identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
038DDA73FF9FFE3E067CFE06FBAD49FC.text	038DDA73FF9FFE3E067CFE06FBAD49FC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hexacromyoidea Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Superfamily HEXACROMYOIDEA Haeckel, 1882 n. stat.</p> <p>Hexacromyida Haeckel, 1882: 453 [as a tribe]; 1887: 170, 201 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Hexalonchata – Afanasieva et al. 2005: S272 [as an order]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 109 [as an order].</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Spherical Spumellaria with a tetrapetaloid microsphere or fine fibrous arisen from a center</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Hexacromyoidea consists of Hexacaryidae (including Clade A), Hexacromyidae (including Clade B) and Hollandosphaeridae (including Clade C). Hexacromyidae and Hollandosphaeridae roughly corresponds to Hexalonchidae sensu De Wever et al. (2001: 210, 212). Only a part of the Hexastylidae sensu De Wever et al. (2001) is equal to Hexacaryidae. Sandin et al. (2021) recognized three Clades A, B and C for genera belonging to the Hexacromyoidea, but the molecular differences among both Clades A and C are supported by small bootstrap values (BS) and posterior probabilities (PP). The independency of Clade B is supported by PhyML bootstrap values of 10 000 replicates (BS),&gt;0.99 posterior probabilities (PP) and includes Hollandosphaera. Hollandosphaera may be separated from the other members of Hexalonchidae sensu De Wever et al. (2001), resulting in the family Hexacromyidae independent of Hexalonchidae. However, if we refer toSandin et al. (2021), the independency between Hexacaryidae and Hexacromyidae is faced with another problem. Clades A and C includes Hexarhizacontium and Hexacromyum (originally Hexacontium in Sandin et al. 2021). Given the low BS and PP values, it is unhelpful to refer to the evaluation of the two-family scheme with Hexacaryidae and Hexacromyidae. Afanasieva et al. (2005) proposed the order Hexalonchata based only in presence of six radial spines; however, that premise is inconsistent at rank level, not only within Radiolaria but also in Protista (see preceding discussion). These singles characters are probably related to convergent evolution leading to homeomorphic taxa.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF9FFE3E067CFE06FBAD49FC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF9FFE3E05D3FB65FB1A4EFD.text	038DDA73FF9FFE3E05D3FB65FB1A4EFD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Spumellaria Ehrenberg 1876	<div><p>Order SPUMELLARIA Ehrenberg, 1876</p> <p>Phylogenetic molecular lineage I (Sandin et al. 2021).</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — No common morphological characters have been recognized yet.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The lineage I includes the superfamilies Hexacromyoidea (including Clades A to C), Spongosphaeroidea (including Clade D), Lithocyclioidea (including Clade E1)and Spongodiscoidea (including Clades E2 and E3). This Lineage consists of Clades A, B, C, D and E. The group of Clades D and E is independent from other clades with 100% PhyML bootstrap values, with 10 000 replicates (BS) and&gt;0.99 posterior probabilities (PP) in 18SrDNA. A group of Clades A, B and C is separable from the group of Clades D and E, but their clustering is not stable as of yet. Hexacromyum (originally Hexacontium) was clustered into both Clades A and B so that these two clades did not have to be grouped as a single superfamily in Hexacromyidae. Hollandosphaera was correctly grouped in a single Clade B and thus, Hollandosphaeridae was applicable to this Clade. Clade E exclusively includes Spongosphaera in order to assign it as Spongosphaeridae. Clade E1 includes Didymocyrtis and Spongolivella (originally Cypassis), Clade E2 includes Spongocyclia and Schizodiscus, and Clade E3 includes Dictyocoryne, Spongodiscus, Spongaster and Tricranastrum (originally Myelastrum and Triastrum). Almost all branches within Cluster E have a very low support in 18SrDNA; however, the Clade E fits well with the superfamily Spongodiscoidea. As Lithocyclioidea is considered an ancestor of Didymocyrtis, this superfamily is also included in Lineage I.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF9FFE3E05D3FB65FB1A4EFD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF9FFE39064CF8C7FA5A4C63.text	038DDA73FF9FFE39064CF8C7FA5A4C63.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hexacaryidae Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Family HEXACARYIDAE Haeckel, 1882 n. stat.</p> <p>Hexacaryida Haeckel, 1882: 454 [as a tribe]; 1887: 170, 202 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 9 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Haliphormida Haeckel, 1882: 428 [below tribe].</p> <p>Hexacaryinae – Chediya 1959: 93. TYPE GENUS. — Hexacaryum Haeckel, 1882: 454 (type species by subsequent monotypy: Hexacaryum arborescens Haeckel, 1887: 203).</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Cleveiplegma Dumitrica, 2013a: 24. — Haliphormis Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Hexastylanthus n. syn., Hexastylettus n. syn., Hexastylissus synonymized byTakahashi 1991: 71, Hexastylurus n. syn.). — Hexacaryum Haeckel, 1882: 454. — Hexalonchetta Haeckel, 1887: 182. — Hexancistra Haeckel, 1879: 705 (= Hexancora with the same type species). — Hexapitys Haeckel, 1882: 451.</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Hexadendron.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Hexadendrum, Hexastylarium, Hexastylidium.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Six primary radial spines arise directly from a heteropolar or tetrapetaloid microsphere. They are generally distributed at right angles of each other. One spherical lattice shell, one octahedral shell with a polygonal frame, or a similar-shaped meshwork cover can be observed.