Pyrgoidae

I have referred in the past to there being something of a divide in approaches to the classification of the Foraminifera. This divide arises from disagreements such as the relative significance of various character complexes. One taxon that stands as an example of such disagreements is the subject of this post, the family Pyrgoidae as recognised by Mikhalevich (2005).

Pyrgo williamsoni, copyright Michael.

Pyrgoids are members of the group of forams generally recognised as the Miliolida, the porcelaneous forams. In this group, the wall of the test is composed of calcite but the calcite crystals are not regularly lined up with each other so the wall is not transparent. As a result, the wall of the test resembles porcelain in appearance. Most miliolidans have the chambers of the test coiling in a single plane. The Pyrgoidae were distinguished from other miliolidans by Mikhalevich (2005) by the overall structure of the test which is primarily biloculine (with the whorls of the test composed of two chambers). The family was divided into subfamilies by the nature of the test aperture: single with an inner tooth in Pyrgoinae, single with a flap in Biloculinellinae, and multiple (at least when mature) in Cribropyrgoinae and Idalininae. Idalininae also differed from other subfamilies in that the very last chamber was further enlarged to envelop the entire test. Members of the Pyrgoidae are known from the fossil record going back to the Jurassic period.

In the system of Loeblich & Tappan (1964), however, the pyrgoids were not recognised as a single group. Instead, they were dispersed among separate subfamilies of the family Miliolidae. Part of the reason was simply that Loeblich & Tappan did not divide the miliolidan families as finely as Mikhalevich later would but a bigger difference was one of priority. Loeblich & Tappan regarded the nature as an aperture as a more important feature taxonomically than the arrangement of chambers. Both classifications seem to have been constructed more from a diagnostic viewpoint than necessarily intended to reflect phylogenetic relationships.

Cribropyrgo aspergillum, from the National Museum of Natural History.

As with most other forams, pyrgoids exist in what are called megalosphaeric and microsphaeric forms. These forms represent alternate generations in the foram life cycle: microsphaeric forams are the sexually reproducing generation whereas megalosphaeric forams reproduce asexually. The names refer not to the overall size of the individuals but to the size of the proloculus, the very first embryonic chamber that sits at the center of the test. In megalosphaeric pyrgoids, the developing test is biloculine from the very start. In microsphaeric individuals, the earliest stages of the test are quinqueloculine (with five chambers per whorl) then become triloculine then finally biloculine (with a further progression for the idalinines, of course). The significance of the differences between the two forms has historically been the subject of discussion with some authors arguing that the microsphaeric forms represented a retention and overwriting of ancestral forms, or an expression of the trajectory the lineage might evolve along in the future (Loeblich & Tappan 1964). The most likely explanation, though, seems to me to be the simplest. The size of the proloculus correlates with the amount of cytoplasm in the young foram. Megalosphaeric pyrgoids start with fewer chambers per volution from the start for the simple reason that they don't have the space to pack in more.

REFERENCES

Loeblich, A. R., Jr, & H. Tappan. 1964. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology pt C. Protista 2. Sarcodina: chiefly "thecamoebians" and Foraminiferida vol. 1. The Geological Society of America, and The University of Kansas Press.

Mikhalevich, V. 2005. The new system of the superfamily Quinqueloculinoidea Cushman, 1917 (Foraminifera). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 5: 303–310.

Rugosofusulinids?

We return once again to the fusulinoids, large, complex Foraminifera of the late Palaeozoic. For this post, I'm taking a look at the Rugosofusulinidae, a group known from the last part of the Carboniferous and the earliest part of the Permian. Or to put it more technically, from the Gzhelian and Asselian epochs; their numbers collapsed at the end of the Asselian (Leven 2003).

Axial section of Rugosofusulina prisca, from Loeblich & Tappan (1964).

In an earlier post, I referred to a historical divide that has existed between American and Russian classifications of fusulinoids, with the Russian system recognising a more divided arrangement of taxa. The rugosofusulinids are one example of this: whereas Rauzer-Chernousova et al. (1996) recognise them as a distinct family in the order Schwagerinida, Loeblich & Tappan (1964) treated the entire group of 'schwagerinidans' as a subfamily Schwagerininae in the Fusulinidae (I believe more recent western authors might be inclined to at least treat Schwagerinidae as a separate family but would probably still not separate the rugosofusulinids). Whatever level you wish to place them at, the most distinctive feature of rugosofusulinids as a group is a distinct rugosity of the outer wall of the chambers. This may be due to undulations in the entire chamber wall or rugosity of the outer surface only. When first described, it was thought that this unevenness reflected ridges on the outer surface, but it was later observed that the rugosity looked much the same whatever angle the foram was cut at (remember, fusulinoids are most commonly studied in thin sections rather than as entire separated fossils) so probably represented more discrete ornaments. Skinner & Wilde (1966) suggested that "the outer surface [of Rugosofusulina] is scored by numerous sharp furrows which are directed both axially and sagittally, resulting in a surface which resembles a miniature cobblestone pavement".

