Back
Dorocysta

From Williams et al., 2017:

[Dorocysta, Davey, 1970, p. 358

Type species: Dorocysta litotes, Davey, 1970 (pl.5, fig.6; text-fig.2A)]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original description: [Davey, 1970]:

Description:
Shell small, broad-based with sides converging anteriorly to small apical face. Cingulum typically present and occasionally precingular and postcingular plate boundaries. Small number of processes, simple or branched; usually 4 at anterior and 5 at posterior of shell. Angular archaeopyle commonly present in centre of anterior face.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modified description:

Stover and Evitt, 1978, p. 40:

Synopsis:
Cysts skolochorate, body flask-shaped with a few processes (four to five) around each polar area; paratabulation indicated incompletely by faint parasutural markings that are absent in polar areas; archeopyle apical, type uncertain.

Description:
Shape: Broadly flask-shaped with apical area narrower than antapical area.
Wall relationships: Autophragm only.
Wall features: Parasutural features confined to precingular, paracingular, and postcingular areas. Apical end with four processes, antapical end with four or five processes; processes simple or branched, and spaced more or less equidistant around the polar areas. Autophragm smooth.
Paratabulation: Indicated by paracingulum and occasionally also by faint longitudinal, parasutural, linear markings adjacent to the paracingulum; formula unknown.
Archeopyle: Apical, type uncertain; exact shape of archeopyle and operculum unknown.
Paracingulum: Indicated by low transverse parallel thickenings.
Parasulcus: Not indicated.
Size: Small.

Affinities:
Dorocysta differs from Stenopyxinium and Cauca in having an apical rather than a combination archeopyle. It differs further from Cauca in having its processes confined to the polar areas instead of being distributed over almost all areas of the cyst.
Feedback/Report bug