Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T10:02:41.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phylogeny of the Cenozoic calcareous nannoplankton genus Helicosphaera

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Marie-Pierre Aubry
Marie-Pierre Aubry*
Affiliation:
Centre de Paléontologie Stratigraphique et Paléoécologie de l'Université Claude Bernard, 27-43 Bd. du 11 Novembre, 69622 Villeurbanne, Cedex, France Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Because the paleontologic concept of Coccolithophoridae species is restricted and far removed from the biologic concept, which itself is not yet satisfactorily established, calcareous nannofossil taxonomy remains in an unsatisfactory state. This situation is clearly reflected by various authors' widely different interpretations of the phylogenetic relationships among species in a given genus and among genera. Examples taken from the extant genus Helicosphaera suggest that because of parallel evolution, delineation of phylogenetic relationships among coccolith morphospecies using morphologic data alone are hazardous, as is delineation of phylogenetic relationships among closely related genera.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , Winter 1988 , pp. 64 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Aubry, M.-P. In press. Handbook of Cenozoic Calcareous Nannofossils, Volume 4, Micropaleontology Press. American Museum of Natural History, New York.Google Scholar
Backman, J. and Hermelin, O. 1986. Morphometry of the Eocene nannofossil Reticulofenestra umbilicus lineage and its biochronological consequences. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 57:103–116.Google Scholar
Baker, C. 1983. Evolution and hybridization in the radiolarian genera Theocorythium and Lamprocyclas. Paleobiology 9:341–354.Google Scholar
Berggren, W. A., Kent, D. V., Flynn, J. J., and Van Couvering, J. A. 1985. Cenozoic geochronology. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 96:1407–1418.Google Scholar
Bramlette, M. N. and Sullivan, F. R. 1961. Coccolithophorids and related nannoplankton of the Early Tertiary in California. Micropaleontology 7:129–188.Google Scholar
Bukry, D. 1971. Discoaster evolutionary trends. Micropaleontology 17:43–52.Google Scholar
Clochiatti, M. 1969. Contribution à l'étude de Helicosphaera carteri (Wallich) Kamptner (Coccolithophoridae). Revue de Micropaléontologie 12:75–83.Google Scholar
Crux, J. A. 1987. Concerning dimorphism in early Jurassic coccoliths and the origin of the genus Discorhabdus Noël 1965. Abhandlungen des Geologischen Bundesanstalt (Austria) 39:51–55.Google Scholar
Deflandre in Deflandre, G. and Fert, C. 1954. Observations sur les Coccolithophoridés actuels et fossiles en microscopie ordinaire et electronique. Annales de Paléontologie 40:117–176.Google Scholar
Gaarder, K. 1970. Three new taxa of Coccolithineae. Norwegian Journal of Botany 17:113–126.Google Scholar
Haq, B. U. 1971. Paleogene calcareous nannoflora. Part I: The Paleocene of West-Central Persia and the Upper Paleocene-Eocene of West Pakistan. Stockholm Contributions in Geology 25:1–56.Google Scholar
Haq, B. U. 1973. Evolutionary trends in the Cenozoic coccolithophoridae genus Helicopontosphaera. Micropaleontology 19:32–52.Google Scholar
Jafar, S. A. 1975. Some comments on the calcareous nannoplankton genus Scyphosphaera and the neotypes of Scyphosphaera species from Rotti, Indonesia. Senckenbergiana Lethaea 56:365–379.Google Scholar
Jafar, S. A. and Martini, E. 1975. On the validity of the calcareous nannoplankton genus Helicosphaera. Senckenbergiana Lethaea 56:381–397.Google Scholar
Kamptner, E. 1941. Die Coccolithineen der SüdWestküste von Istrien. Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien 51:54–149.Google Scholar
Kamptner, E. 1954. Untersuchungen über den Feinbau der Coccolithen. Archiv für Protistenkunde 100:1–90.Google Scholar