The question of whether you wish to recognise rugosofusulinids as a distinct family is definitely not helped by a question hanging over recognition of the name Rugosofusulina. The problem is not really with Rugosofusulina itself but with another genus, Pseudofusulina, recognised in the Rauzer-Chernousova et al. (2007) system as type of another family of Schwagerinida, Pseudofusulinidae, and its type species P. huecoensis. Classically, this genus and family has been supposed to have a smooth rather than rugose outer tectum. However, the type specimen of P. huecoensis was re-examined by Skinner & Wilde (1966) who found that it did indeed have 'Rugosofusulina'-type external rugosities. They consequently synonymised the two genera with Pseudofusulina standing as the older name. The response of Russian authors to this challenge to their system, it seems, was generally to ignore it. Pseudofusulina and Rugosofusulina may still potentially be distinguishable as genera by degree of rugosity (Zhang et al. 2013) but this seems a weak basis for a full family distinction. Even if 'Rugosofusulina' is okay, 'Rugosofusulinidae' may not be.

REFERENcES

Leven, E. J. 2003. The Permian stratigraphy and fusulinids of the Tethys. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia 109 (2): 267–280.

Loeblich, A. R., Jr, & H. Tappan. 1964. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology pt C. Protista 2. Sarcodina: chiefly "thecamoebians" and Foraminiferida vol. 1. The Geological Society of America, and The University of Kansas Press.

Rauzer-Chernousova, D. M., F. R. Bensh, M. V. Vdovenko, N. B. Gibshman, E. Y. Leven, O. A. Lipina, E. A. Reitlinger, M. N. Solovieva & I. O. Chedija. 1996. Spravočnik po Sistematike Foraminifer Paleozoâ (Èndotiroidy, Fuzulinoidy). Rossijskaâ Akademiâ Nauk, Geologičeskij Institut, Moskva "Nauka".

Skinner, J. W., & G. L. Wilde. 1966. Type species of Pseudofusulina Dunbar & Skinner. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions 13: 1–7.

Zhang, Y.-C., Y. Wang, Y.-J. Zhang & D.-X. Yuan. 2013. Artinskian (Early Permian) fusuline fauna from the Rongma area in northern Tibet: palaeoclimatic and palaeobiogeographic implications. Alcheringa 37 (4): 529–546.

Fusulinellidae, -inae, summat like that...

In an earlier post, I introduced you all to the fusulinids, a group of complex foraminiferans that were abundant during the later Palaeozoic. In that post, I alluded to the complex array of terminology that can be used when describing fusulinids but said that I would rather not cover it at that time. Well, this time I'm going to be dredging some of it up because I've drawn the Fusulinellidae as the topic for today's post.

Sectioned reconstruction of Fusulinella, from here. Labels: нк = primary chamber, са = septal folds, с = septa, сб = septal furrows, х = chomata, у = septal aperture, т = tunnel.

The Fusulinellidae as recognised by Vachard et al. (2013) are a family of fusulinids with fusiform or oblong tests known from the Middle to Late Pennsylvanian (during the later part of the Carboniferous). One genus, Pseudofusulinella, persists into the early Permian (Ross 1999). They are a part of the larger superfamily Fusulinoidea, a group of fusulinids characterised by what is known as a diaphanotheca. This is a thick, more or less translucent layer in the test wall. As noted in my earlier post, such a test structure may have functioned to allow light through to symbiotic microalgae (or possibly captured chloroplasts from algal prey) sheltered within. Fusulinellids are distinguished from other fusulinoids by the structure of the septa dividing chambers within the test, which are mostly flat except for some folding near the poles of the test (in the Fusulinidae, in contrast, the septal walls were folded throughout). As the test developed, sections of the septa were resorbed to form tunnels connecting adjacent chabers (and presumably allowing the transmission of materials between chambers in life). The course of the tunnels is commonly delimited within the chambers by chomata, discrete ridges of shell material. In other species, the chomata are absent but axial fillings of calcite were formed in the chambers instead.

