Back
Glaphyrosphaera
From Williams et al., 2017:
[Glaphyrosphaera, Schiøler and Wilson, 1994, p.140,142
The name Glaphyrosphaera was not validly published in Slimani (1994, p.68), who cited it in synonymy as an unpublished thesis name.
Type species: Glaphyrosphaera glabra, Schioler and Wilson, 1994 (figs.2B,6A–B)]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original description: [Schioler and Wilson, 1994]:
Diagnosis:
Holocavate cyst consisting of a large pericyst and a much smaller endocyst separated by a large pericoel and joined by a funnel-shaped process that connects the midventral areas. The process arises on the outside of the endophragm, flares distally trumpate and merges into the periphragm. The tabulation id gonyaulacoid, partially expressed by low ridges on the periphragm. Probable tabulation expressed by the Kofoid formula (Taylor-Evitt formula in parenthesis): 4`, (A-C, 1u), 6`` (1i, 2-6), 6c (au-fi), 6``` (Iu-VI), ?s, ?p, 1````(Y).
The archaeopyle is precingular, type P (3``). The operculum of the pericyst (perioperculum) is free, the operculum of the endocyst (endoperculum) is commonly found attached or in place.
Affinities:
The funnel-shaped process that connects the midventral areas of the pericyst and endocyst is a unique characteristic of the genus. Glaphyrosphaera gen. nov. differs from Thalassiphora Eisenack & Gocht. 1960 emend. Benedek & Gocht, 1981; Lophocysta Manum, 1979: Stephodinium Deflandre, 1936 emend. Davey, 1970 and Invertocysta Edwards, 1984 in being holocavate and having a funnel-shaped process that connects the peri- and endophragms. whereas the four other genera are camocavate, having the endophragm and periphragm appressed in the dorsal area (Thalassiphora and Lophocysta) or ventral area (Stephodinium and Invertocysta). Gelatia Bujak, 1984 and Saturnodiniurn Brinkhuis et al., 1992 are camocavate, compressed apically-antapically and lack connecting processes between the endophragm and periphragm. Gelatia differs further in possessing a large dorsal epicystal opening, which Glaphvrosphaera gen. nov. Iacks. Amiculosphaera Harland, 1979 resembles Glaphyrosphaera gen. nov. in having a funnel-shaped connecting process between the endophragm and periphragm; this process, however, occupies an apical position in Amiculosphaera. The latter genus also differs in having antapical contact between the endophragm and periphragm and in lacking signs of a periarcheopyle. Glaphyrosphaera gen. nov. differs from Disphaeria Cookson and Eisenack, 1960 emend. Norvick, 1973 in having a clearly defined archeopyle type. Disphaeria has a large hole in the periphragm, possibly representing an archeopyle. The periarcheopyle type of Disphaeria is uncertain; it resembles a precingular archeopyle according to Morgan (1980), and an apical archeopyle according to Cookson & Eisenack (1982). Furthermore, the wall relationships in Disphaeria are not clearly defined by Cookson & Eisenack (1960), although Morgan (1980) states that the endophragm and periphragm are appressed only in the sulcal area.
[Glaphyrosphaera, Schiøler and Wilson, 1994, p.140,142
The name Glaphyrosphaera was not validly published in Slimani (1994, p.68), who cited it in synonymy as an unpublished thesis name.
Type species: Glaphyrosphaera glabra, Schioler and Wilson, 1994 (figs.2B,6A–B)]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original description: [Schioler and Wilson, 1994]:
Diagnosis:
Holocavate cyst consisting of a large pericyst and a much smaller endocyst separated by a large pericoel and joined by a funnel-shaped process that connects the midventral areas. The process arises on the outside of the endophragm, flares distally trumpate and merges into the periphragm. The tabulation id gonyaulacoid, partially expressed by low ridges on the periphragm. Probable tabulation expressed by the Kofoid formula (Taylor-Evitt formula in parenthesis): 4`, (A-C, 1u), 6`` (1i, 2-6), 6c (au-fi), 6``` (Iu-VI), ?s, ?p, 1````(Y).
The archaeopyle is precingular, type P (3``). The operculum of the pericyst (perioperculum) is free, the operculum of the endocyst (endoperculum) is commonly found attached or in place.
Affinities:
The funnel-shaped process that connects the midventral areas of the pericyst and endocyst is a unique characteristic of the genus. Glaphyrosphaera gen. nov. differs from Thalassiphora Eisenack & Gocht. 1960 emend. Benedek & Gocht, 1981; Lophocysta Manum, 1979: Stephodinium Deflandre, 1936 emend. Davey, 1970 and Invertocysta Edwards, 1984 in being holocavate and having a funnel-shaped process that connects the peri- and endophragms. whereas the four other genera are camocavate, having the endophragm and periphragm appressed in the dorsal area (Thalassiphora and Lophocysta) or ventral area (Stephodinium and Invertocysta). Gelatia Bujak, 1984 and Saturnodiniurn Brinkhuis et al., 1992 are camocavate, compressed apically-antapically and lack connecting processes between the endophragm and periphragm. Gelatia differs further in possessing a large dorsal epicystal opening, which Glaphvrosphaera gen. nov. Iacks. Amiculosphaera Harland, 1979 resembles Glaphyrosphaera gen. nov. in having a funnel-shaped connecting process between the endophragm and periphragm; this process, however, occupies an apical position in Amiculosphaera. The latter genus also differs in having antapical contact between the endophragm and periphragm and in lacking signs of a periarcheopyle. Glaphyrosphaera gen. nov. differs from Disphaeria Cookson and Eisenack, 1960 emend. Norvick, 1973 in having a clearly defined archeopyle type. Disphaeria has a large hole in the periphragm, possibly representing an archeopyle. The periarcheopyle type of Disphaeria is uncertain; it resembles a precingular archeopyle according to Morgan (1980), and an apical archeopyle according to Cookson & Eisenack (1982). Furthermore, the wall relationships in Disphaeria are not clearly defined by Cookson & Eisenack (1960), although Morgan (1980) states that the endophragm and periphragm are appressed only in the sulcal area.