</p> <p>Protoplasm is illustrated for Cleveiplegma, Hexapitys and Haliphormis. The endoplasm is very small and fills the medullary shells and is also distributed around the medullary shell.In certain members, undeterminable transparent and brown granules surround the endoplasm. Algal symbionts are sometimes observed. When observed, algal symbionts are found at least inside the cortical shell (in the case of Haliphormis).</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The available family-rank name “Haliphormida” and “Hexacaryida” were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1882). “Haliphormida” was established below the tribe, while “Hexacaryida” was established at the tribe rank, thus the valid family is “Hexacaryida.” according to the ICZN (1999) Article 24.1. The internal skeletal structure was illustrated for Cleveiplegma (Dumitrica 2013a: pl. 1, figs 1-9) and Hexalonchetta (Anderson et al. 1986a: pl. 1, figs 3, 4). Protoplasm and algal symbionts were documented by epi-fluorescent DAPI dyeing methods in Cleveiplegma (Zhang et al. 2018: 14, fig.1), Hexapitys (Zhang et al. 2018: 11, fig. 17) and Haliphormis (Zhang et al. 2018: 11, fig. 18). The fine protoplasmic structure was illustrated in Cleveiplegma (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 47, fig. 5). In the catalogue, the Hexacaryidae appear to be incorporated into different families. In poor preservation conditions, taxa with a single spherical cortical shell with six radial spines tend to be misidentified as Hexalonchetta (Hexacaryidae), Haliphormis (Hexacaryidae), six radial spine types of Anomalosoma (Hollandosphaeridae), six radial spine types of Centrolonche (Centrocubidae) and six radial spine types of Stigmostylus (Centrocubidae). It is essential to identify their internal structures in order to differentiate them. If the internal structure is lost, they will be related to Haliphormis.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Hexancistra</p> <p>As Hexancistra and Hexancora have the same objective type species, the older synonym is selected as the valid name.</p> <p>Haliphormis</p> <p>The oldest available name is Haliphormis. Haliphormis corresponds with the widely used concept of “ Hexastylus ” (a Mesozoic genus; see O’Dogherty et al. 2009a). The former was first synonymized with Hexastylanthus, Hexastylettus Hexastylissus, and Hexastylurus. The latter four genera have the following morphological characters: regular pores and smooth surface for Hexastylanthus, regular pores and spiny surface for Hexastylettus; irregular-shaped pores of different sizes for Hexastylissus; irregular-shaped pores of dissimilar in shape and spiny surface for Hexastylurus (Campbell 1954: D58). The lectotype of Haliphormis looks an empty space in the shell (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 69, figs 1a-d) although the other specimen in the same microscopic slide has three concentric shells (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 69, figs 2a-c). If these two specimens are conspecific each other, Haliphormis would not belong to the Hexacaryidae and would not be a senior synonym of Hexastylanthus, Hexastylettus, Hexastylissus and Hexastylurus. If we accept the topotypes, one of Hexastylanthus, Hexastylettus, Hexastylissus and Hexastylurus must be validated. This issue will put aside this time because real species without any internal structure are suspect for “ Hexastylus ”.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF9FFE39064CF8C7FA5A4C63	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF98FE3B065BFC47FB164A43.text	038DDA73FF98FE3B065BFC47FB164A43.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hexacromyidae Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Family HEXACROMYIDAE Haeckel, 1882 n. stat.</p> <p>Hexacromyida Haeckel, 1882: 453 [as a tribe]; 1887: 170, 201 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 9 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Hexalonchida Haeckel, 1882: 451 [nomen dubium, as a tribe];1887: 170, 179 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 8 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Staurocontida Haeckel, 1882: 452 [nomen dubium, as a tribe];1887: 152, 163 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Hexacontida Haeckel, 1882: 452 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 170, 191 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 9 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Staurocromyida Haeckel, 1882: 453 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 152, 166 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Hexadorida Haeckel, 1882: 455 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 170, 204 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 9 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Cubosphaerida Haeckel, 1887: 55, 169-170 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1952 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 146. — Schröder 1909: 2 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 23.</p> <p>Cubosphäriden [sic] – Haecker 1907: 118 [as a family].</p> <p>Cubosphaeridae – Haecker 1908: 437. — Popofsky 1908: 209; 1912: 77, 84-87. — Enriques 1932: 982. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 31; 1945: 15. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 14; 1944b: 5. — Deflandre 1953: 417. — Campbell 1954: D58. — Orlev 1959: 436. — Chediya 1959: 90. — Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: 71-72. — Dieci 1964: 185. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 122. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 142. — Tan 1998: 126. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 146.</p> <p>Hexalonchinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 31 [nomen dubium]; 1945: 15. — Campbell 1954: D58. — Chediya 1959: 91. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 20 (sensu emend.).</p> <p>Hexacontinae – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 14 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D60. — Chediya 1959: 92.</p> <p>Hexadorinae – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944b: 5 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 94. — Petrushevskaya 1979: 107-108 (sensu emend.).</p> <p>Staurocromyinae – Campbell 1954: D58 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 88.</p> <p>Staurocontiinae – Campbell 1954: D58 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Hexadoradinae – Campbell 1954: D60 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Cubosphaerinae – Campbell 1954: D58.</p> <p>Stauracontinae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 87 (= Stauracontiinae) [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Hexacromyinae – Campbell 1954: D60. — Chediya 1959: 93.</p> <p>Hexadoridae – Dumitrica 1979: 21 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Nanininae Kozur &amp; Mostler, 1982: 409.</p> <p>Hexalonchidae – Dumitrica 1984: 94 [nomen dubium]; 1985: 186. — De Wever et al. 2001: 210, 212. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S272-273. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 109.</p> <p>Stauracontidae – Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 279 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Hexacromyum Haeckel, 1882: 453 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D60): Hexacromyum elegans Haeckel, 1887: 201].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. —? Carpocanthum Chen &amp; Tan, 1989: 1. — Hexacromyum Haeckel, 1882: 453 (= Cubosphaera n. syn., Hexacontura n. syn.). — Hexalonchilla Haeckel, 1887: 184 (= Hexalonchusa synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 569; Staurolonchantha n. syn.). — Nanina Kozur &amp; Mostler, 1982: 409 (= Pentactinosphaera with the same type species).</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Cromyostaurus, Cubaxonium, Hexacontanna, Hexacontarium, Hexacontosa, Hexacontium, Hexadoras, Hexalonchara, Hexaloncharium, Hexalonche, Hexalonchidium, Spongiuspinus, Staurancistra, Stauracontarium, Stauracontellium, Stauracontidium, Stauracontium, Stauracontonium, Staurocromyum, Staurolonchella, Staurolonchissa, Staurolonchura.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Bladed six primary radial spines or bladed six radial beams are directly arising from a tetrapetaloid microsphere or a heteropolar microsphere with tetrapetaloid apical structures. Two or three latticed spherical shells are present (except for Nanina).</p> <p>Protoplasmic characters seem to be different between shallow and deep-water species. As for shallow water Hexacromyum and Hexalonchilla, the spherical endoplasm, reddish brown in color, fills the medullary shell and is outside of it. Capsular wall always situated within the cortical shell. A robust, straight, thick axoflagellum appears in Hexacromyum at least. Algal symbionts may be present or absent. Algal symbionts, if present, surround the endoplasm or are scattered within the cortical shell. No algal symbionts are outside of the cortical shell. As for the mesopelagic taxa of Hexacromyum, the endoplasm is a dark gray in color and fills the medullary shell. It is also found outside of it.</p> <p>The Axopodial system is of centroaxoplastid-type: Axoplast is placed in the center of the endoplasm and is encrypted with a spherical nucleus. Bundles of axoneme penetrate through the one side of nucleus and form one thick bundle of axoneme in the endoplasmic reticulum zone of the intracapsular zone. This bundle probably forms a straight, thick and robust axoflagellum. A clear zone with radiated thin bundles of axoneme surrounds the nucleus. The axoplast is situated in the microsphere (the inner medullary shells) and the nucleus is placed in the outer medullary shell. A clear zone also appears inside the outer medullary shell. An endoplasmic reticulum occupies the space between the outer medullary shell and the cortical shell.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This family was originally called Hexalonchidae, but this family name is a nomen dubium. Yuasa et al. (2009) first proved that Hexacromyum (originally Hexacontium) is a member of Spumellaria. Several widely used taxon genus names such as Hexacontium and Hexalonche should be omitted in taxonomic works as they have been established on the basis of an un-illustrated type species. Internal skeletal structure, including growth line, was illustrated for Hexacromyum (Nishimura 1986: fig. 7.1; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 14, figs 5, 6, 8; van de Paverd 1995: pl. 33, fig. 7; pl. 34, fig. 5), Hexalonchilla (Nishimura 1986: fig. 7.2; Suzuki 1998b: pl. 6, figs 2, 5-9) and Nanina (Nakaseko et al. 1982: pl. 1, figs 1-3; Sugiyama 1992a; pl. 1, fig. 1). A living image was given for Hexacromyum (Yuasa et al. 2009: fig. 1a; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.8.8; Matsuoka 2017: figs 7.1, 7.2, 8.1, 8.2) and Hexalonchilla (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.10.12). Protoplasm and algal symbionts were documented by epi-fluorescent observation via DAPI dyeing or other dyeing methods in Hexacromyum (Ogane et al. 2010: figs 1.9-1.10, 2.9-2.10; Zhang et al. 2018: 11, figs 14, 15; p. 14, fig. 10; pl. 17, fig. 9) and Hexalonchilla (Zhang et al. 2018: 11, fig. 16). Protoplasm was also illustrated for fixed specimens of Hexacromyum (Aita et al. 2009: pl. 9, figs 1, 2; KrabberØd et al. 2011: figs 1.G-1.L). Fine protoplasmic structure was illustrated in Hexacromyum (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 33, fig. 4; pl. 35, fig. 4). Hexacromyum can be infected by Marine Alveolata of Group II (Ikenoue et al. 2016), but real images of these symbionts have not been captured as of yet.