How fusulinids are more commonly seen: sections of fusulinellid Dagmarella iowensis from Vachard et al. (2013). Image on left = subaxial section (scale bar = 0.1 mm); image on right, larger individual = tangential section (scale = 0.5 mm). The smaller individual on the right is a juvenile Profusulinella cf. fittsi, which depending on the author may or may not be considered a fusulinellid.

Being so widespread and abundant when they lived, fusulinellids are commonly used as index fossils for identifying when a deposit was formed. However, this process is complicated somewhat by ongoing debates about fusulinid systematics. Rauzer-Chernousova et al. (1996) proposed a classification of fusulinids that represented an extensive modification from previous systems. Part of this was simply a question of ranking, with Rauzer-Chernousova et al. recognising many groups at higher ranks than previously (so, for instance, recognising the separate family Fusulinellidae as opposed to its previous recognition as a subfamily of Fusulinidae). Nevertheless, some subsequent authors have felt that Rauzer-Chernousova et al. and their followers attribute too much significance to relatively minor variations. For instance, Kobayashi (2011) synonymised several genera under Profusulinella that Rauzer-Chernousova et al. regarded as belonging to distinct families (and Vachard et al. 2013 even placed in separate superfamilies). Some of the features regarded by Rauzer-Chernousova et al. as indicating separate genera were regarded by Kobayashi as representing variation within a single species. Indeed, there have even been arguments that some 'significant' features may represent post-mortem preservation artefacts (I've come across the term 'taphotaxa' used to refer to taxa based on such features). At present, my impression is that there is something of a geographical divide in preferred systems with eastern European authors following the lead of Rauzer-Chernousova et al. whereas authors from elsewhere may keep to a more conservative arrangement. The Berlin Wall may be down but the Fusulinid Cold War continues.

REFERENCES

Kobayashi, F. 2011. Two species of Profusulinella (P. aljutovica and P. ovata), early Moscovian (Pennsylvanian) fusulines from southern Turkey and subdivision of primitive groups of the family Fusulinidae. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia 117 (1): 29–37.

Rauzer-Chernousova, D. M., F. R. Bensh, M. V. Vdovenko, N. B. Gibshman, E. Y. Leven, O. A. Lipina, E. A. Reitlinger, M. N. Solovieva & I. O. Chedija. 1996. Spravočnik po Sistematike Foraminifer Paleozoâ (Èndotiroidy, Fuzulinoidy). Rossijskaâ Akademiâ Nauk, Geologičeskij Institut, Moskva "Nauka".

Ross, C. A. 1999. Classification of the Upper Paleozoic superorders Endothyroida and Fusulinoida as part of the class Foraminifera. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 29 (3): 291–305.

Vachard, D., K. Krainer & S. G. Lucas. 2013. Pennsylvanian (Late Carboniferous) calcareous microfossils from Cedro Peak (New Mexico, USA). Part 2: smaller foraminifers and fusulinids. Annales de Paléontologie 99: 1–42.

Meandering Forams

Specimen of Meandropsina vidali, showing the patterning on the external surface, from Loeblich & Tappan (1964).

There are some taxonomic names that just instantly bring up a mental image of the sort of organism to which they refer. For my part, I've always felt that Meandropsina is one of those names. The Meandropsinidae are another family of relatively large and complex foraminifera (growing up to a number of millimetres across) that are known only from the Upper Cretaceous. The several genera of the family are predominantly European, with only the genus Fallotia also known from the West Indies.

Cross-section of Meandropsina vidali, from Loeblich & Tappan (1964).

Meandropsinids are (as far as I know) more or less lenticular in shape with chambers enrolled in a flat spiral. The name of the type genus Meandropsina refers to the way that the outer margins of the chambers tend to meander irregularly around the test, giving it something of an ornate appearance. Both molecular and structural evidence indicate that multi-chambered forams arose from ancestors with undivided tests on more than one occasion, and the majority of multi-chambered forams can be assigned to two major lineages (Pawlowski et al. 2013). In one lineage, the Globothalamea (which includes, for instance, the rotaliids), the basic chamber shape is globular with successive chambers in the test being wider than long. In the other lineage, the Tubothalamea (including the miliolids and spirillinids), the basic chamber shape is tubular, and the test may grow through a number of spirals before it even starts to be divided into chambers (if at all). Members of the two lineages with calcareous tests may also be distinguished by their test structure: in calcareous globothalameans, the crystals making up the test are arranged regularly so the overall appearance of the test is hyaline (glass-like). In contrast, tubothalameans have the crystals of the test arranged irregularly so the appearance of the test is porcelaneous (like porcelain). Meandropsinids are unmistakeably tubothalameans in both regards.

