Dipsidripella danvillensis


Classification: pf_cenozoic -> microperforate -> Problematica -> Dipsidripella -> Dipsidripella danvillensis
Sister taxa: D. danvillensis, D. liqianyui, D. sp.,

Taxonomy

Citation: Dipsidripella danvillensis (Howe and Wallace 1932)
Rank: Species
Basionym: Globigerina danvillensis
Synonyms:
Taxonomic discussion: Globorotalia inconspicua aculeata Jenkins is considered a junior synonym of Dipsidripella danvillensis based on morphologic similarity of the two holotypes (Pl.16.8, Figs. 1-5) and because of nomenclatural priority. Dipsidripella hodisensis Brotea, the type species of Dipsidripella, also falls within the range of morphologic variability of D. danvillensis and is therefore considered a junior synonym (see holotype on Pl. 16.8, Fig. 6). Liu and others (1998) transferred Jenkins’s aculeata ( =danvillensis) to their new genus Praepararotalia based on the more areal, extraumbilical position of the aperture and similarity in shallow water biofacies distribution. This taxonomic reassignment is no longer considered appropriate because the other species that Liu and others (1998) assigned to Praepararotalia show significant asymmetry in the distribution of surface pustules, with greatest pustule concentrations near the umbilicus, and, in the case of P. inconspicua, coalescence of pustules to form costae on the chamber surface or a peripheral carina.
Kucera (1994) compared ontogenetic patterns morphology and microstructure for modern microperforate species and lower Oligocene specimens of D. danvillensis (designated as Turborotalia? aculeata) collected from the Pouzdrany Marl in the Polish Carpathians. Results from his measurements of adult specimens demonstrate an overlapping but larger range of pore size in danvillensis (0.5-2.0 ½m) relative to modern microperforates (0.5-0.8 ½m) and a much lower concentration of pores (11-17 pores/½m2 in danvillensis vs. 160-180 pores/½m2 in microperforates). In his species abundance counts he found a strongly inverse relationship between the abundance of danvillensis and the abundance of large globigerinids. As an example, samples with 24-42% larger globigerinids contained less than 2% danvillensis, whereas samples with >85% danvillensis contained 0% larger globigerinids. In the shallowest, lowest salinity samples, Kucera found that D. danvillensis is the only foraminifer species present with a planktonic test morphology. [Huber et al. 2006]

Catalog entries: Globigerina danvillensis;
Globorotalia inconspicua aculeata;

Type images:

Short diagnosis: This species differs from Praepararotalia inconspicua (Howe) by having a rounded rather than subangular or carinate peripheral margin, a gently convex rather than flattened spiral side, and an interiomarginal rather than areal position of the aperture; differs from D.? liqianyui n. sp. by its more lobate and broadly rounded equatorial periphery, less flattening of the spiral side, and absence of pustules in the umbilicus; differs from Praepararotalia perclara Loeblich and Tappan by the presence of pustulose ornamentation on both sides, rather than only on umbilical side of the test (e.g., see Liu and others, 1998, pl. 1, figs. 1-9, text-fig. 4-2); differs from A. medizzai by its monolamellar wall, hispid, rather than coarsely muricate wall texture, and distinctive, often highly arched aperture.

NB The short diagnoses are used in the tables of daughter-taxa to act as quick summaries of the differences between e.g. species of one genus. They have initially been copied from the diagnostic characters/distinguishing features sections of the Eocene and Paleocene Atlases, they will be edited as the site is developed.

Description


Diagnostic characters: This species differs from Praepararotalia inconspicua (Howe) by having a rounded rather than subangular or carinate peripheral margin, a gently convex rather than flattened spiral side, and an interiomarginal rather than areal position of the aperture; differs from D.? liqianyui n. sp. by its more lobate and broadly rounded equatorial periphery, less flattening of the spiral side, and absence of pustules in the umbilicus; differs from Praepararotalia perclara Loeblich and Tappan by the presence of pustulose ornamentation on both sides, rather than only on umbilical side of the test (e.g., see Liu and others, 1998, pl. 1, figs. 1-9, text-fig. 4-2); differs from A. medizzai by its monolamellar wall, hispid, rather than coarsely muricate wall texture, and distinctive, often highly arched aperture. [Huber et al. 2006]

Wall type: Monolamellar, micro- to finely perforate, surface smooth to moderately pustulose, hispid to bluntly pustulose, pustules randomly scattered on umbilical and spiral sides of test. [Huber et al. 2006]

Test morphology: Test small, moderately lobate, subquadrate to circular in equatorial outline, axial periphery rounded; chambers globular, coiled in a low trochospire, increasing moderately in size, 4.5 to 5.5 in the final whorl; sutures radial and depressed on umbilical and spiral sides; umbilicus usually narrow and moderately deep; aperture an interiomarginal, umbilical-extraumbilical arch that is narrow and high or broad and low, may or may not be bordered by a narrow, equidimensional lip; a semicircular accessory aperture may occur on the ventral side at the intersection of the spiral and and/or penultimate chamber sutures (pl. 15.8, fig. 17). [Huber et al. 2006]

Size: Holotype (LSU: HVH 712) maximum diameter 0.11 mm, breadth 0.07 mm; hypotypes maximum diameter 0.11-0.15 mm, maximum breadth 0.05-0.06 mm. [Huber et al. 2006]

Biogeography and Palaeobiology


Geographic distribution: Restricted to shallow shelf depositional environments at middle to high latitudes. [Huber et al. 2006]