</p> <p>Classic Hexalonche is largely transferred to Hexalonchilla. It is also mixed with Hexalonchetta (Hexacaryidae), Hexancistra (Hexacaryidae), Hexarhizacontium (Rhizosphaeridae), the sixradial spine-form of Centrolonche (Centrolonchidae), and the six-radial spine-form of Stylosphaera (Stylosphaeridae).They are carefully identified by an examination of their internal structure. Two shelled spherical radiolarians with six radial spines are generally classified into Hexalonchilla. However, types of bladed or non-bladed radial beams, types of bladed or non-bladed radial spines, and types of spherical and tetrapetaloid microspheres are still overlooked. For instance, the supporting image of Hexalonchilla in the catalogue has non-bladed radial beams, non-bladed radial spines and a tetrapetaloid microsphere, whereas the typeillustration for the representative genus shows non-bladed radial beams, bladed radial beam and a spherical microsphere.</p> <p>Classic Hexacontium is largely transferred to Hexacromyum. It is also mixed with the six-radial spine-form of Axoprunum (Axoprunidae), the six-radial spine-form of Haliomma (Haliommidae) and Hexacontella (Haliommidae). Like in the case of Hexalonchilla, they were carefully identified by an examination of their internal structure. The morphological status of the radial spines, the radial beams and the microsphere were also poorly discriminated. Some three shelled morphospecies with six radial spines, likewise, have many radial beams between the outer double medullary shell and the cortical shell. Furthermore, some morphospecies, recovered from plankton samples, developed many fragile concentric shells between the outer double medullary shell and the cortical shell, which sometime is missing due to dissolution.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Hexacromyum</p> <p>Hexacromyum itself was used as a valid genus inPetrushevskaya (1975: 569).The usage of this genus in our paper is corresponded to the widely accustomed usage of Hexacontium. The definition of Hexacromyum mentioned the four concentric shells (Campbell 1954: D60) but the “4th” shell of the neotype is additionally formed following the secondary growth mode of Ogane et al. (2009c) (See the supporting image for Cubosphaera in the Atlas part). Cubosphaera has “five or more concentric shells” (Campbell 1954: D58) and Hexacontura has three concentric shells with irregular pores of dissimilar sizes (Campbell 1954: D60). The subsequent “4th” or “5th” concentric shell illustrated in the type species of Cubosphaera is also the shell formed following the secondary growth mode of Ogane et al. (2009c). Pore size and shape continuously changed from regular pores with similar size, so this difference is related to species or within species variations, if we refer to the numerous photos in publications. Aita et al. (2009) observed Hexacromyum elegans in the plankton slide from the H.M.S. Challenger Station 271 which was examined by Haeckel himself.The type material for this species is from a “Central Pacific, Station, surface” (Haeckel 1887: 201). The valid name is the oldest synonym among them (1882 for Hexacromyum; 1887 for both Cubosphaera and Hexacontura). However, one concern is the taxonomic status of Haliphormis. The specimen corresponding to the type-illustration of Haliphormis hexacanhtus in the Ehrenberg collection have a single cortical shell, whereas other specimens in the same collection have three concentric shell (see support image for Haliphormis in the Atlas). If these specimens are conspecific, Haliphormis would not belong to the Hexacaryidae, and hence it would not be a senior synonym of Hexastylanthus, Hexastylettus, Hexastylissus and Hexastylurus. This means that Haliphormis is the oldest synonym among Hexacromyum, although the genus name Haliphormis has not been used for recent 50 years so the valid genus remains unchanged as Hexacromyum.</p> <p>Hexalonchilla</p> <p>Hexalonchilla partly corresponds to Hexalonche based on both concentric shells but is limited for those that have a heteropolar microsphere with un-bladed six radial beams. Hexalonchusa is characterized by irregular pores of dissimilar sizes and the spiny surface of the cortical shell (Campbell 1954: D60) but these differences are related to infra- or intra-specific variations. The spiny surface is also induced by the preservation effect. Staurolonchantha was considered to have four equidistant main radial spines (Campbell 1954: D56) but the lectotype has a typical structure with six radial spines (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 36, figs 2a-d). The lectotype of “ Haliomma hexagonum ” has an unclear innermost shell but has presumably three concentric shells. All these four “genera” were initially established with a subgenus rank in the same publication (Haeckel 1887: 170 for Hexalonchilla, 186 for Hexalonchusa and 158 for Staurolonchantha). In consideration of uncertainty for the type specimen of Staurolonchantha, the genus which is published first is selected as the valid name.