Lauer, G. 1975. Evolutionary trends in the Arkangelskiellaceae (calcareous nannoplankton) of the upper Cretaceous of central Oman, southeast Arabia. Archives des Sciences de Genève 28:259–262.Google Scholar
Lazarus, D. 1986. Tempo and mode of morphologic evolution near the origin of the radiolarian lineage Pterocanium prismatum. Paleobiology 16:175–189.Google Scholar
Loeblich, A. R. and Tappan, H. 1966. Annotated index and bibliography of the calcareous nannoplankton. I. Phycologia 5:81–216.Google Scholar
Loeblich, A. R. and Tappan, H. 1968. Annotated index and bibliography of the calcareous nannoplankton. II. Journal of Paleontology 42:584–598.Google Scholar
Loeblich, A. R. and Tappan, H. 1969. Annotated index and bibliography of the calcareous nannoplankton. III. Journal of Paleontology 43:568–588.Google Scholar
Loeblich, A. R. and Tappan, H. 1970a. Annotated index and bibliography of the calcareous nannoplankton. IV. Journal of Paleontology 44:558–574.Google Scholar
Loeblich, A. R. and Tappan, H. 1970b. Annotated index and bibliography of the calcareous nannoplankton. V. Phycologia 9:157–174.Google Scholar
Loeblich, A. R. and Tappan, H. 1971. Annotated index and bibliography of the calcareous nannoplankton. VI. Phycologia 10:315–339.Google Scholar
Loeblich, A. R. and Tappan, H. 1973. Annotated index and bibliography of the calcareous nannoplankton. VII. Journal of Paleontology 47:715–759.Google Scholar
Malmgren, B. A., Berggren, W. A., and Lohman, G. P. 1983. Evidence of punctuated gradualism in the late Neogene Globorotalia tumida lineage of planktonic foraminifera. Paleobiology 9:377–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malmgren, B. A. and Kennett, J. P. 1981. Phyletic gradualism in a Late Cenozoic planktonic foraminiferal lineage; DSDP site 284, southwest Pacific. Paleobiology 7:230–240.Google Scholar
Müller, C. 1981. Beschreibung neuer Helicosphaera-Arten aus dem Miozän und revision biostratigraphischer Reichweiten einiger Neogener Nannoplankton Arten. Senckenbergiana Lethaea 61:427–435.Google Scholar
Nishida, S. 1979. Atlas of Pacific nannoplankton. News of Okada micropaleontologists. Sp. paper 3:1–31.Google Scholar
Perch-Nielsen, K. 1977. Albian to Pleistocene calcareous nannofossils from the western South Atlantic, Deep Sea Drilling Leg 39. Pp. 699–823. In Supko, P. R., Perch-Nielsen, K., et al. (eds.), Initial Reports Deep Sea Drilling Project, Vol. 39. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Perch-Nielsen, K. 1981a. Les coccolithes du Paléocène près de El Kef, Tunisie, et leurs ancětres. Cahiers de Micropaleontologie 3:7–23.Google Scholar
Perch-Nielsen, K. 1981b. New Maastrichtian and Paleocene calcareous nannofossils from Africa, Denmark, the U.S.A. and the Atlantic, and some Paleocene lineages. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae 74:831–863.Google Scholar
Perch-Nielsen, K. 1985. Cenozoic calcareous nannofossils. Pp. 427–554. In Bolli, H., Saunders, J. S., and Perch-Nielsen, K., (eds.), Plankton Stratigraphy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Romein, A. J. T. 1979. Lineages in Early Paleogene calcareous nannoplankton. Utrecht Micropaleontological Bulletin 22:1–231.Google Scholar
Roth, P. H. and Bowlder, J. L. 1979. Evolution of the calcareous nannofossil genus Micula in the late Cretaceous. Micropaleontology 25:272–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tappan, H. 1971. Microplankton, ecological succession and evolution. North American Paleontological Convention Chicago, 1969. Proceedings H:1058–1103.Google Scholar
Tappan, H. and Loeblich, A. R. 1973. Evolution of the oceanic plankton. Earth-Science Review 9:207–240.Google Scholar
Theodoridis, S. 1984. Calcareous nannofossil biozonation of the Miocene and revision of the helicoliths and discoasters. Utrecht Micropaleontological Bulletin 32:1–271.Google Scholar