Like other large forams of the Mesozoic, meandropsinids did not make it past the end of the Cretaceous. Early Palaeocene taxa that have been included in the families represent distinct lineages that evolved to take their place, occupying the ecological spaces opened up by the mass extinction ending the era.

REFERENCES

Loeblich, A. R., Jr, & H. Tappan. 1964. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology pt C. Protista 2. Sarcodina: chiefly "thecamoebians" and Foraminiferida vol. 1. The Geological Society of America, and The University of Kansas Press.

Pawlowski, J., M. Holzmann & J. Tyszka. 2013. New supraordinal classification of Foraminifera: molecules meet morphology. Marine Micropalaeontology 100: 1–10.

Fusulinoids: Complex Forams of the Late Palaeozoic

Among the most characteristic fossils of the latter part of the Palaeozoic are the group of Foraminifera known as the fusulinoids. These forams, known from around the middle of the Carboniferous to the end of the Permian, can be extremely abundant. Indeed, I get the impression that some fossil deposits are pretty much made of fusulinoids. Fusulinoids did not merely thrive in their environment; they were the environment.

Limestone block dominated by fusulinids, copyright James St John. Field of view is about 3.9 cm across.

Fusulinoids are distinguished from other forams by their test composition, built from minute granules of calcite, and complex internal structure. Externally, fusulinoids (defined here to exclude their forerunners, the endothyroids) were fairly conservative, with a planispiral, usually involute test (that is, each successive whorl covers the last). The last whorl ended on a transverse wall without a defined aperture; instead, the only connection between the interior and exterior of the test was by a series of pores in said wall. Early forms were disc-shaped; later species could be more globular or fusiform. Some of the later fusulinoids also reached gigantic sizes by single-celled organism standards: whereas the earliest fusulinoids were only a fraction of a millimetre across, the late Permian Polydiexodina could be up to six centimetres along their longest axis (Loeblich & Tappan 1964). Internally, fusulinoids had an incredibly complicated and varied structure which I'm not going to go into too much detail about here, primarily because I barely understand a word of it myself. Any description of fusulinoid morphology quickly devolves into madly throwing about terms like chomata, parachomata, spirotheca, tectorium, and the like, and your humble narrator feeling the need to go look at something else.

Cutaway diagram of a fusulinid, showing an example of internal structure, from here.

I have to go into some detail, though, because some features of the fusulinoid wall structure may explain their success. The ancestral state for the fusulinoid test wall involved a thin layer of solid calcite, the tectum. In most species, the inside of the tectum was coated with a thicker, less dense layer. As the test wall becomes more derived, this inner layer becomes more or less translucent, or pierced by tubular alveoli to produce a honeycomb-like appearance. It has been suggested that these modifications may have been adaptations to accomodating symbiotic microalgae, striking a balance between maintaining the protective test and allowing optimal transmission of light. Microalgal associations with fusulinoids may be corroborated by the discovery of minute fossils of probable planktonic relationships such as Ovummuridae preserved within fusulinoid tests (Vachard et al. 2004).

Ecologically, fusulinoids were restricted to off-shore marine habitats, being mostly found preserved in limestones and calcareous shales. They are absent from deposits that would have been formed in brackish water, and while they may be found in sandstones it is debatable whether such occurrences represent life associations or post-mortem transport (Loeblich & Tappan 1964). Fusulinoids would therefore have been ecologically similar to the inhabitants of modern-day photic zone coral reefs, another reflection of their probable co-dependence with photosynthetic microalgae. However, as successful as the advanced fusulinoids were in their time, they did not make it past the massive extinction event at the end of the Permian. This was not the end of giant and complex forams entirely—indeed, some later forms such as the alveolinids would evolve morphologies very similar to those of fusulinoids—but it was the end of these particular giant forams.

REFERENCES

Loeblich, A. R., Jr & H. Tappan. 1964. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology pt C. Protista 2. Sarcodina, chiefly "thecamoebians" and Foraminiferida vol. 1. The Geological Society of America and The University of Kansas Press.

Vachard, D., A. Munnecke & T. Servais. 2004. New SEM observations of keriothecal walls: implications for the evolution of Fusulinida. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 34 (3): 232–242.