</p> <p>Nanina</p> <p>Regarding the proposal of Nanina byKozur &amp; Mostler (1982), the genus name was established as follows. The new taxon status for Nanina was first published as a tentative genus name: Pentactinosphaera Nakaseko et al. (1982) with the mention of “ We assigned it to Pentactinosphaera hokurikuensis (Nakaseko) as a tentative name ” (Nakaseko et al. 1982: 423). The available description for Pentactinosphaera was formally described by Nakaseko et al. (1983) with the same type species for Nanina by Kozur &amp; Mostler (1982) published in December 1982. Under the description of Nanina, Kozur &amp; Mostler (1982) cited Nakaseko et al. (1982) with the comment: “ described the internal structure of this genus for the first time ”, but they never cited the nomen nudum name “ Pentactinosphaera ” in the synonym list included in the English abstract or within the figure explanation ofNakaseko et al. (1982). At this time, the Code (ICZN 1964) included on page 93 a “code of ethics” which stated that: “ A zoologist should not establish himself a new taxon if he has reason to believe that another zoologist has already recognized the same taxon [...] He should communicate with the other zoologists [...] consider himself free to establish the new taxon only if the other zoologists [...] fail to do so in a reasonable period (not less than a year). ” As Kozur &amp; Mostler (1982) recognized Nakaseko et al. (1982) as the first describer of the internal structure on page 409, there is no doubt they knew that Nakaseko would prepare a new taxonomic paper for “ Nanina ”. Despite the prescribed code of ethics, Kozur &amp; Mostler (1982) established a new taxon without communicating with Nakaseko (Kozur, personal comm.; Nishimura, personal comm. to NS) and after a very short waiting period (less than a year). The problem is not to identify the first discoverer; instead, the problem lies in understanding why Kozur &amp; Mostler (1982) did not respect the “code of ethics” which could have avoided future trouble regarding the author priority of the taxon, even though this is not a scientific requirement.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF98FE3B065BFC47FB164A43	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF9AFE3A0659FA67FCFE491D.text	038DDA73FF9AFE3A0659FA67FCFE491D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hollandosphaeridae Deflandre 1973	<div><p>Family HOLLANDOSPHAERIDAE Deflandre, 1973</p> <p>Hollandosphaeridae Deflandre, 1973: 1151. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 288.</p> <p>Coscinommida Haeckel, 1887: 208 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]. — Wisniowski 1889: 684 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 16 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Coscinomminae – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 15 [nomen dubium]. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 16. — Chediya 1959: 94.</p> <p>Heliasteridae Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960: 68, 86, 91 [unavailable name] (= Hollandosphaeridae). — Anderson 1983: 50.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Hollandosphaera Deflandre, 1973: 1150 [type species by monotypy; ICZN 1999: art. 67.8: Heliaster hexagonium Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960: 92].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Anomalosoma Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1961: 223. — Hollandosphaera Deflandre, 1973: 1150. — Tetrapetalon Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960: 92.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Coscinomma, Coscinommarium, Coscinommidium, Coscinommonium.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYMS. — Heterosoma Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960 (= Anomalosoma) nec Schaum, 1845; Heliaster Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960 (= Hollandosphaera) nec Gray, 1840.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — One spherical shell with a honeycomb structure and fine internal spicules originating in a center. Architecture of fine internal spicules are variable among genera. Many by-spines or more than eight fine radial spines are present. Neither robust radial beams or spines are present.</p> <p>As for Hollandosphaera, a reddish endoplasm occupies a large portion inside the cortical shell. Hundreds of algal symbionts are scattered along important pseudopodia which radiate throughout the shell. A straight robust axoflagellum appears. Tetrapetalon also possesses algal symbionts. In the axopodial system of periaxoplastid-type: the axoplast is located outside of the nucleus and is attached on a side of the nucleus. Axonemes cross the nucleus through nucleus membrane tunnels and form a thick bundle of axonemes in the intracapsular zone. This thick bundle forms an axoflagellum. The axoplast either encloses the Median Bar (MB) or a relevant structure of the initial spicular system. Conversely, it may be attached on MB or a relevant structure. The nucleus is situated inside the central structure or encloses it. Bundles of axonemes extend to the opposite side of MB or a relevant structure.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Holocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>A precise determination of Hollandosphaeridae relies on the internal structure, but the honeycomb structure of the spherical shell is useful in specifying possible Hollandosphaeridaetaxa. The shell is so fragile that reliable fossil records have not been reported yet. Classical representatives of Cenosphaera and Acanthosphaera, currently Ethmosphaera (Ethmosphaeridae) and Rhaphidocapsa (Actinommidae) in the catalogue, may be mixed with members of Hollandosphaeridae (see remarks for Actinommidae). Internal skeletal structure is illustrated for Hollandosphaera (van de Paverd 1995: pl. 20, fig. 1; Onodera et al. 2011: pl. 3, fig. 3). Living or protoplasmic image was published for Hollandosphaera (Probert et al. 2014: S1, Vil 217, S2, VER 1; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.8.9) and Tetrapetalon (Anderson et al. 1998: pl. 1, fig.1). Fine protoplasmic structure is illustrated for Hollandosphaera (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 2, figs 5-8; pl. 6, fig. 11; pl. 7, fig. 6; pl. 39, figs 1-5; pl. 41, figs 1, 2) and Tetrapetalon (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 1, fig. 10; pl. 41, fig. 4; Anderson et al. 1998: pls 1, 2). Some genera may not have been formally described yet (e.g., Itaki et al. 2012: pl. 2, fig. 3). Algal symbionts of Hollandosphaera are identified as Brandtodinium nutricula by Probert et al. (2014).