Isotope paleobiology: Oxygen and carbon isotope values for well preserved D. danvillensis from upper Eocene core samples drilled on the New Jersey coastal margin are plotted in Figure 16.4 relative to co-occurring benthic and planktonic species. The ∂18O values of D. danvillensis are from 0.5 to 1.0‰ more negative than co-occurring benthic species and from 0.3 to 0.7‰ more positive than co-occurring subbotinid or turborotaliid planktonic species. The ∂13C values of D. danvillensis are consistently more negative by 0.5 to 1.4‰ than co-occurring benthic values, and up to 2‰ more negative than co-occurring planktonic species. In one sample the carbon and oxygen isotope values of D. danvillensis plot very close to those of Tenuitella insolita. These data, and the biofacies distribution observations discussed above, indicate that D. danvillensis either lived in a benthic habitat for all or most of its life cycle or it occupied a much deeper level of the water column than co-occurring planktonic foraminifera. [Huber et al. 2006]

Phylogenetic relations: Uncertain. Although Lui and others (1998) suggest that Praepararotalia aculeata ( =D. danvillensis in the present study) evolved from Praepararotalia perclara (Loeblich and Tappan) during the early Eocene, based on morphologic similarity and overlapping stratigraphic ranges, they are separated by a stratigraphic gap spanning the lower Eocene and P. perclara is considered a benthic taxon. Restriction of D. danvillensis to shallow shelf depositional environments (e.g., Liu and others, 1998) and similarity of its stable isotopic composition with co-occurring benthic species (see below) suggests that this taxon may have been derived from a benthic ancestor. [Huber et al. 2006]

Biostratigraphic distribution

Geological Range:
Notes: Middle Eocene - upper Eocene; Zone E9 – E14. Liu and others (1997) recorded Globigerina? danvillensis ( =D. danvillensis) from upper Zone P12 through lower P15 (=Zone E11-E14) in the Atlantic City borehole in the New Jersey coastal margin. In New Zealand Jenkins (1971) recorded Globorotalia aculeata ( =D. danvillensis) within the lower upper Eocene, corresponding with the middle of the stratigraphic range of Globigerinatheka index. [Huber et al. 2006]
Last occurrence (top): within E14 zone (35.89-37.99Ma, top in Priabonian stage). Data source: Eocene Atlas
First occurrence (base): within E9 zone (43.23-43.85Ma, base in Lutetian stage). Data source: Eocene Atlas

Plot of occurrence data:

Primary source for this page: Huber et al. 2006 - Atlas of Eocene Planktonic Foraminifera, chapter 16, p. 496

References:

Bolli, H.M., (1957). Planktonic foraminifera from the Oligocene-Miocene Cipero and Lengua formations of Trinidad, B.W.I. In: Loeblich, A.R., Jr. et al. (Editors), Studies in Foraminifera: U.S. National Museum Bulletin 215. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, pp. 97-123.

Brotea, D., (1995). A new planktonic foraminifer in upper Eocene deposits from north Transylvania. Romanian Journal of Paleontology, 76: 31-33.

Howe, H.V. & Wallace, W.E., (1932). Foraminifera of the Jackson Eocene at Danville Landing on the Ouachita, Catahoula Parish, Louisiana. Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Louisiana, 2: 1-118.

Huber, B.T.; Olsson, R.K. & Pearson, P.N., (2006). Taxonomy, biostratigraphy, and phylogeny of Eocene microperforate planktonic foraminifera (Jenkinsina, Cassigerinelloita, Chiloguembelina, Streptochilus, Zeauvigerina, Tenuitella, and Cassigerinella) and Problematica (Dipsidripella). In: Pearson, P.N. et al. (Editors), Atlas of Eocene Planktonic Foraminifera, Cushman Foundation Special Publication 41. Cushman Foundation Special Publication. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas, pp. 461-508.

Jenkins, D.G. & Srinivasan, M.S., (1985). Cenozoic planktonic foraminifera from the Equator to the Sub-Antarctic of the Southwest Pacific. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, 90: 795-834.

Jenkins, D.G., (1966). Two lineages from the Neogene planktonic foraminifera of the Australasian region. In: Drooger, C.W. et al. (Editors), Proceedings of the Third Session in Berne, International Union of Geological Sciences, Committee on Mediterranean Neogene Stratigraphy. E. J. Brill, Switzerland, pp. 23-29.

Jenkins, D.G., (1966). Planktonic foraminiferal zones and new taxa from the Danian to lower Miocene of New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 8: 1088-1126.

Jenkins, D.G., (1971). New Zealand Cenozoic Planktonic Foraminifera. New Zealand Geological Survey, Paleontological Bulletin, 42: 1-278.

Leckie & Webb 1985 [sorry, not in our bibliography yet]

Liu, C.; Olsson, R.K. & Huber, B.T., (1998). A benthic paleohabitat for Praepararotalia gen. nov. and Antarcticella Loeblich and Tappan. Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 28: 75-90.

Malumian 1990 [sorry, not in our bibliography yet]

Murray, J.W. & Wright, C.A. (Editors), (1974). Palaeogene Foraminiferida and Palaeoecology, Hampshire and Paris Basins and the English Channel, 14. The Palaeontological Association, London.

Nocchi, M.; Amici, E. & Premoli Silva, I., (1991). Planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy and paleoenvironmental interpretation of Paleogene faunas from the subantarctic transect, Leg 114. In: Ciesielski, P.F., Kristoffersen, Y. and al., e. (Editors), Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results. Ocean Drilling Program, College Station, Texas, pp. 233-273.

Poore, R.Z. & Bybell, L.M., (1988). Eocene to Miocene biostratigraphy of New Jersey Core ACGS #4: Implications for regional stratigraphy. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1829: 1-41.


logo

Dipsidripella danvillensis compiled by the pforams@mikrotax project team viewed: 22-7-2017

Taxon Search:
Advanced Search

Go to Archive.is to create a permanent copy of this page - citation notes



Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first!

Add Comment

* Required information
1000
Captcha Image
Powered by Commentics