Back
Batiacasphaera
From Williams et al., 2017:
[Batiacasphaera, Drugg, 1970b, p. 813; Emendations: Morgan, 1975, p. 161; Dörhöfer and Davies, 1980, p. 40
tax. sr. synonym of Sentusidinium Sarjeant and Stover, 1978, according to Dörhöfer and Davies, 1980. Lentin and Williams, 1987, retained Sentusidinium as a separate genus.
Type species: Batiacasphaera compta, Drugg, 1970b (figs.6A–B)]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original description: [Drugg, 1970]:
Description:
Tract spherical to subspherical with an angular apical archeopyle. The ornamentation consists of rod-shaped elements, either separated or arranged to form a reticulum. In the latter case they may be fused.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emended descriptions:
Morgan, 1975:
Description:
Cyst subspherical to lenticular, with an angular apical archaeopyle Type A. Ornament consists of positive elements which may be separate, or fuse to form rugulae or reticulum. Membranous ornament and tabulation are absent.
---------------------------------------
Dörhöfer and Davies, 1980:
emended the genus to include the remaining species of Tenua after the Holotype of Tenua was transferred to Cyclonephelium and to include those species which where removed from Canningia because they lack indented antacices and asymmetrical archaeopyle sutures.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modified descriptions:
Stover and Evitt, 1978, p. 21:
Synopsis:
Cyst subspherical and without septa, spines or processes; autophragm variously ornamented with isolate and/or fused features that are typically evenly distributed and generally fine; archeopyle apical, Type "tA".
Description:
Shape: Subsperical.
Wall relationships: Autophragm only.
Wall features: Generally no parasutural features; surface features of low relief may be isolated, partly fused or completely fused (reticulate); generally evenly distributed and fine.
Paratabulation: Generally indicated by archeopyle only; occasionally accessory sutures indicate boundaries between precingular paraplates. Paratabulation rarely expressed by surface features.
Archeopyle: Apical, Type "tA"; principal archeopyle suture normally zigzag ; operculum free, constituent paraplates typically undifferentiated.
Paracingulum: Generally not expressed ; rarely indicated by faint alignment of surface features.
Parasulcus: Not expressed.
Size: Small to intermediate.
Affinities:
Batiacasphaera differs from Chytroeisphaeridia in having isolated or fused ornamentation features of low relief, and from Kallosphaeridium in having a free rather than an attached operculum. Retention of Batiacasphaera and Chytroeisphaeridia may be unrealistic unless smooth forms only are assigned to the latter and ornamented forms to the former.
[Batiacasphaera, Drugg, 1970b, p. 813; Emendations: Morgan, 1975, p. 161; Dörhöfer and Davies, 1980, p. 40
tax. sr. synonym of Sentusidinium Sarjeant and Stover, 1978, according to Dörhöfer and Davies, 1980. Lentin and Williams, 1987, retained Sentusidinium as a separate genus.
Type species: Batiacasphaera compta, Drugg, 1970b (figs.6A–B)]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original description: [Drugg, 1970]:
Description:
Tract spherical to subspherical with an angular apical archeopyle. The ornamentation consists of rod-shaped elements, either separated or arranged to form a reticulum. In the latter case they may be fused.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emended descriptions:
Morgan, 1975:
Description:
Cyst subspherical to lenticular, with an angular apical archaeopyle Type A. Ornament consists of positive elements which may be separate, or fuse to form rugulae or reticulum. Membranous ornament and tabulation are absent.
---------------------------------------
Dörhöfer and Davies, 1980:
emended the genus to include the remaining species of Tenua after the Holotype of Tenua was transferred to Cyclonephelium and to include those species which where removed from Canningia because they lack indented antacices and asymmetrical archaeopyle sutures.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modified descriptions:
Stover and Evitt, 1978, p. 21:
Synopsis:
Cyst subspherical and without septa, spines or processes; autophragm variously ornamented with isolate and/or fused features that are typically evenly distributed and generally fine; archeopyle apical, Type "tA".
Description:
Shape: Subsperical.
Wall relationships: Autophragm only.
Wall features: Generally no parasutural features; surface features of low relief may be isolated, partly fused or completely fused (reticulate); generally evenly distributed and fine.
Paratabulation: Generally indicated by archeopyle only; occasionally accessory sutures indicate boundaries between precingular paraplates. Paratabulation rarely expressed by surface features.
Archeopyle: Apical, Type "tA"; principal archeopyle suture normally zigzag ; operculum free, constituent paraplates typically undifferentiated.
Paracingulum: Generally not expressed ; rarely indicated by faint alignment of surface features.
Parasulcus: Not expressed.
Size: Small to intermediate.
Affinities:
Batiacasphaera differs from Chytroeisphaeridia in having isolated or fused ornamentation features of low relief, and from Kallosphaeridium in having a free rather than an attached operculum. Retention of Batiacasphaera and Chytroeisphaeridia may be unrealistic unless smooth forms only are assigned to the latter and ornamented forms to the former.