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF9AFE3A0659FA67FCFE491D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF9BFE3A058FF926FB924C3D.text	038DDA73FF9BFE3A058FF926FB924C3D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Spongosphaeroidea Haeckel 1862	<div><p>Superfamily SPONGOSPHAEROIDEA Haeckel, 1862</p> <p>Spongosphaerida Haeckel, 1862: 239, 452 [as a tribe]; 1882: 455 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Spongosphaeroidea – Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: 196.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Spongy spherical cortical skeleton. Inner part was empty or consisted of a single or double medullary shell. A variable number of three-bladed radial spines, or radial beams, are observed. REMARKS</p> <p>The Spongosphaeroidea corresponds to the Clade D of Lineage I (Sandin et al. 2021) and includes only the family Spongosphaeridae. Classically, this superfamily includes the Spongosphaeridae and Spongodrymidae; however, the Spongodrymidae was grouped in Clade I of Lineage III (Sandin et al. 2021) and represented by “ Plegmosphaerella ”- form of Plegmosphaeromma (specimen ID Vil210, Vil451 of Sandin et al. 2021). The Spongosphaeridae possess robust three-bladed primary radial beams/spines. In contrast, the Spongodrymidae have fibrous radial beams radiating from the microsphere. Both families have a common centroaxoplastid-type protoplasmic structure of the intracapsular zone, but their central structures are quite different. The Spongosphaeridae have double or single medullary shells (Kurihara &amp; Matsuoka 2004) as a stable character, while the central part of the Spongodrymidae is variable: empty hollow, with a structureless mesh, a fine polyhedron microsphere and other infra-species variations (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960; Swanberg et al. 1990).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF9BFE3A058FF926FB924C3D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF9BFE2506B2FC46FDE94887.text	038DDA73FF9BFE2506B2FC46FDE94887.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Spongosphaeridae Haeckel 1862	<div><p>Family SPONGOSPHAERIDAE Haeckel, 1862</p> <p>Spongosphaerida Haeckel, 1862: 239, 452 [as a tribe]; 1882: 455 [as a subfamily]. — Mivart 1878: 177 [as a subsection]. — Stöhr 1880: 119 [as a family].</p> <p>Spongosphaeria – Dunikowski 1882: 187 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Spongosphaerinae – Mast 1910: 177. — Popofsky 1912: 93, 111. — Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: 68, 97. — Anderson 1983: 51, 57. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 287 [with wrong authors as Hollande &amp; Enjumet].</p> <p>Spongosphaera – Hertwig 1937: 22-25 [as a group].</p> <p>Spongosphaeridae – Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: 68, 95, 96. — Anderson 1983: 50, 57. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 286. — van de Paverd 1995: 104 [with wrong authors as Hollande &amp; Enjumet].</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Spongosphaera Ehrenberg, 1847: 54 [type species by subsequent monotypy: Spongosphaera polyacantha Müller, 1856: 487].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Diplospongus Mast, 1910: 61. — Spongodendron Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960: 99. — Spongosphaera Ehrenberg, 1847: 54 (= Hexadoridium n. syn.; Spongosphaeromma synonymized by Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 10).</p> <p>NOMEN DUBIUM. — Spongioconcha.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Thick spongy spherical cortical skeleton with a single or double medullary shell and a variable number of threebladed radial spines.</p> <p>Protoplasm is well observed in Spongosphaera. Endoplasm of brownish gray color, filling a spongy shell. Dark brownish red to reddish brown granular pigments surround the surface of the endoplasm. Axopodia radiate throughout the endoplasm. Algal symbionts are scattered on the endoplasm. Axopodial system of centroaxoplastidtype: the Axoplast is a very small fused point, located within the inner microsphere (inner double medullary shell). Nucleus is located inside the outer medullary shell or is found wrapping it. Significant bundles of axoneme are not present. Instead of bundles, axoneme radiate evenly throughout the intracapsular zone.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — early Middle Miocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The genus Spongosphaera is characterized by a double medullary shell and straight three-bladed radial spines. We place the genera Diplospongus and Spongodendron into Spongosphaeridae based on the presence of three-bladed radial spines, although both genera seem to have a single medullary shell. As Spongosphaera streptacantha is typically found in plankton samples from tropical to subtropical oceans, many observations were related as well as personally observed. S. streptacantha is the only Spumellaria whose images can be captured in the ocean with an autonomous visual plankton recorder (A-VPR) (Nakamura et al. 2017: fig. 2.C). Thus, its taxonomic stability and oceanographic response are important. The number of radial beams of this species is varies from six to twelve, its internal structure was also illustrated in detail (Kurihara &amp; Matsuoka 2004). By referring to this case, other genera belonging to Spongosphaeridae presumably have significant variations. The fine protoplasmic structure was illustrated in Diplospongus (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 6, figs 4-9), Spongodendron (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 6, figs 1-3; pl. 7, fig. 5) and Spongosphaera (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 9, figs 8-10; pl. 22, figs 8, 9; pl. 23, figs 1, 2; pl. 24, fig. 2; pl. 26, fig. 4). An image of living forms was illustrated for Spongosphaera (Cachon et al. 1989: fig. 1; Matsuoka 2007: fig. 5.a; 2017: figs 6.1, 6.2; Matsuoka et al. 2017: appendix A). According to Cachon (1964), “ Spongosphaera ” is infected with Hollandella myceloides, but it is impossible to amend the taxonomic name for the host without having a more complete image. Spongosphaera streptacantha can exceptionally survive in high temperatures (&gt; 30°C) in the Malacca Strait (Zhang et al. 2020) and is also regularly found in 17.1-19.4°C in the Japan Sea (Kurihara &amp; Matsuoka 2010). This is the only one species with this very wide range of survival sea water temperature.