (not sure) ones are present. I will give you that photos if

Sphenolithus heteromorphus by Jeremy Young (2009-05-21)
Thanks BrianYou are quite right of course, this is something of a blind spot of mine. Anyway I have corrected it now (a moderately arkward process but easier than doing it in a non-database system).Jeremy

forum by Shirley van Heck (2009-03-30)
Jeremy, I know of no electronic index. The only thing that worries me about the catalogue is the copy-rights of the original authors. The contract says that this is covered, but I'm not convinced that these rights can be transferred.... Does anyone have connections with a publisher who could tell us? Or do we just go ahead and if anyone complains refer back to this contract to show that we act

Sphenolithus heteromorphus by Bryan C. Ladner (2009-03-22)
Just wanted to point out that the correct spelling of S. heteromorphus is as indicated just now. There is no 'os' after morph, it is simply heteromorphus. I have a PDF copy of the original description by Deflandre (1953) if you need it to confirm my comment. Thanks, Bryan Ladner

Coccolithus pelagicus subsp. braarudii by Giulliana Villa (2009-01-22)
C. pelagicus braarudi is reported as temperate taxon, we found it at hight northern latitude off the Svalbard Islands. Is it possible?

Pontosphaera multipora by Mike Styzen (2008-11-07)
I have seen a top for this species reported at around the base of NN 16. Is this based on the range of some sort of variant?

Discoaster by Simon Cole (2008-09-12)
I totally agree Mike, in fact one of my conclusions from my MSc Thesis on Paleocene to Early Eocene Discoasters from the Shatsky Rise was "generally the size ranges of Discoasters in Aubry (1984) are higher compared to those observed at DSDP Site 1210" - I included this on my poster at the INA conference in Lisbon 2004. In this tropical to sub-tropical, oceanic palaeogeographic setting,

Discoaster by Jeremy Young (2008-06-27)
Good point Mike, I think there are a few factors at work. First, most discoasters range in size siginifcantly. Second, if you are looking at pelagic sediments with lots of discoasters then you naturally concentrate on just the largest ones, but if you are doing biostrat in shelf sediments where discoasters are rare as hen's teeth you look at every last specimen. Third, with declining preservation

Discoaster by Mike Styzen (2008-06-04)
I have been looking at published size ranges for Discoasters and in general they appear to be somewhat optimistic. For example in Aubry?s Handbook of Cenozoic Calcareous Nannoplankton she lists a size range of Discoaster tamalis as 10-12 microns. In general the members of this taxon I have observed have been smaller than the lower end of this range, usually in the 4-8 micron range. Similarly, D. p

Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilicus by Jeremy Young (2008-01-10)
I do mention R. ampla on the minutula page, and suggest it should be regarded as a synonym of R. minutula. That is plainly not right since I also gave 5 microns as the maximum size for R. minutula. recognising these medium size reticulos in the late Pliocene is useful. There is a problem that R. ampla Sato is a junior homonym of R. ampla Theodoridis, but it would be straightforward to propose a su

Discoaster musicus by Jeremy Young (2008-01-09)
this raises plenty of issues 1. Commenting on 'missing taxa'. This is potentially a really valuable funtion of Nannotax, i.e. to get us discussing the less universally understood species concepts. I think it is best done at the place where the taxon is missing from - (so I have copied the comment to the D. musicus page). 2. Posting images - as you found out drag & drop works from external webs

Discoaster musicus by Mike Styzen (2008-01-09)
Mike Styzen - In the GOM D. sanmiguelensis is used as a marker and is distinguished as being somewhat smaller than D. musicus with shorter rays. One might argue that what we're using is just a specific morphotype of D. musicus, but in any case it's a distinction that has stratigraphic function. Richard Howe was kind enough to let me use an image of our D. sanmiguelensis concept

Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilicus by Shirley van Heck (2008-01-08)
Specimens between 5 um and 7 um have been described by Sato et al 1991 as Reticulofenestra ampla. This species has a LAD in NN16. (ref.: Sato, T., Kameo, K., Takayama, T., 1991 - Coccolith biostratigraphy of the Arabian Sea. Proc. ODP Sci. Res., 117: 37 - 54)

forum by Jeremy Young (2008-01-05)
I have now put quite a bit of content up on the site and so will be announcing its existence - please do use the forum to give some feedback - any comments will be welcome.