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Spongosphaera</p> <p>Morphological variation of Spongosphaera was well illustrated in many previous studies (Kurihara &amp; Matsuoka 2004; van de Paverd 1995: pl. 28, figs 2, 5-7). Hexadoridium is characterized by two concentric medullary lattice shells and a spongy octahedral shell (Campbell 1954: D60). As the specimen identifiable as Hexadoridium streptacanthum is regarded as Spongosphaera polyacantha form streptacantha by van de Paverd (1995: pl. 2, fig. 2), Hexadorium is a synonym of Spongosphaera. Spongosphaeromma is characterized by two medullary lattice shells surrounded by a cortical shell bearing many radial spines (Campbell 1954: D68). Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi (1984: 33) seems to be the first paper to illustrate the type species Spongosphaeromma as “ Spongosphaera helioides ” and this morphological character fits with not only the definition of Spongosphaeromma but also the variation in Spongosphaera. Spongosphaera is the oldest available name among them.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF9BFE2506B2FC46FDE94887	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF84FE25065CFEC6FA48497C.text	038DDA73FF84FE25065CFEC6FA48497C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lithocyclioidea Ehrenberg 1846	<div><p>Superfamily LITHOCYCLIOIDEA Ehrenberg, 1846</p> <p>Lithocyclidina Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [as a family].</p> <p>Phacodiscaria Haeckel, 1887: 409 [as a section between family and suborder]. — Chediya 1959: 120 [as a group between superfamily and family]. — Anderson 1983: 24.</p> <p>Coccodiscaea – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 224 [as a superfamily]. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1972: 7 (sensu emend.) [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Coccodiscilae – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 224 [as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Coccodiscoidea – Dumitrica 1979: 21.</p> <p>Phacodiscariacea – Lipman 1979: 114 [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Artiscacea [sic] – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 47 [nomen dubium, as a superfamily].</p> <p>Lithocycliacea – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1981: 52.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Central structure comprised of a flattened double medullary shell. The flattened double medullary shell consists of a spherical inner medullary shell (or inner microsphere) and a convex, lens-shaped outer medullary shell. The equatorial plane is defined by a crossing plane that is parallel to the flattened double medullary shell. The double medullary shell that lies at the center of the large latticed shell. Large empty space is present between the large latticed and double medullary shell. The surface of the large latticed shell is parallel to the equatorial plane. Radial beams between the double medullary shell and the cortical shell develop along the shortest distance between the two aforementioned shells. Main appendages or additional structures develop along the longest axis, or on the plane vertical to the shortest axis.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Lithocyclioidea include the Astracturidae, Lithocycliidae, Panartidae and Phacodiscidae. The Lithocyclioidea correspond to the family “ Coccodiscidae ” sensu De Wever et al. (2001: 121). To keep consistency in the taxonomy of Polycystinea, this rank has been raised to the superfamily level. Three families Astracturidae, Lithocycliidae and Phacodiscidae are distinguished by their difference in exterior structure of the outermost latticed shell. The higher taxonomic position of this family is based on the molecular phylogeny of Panartidae.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF84FE25065CFEC6FA48497C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF84FE2406A9F987FB4149FD.text	038DDA73FF84FE2406A9F987FB4149FD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Astracturidae Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Family ASTRACTURIDAE Haeckel, 1882</p> <p>Astracturida Haeckel, 1882: 458 [as a tribe]; 1887: 458, 469 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Astracturinae – Campbell 1954: D82. — Chediya 1959: 130. — Petrushevskaya 1979: 113 (sensu emend.). — Amon 2000: 49.</p> <p>Astracturidae – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1972: 46-48.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Astractura Haeckel, 1882: 458 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D82): Astractura ordinata Haeckel, 1887: 476] = junior subjective synonym of Astromma Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [type species by subsequent monotypy: Astromma aristotelis Ehrenberg, 1847: 55].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Astromma Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Astractinium with the same type species; Astractura n. syn., Astracturium n. syn., Astrococcura n. syn., Staurococcura n. syn.). — Amphactura Haeckel 1882: 468 (=? Dicoccura n. syn.,? Diplactinium n. syn.). — Hymeniastrum Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Hymenastrella with the same type species; Hymenactura n. syn., Hymenacturium n. syn., Trigonactinium n. syn.; Hymenactinium, Pentactura, Trigonacturium synonymized by Kozur &amp; Mostler 1972: 46).</p> <p>INVALID NAMES. — Amphiactura, Astrococcus.</p> <p>NOMEN DUBIUM. — Diplacturium.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Roughly flat shell with a large convex lens-shaped latticed shell. A three-dimensional grid-like architecture formed by the arms is observed; frequently evolving from two to four arms, rarely more. Radial beams arise from the outer medullary shell and radiate towards both sides of the equatorial plane. These beams are connected to the large latticed shell. A bladed, solid and robust spine penetrates through the central axis of each arm in some members but is never seen connected to the medullary shell. No structure extends to both sides of the equatorial plane.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. —Late Middle Eocene-Early Oligocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>A series of publications by Riedel and Sanfilippo (e.g., Sanfilippo et al. 1985) grouped several genera of both Lithocycliidae and Astracturidae into the single genus Lithocyclia. These were apparently miscategorized with several genera of different stratigraphic ranges. Thus, we are separating more genera than they did for the goal of future discussion. Internal skeletal structure was illustrated for Astromma (Pisias &amp; Moore 1978: pl. 5, figs 1, 2).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Astromma</p> <p>As “ Astromma entomocora ” was wrongly assigned as type species of Astromma by Campbell (1954: D74), this genus was once applied for Didymocyrtis (Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 522; Petrushevskaya 1975: 578). Once we disassembled Astromma (= Astracturium in original) and Hymeniastrum from the synonymy of Lithocyclia by Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo (1971: 522), the so-called 50-year rule (ICZN 1999: Article 23.9 “Reversal of precedence”) is not an applicable case for both these genera. Astractura and Astracturium have the same type species and are characterized by four crossed chambered arms, no patagium and a simple medullar shell (Campbell 1954: D82-83). Astrococcura and Astrococcus have the same type species and can be considered as having a double medullary shell (Campbell 1954: D83). Staurococcura is characterized by the presence of a patagium and double medullary shells (Campbell 1954: D84). The lectotype of Astromma found in the Ehrenberg collection (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 71, figs 1a-c) possess a double medullary shell and the different development of the patagium continues from a non-patagium form to a fully-grown form, and, thus, these genera listed here cannot be differentiated at a species level. Astromma is the oldest available name among them (1846 for Astromma; 1882 for Astractura; 1887 for Astractinium, Astracturium; 1896 for Astrococcura and Staurococcura; 1954 for Astrococcus).</p> <p>Amphactura</p> <p>The same type species was designated for both Amphactura and Amphiactura. The distinction of Diplactinium is suspect because no real specimens assignable to this genus were found during a long time. We simply keep it as valid for a future examination. Diplactinium is characterized by a single medullary shell, no patagium and the presence of a distal spine whereas Amphactura is characterized by the former and double medullary shell with a patagium (Campbell 1954: D82-83). Dicoccura is defined by the lack of a patagium and the presence of a double medullary shell (Campbell1954: D83). The synonymy among Amphactura, Diplactinium and Dicoccura is problematic. The lectotype of Amphactura has a high possibility to a broken specimen of Astromma. A different medullary shell is not confirmed for Diplactinium so we have it questionably synonymized with Amphactura. The exactly same morphotypes, excepted for the occurrence of a distal spine on the arms, are commonly found in the same samples so this indicator is not used at genus-level. Like Astromma, the patagium has different growth stages in the same species. The valid name is automatically Amphactura because this genus was the oldest available name among them.</p> <p>Hymeniastrum</p> <p>Hymeniastrum was used as a valid genus within 50 years (Tan 1998: 224; Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 221). Hymenactura and Hymenacturium have the same type species and are characterized by a patagium, blunt and truncated arms, but no terminal spines (Campbell 1954: D83). Hymenactinium has a patagium and a terminal spine on the distal end of each arm (Campbell 1954: D83); Trigonactinium is characterized by a patagium and arms with a distal radial spine (Campbell 1954: D84), and Trigonacturium by arms distally blunt, or truncated, not with a terminal spine (Campbell 1954: D84). The Nomarski imaging of Hymeniastrum pythagorae for the supporting image of Hymenastrella in the Atlas displays the axial rod which is relevant to the terminal spine inside an arm. As other genera of this family, the patagium as well as the terminal spine on the arm are not characteristic at genus level. The lectotype of Pentactura (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 69, figs 1a-c) confirms the simple drawing of Ehrenberg (1876: pl. 30, fig. 1) with more than five arms. The arrangement of the arms is not such as a cross unlike Astromma so this genus is close to Hymeniastrum. The oldest available names among this group is Hymenastrella (1846 for Hymeniastrum, 1882 for Hymenactura and Pentactura; 1887 for Hymenastrella, Hymenacturium, Hymenactinium, Trigonactinium and Trigonacturium).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF84FE2406A9F987FB4149FD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF85FE2606BBF909FA564D7D.text	038DDA73FF85FE2606BBF909FA564D7D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lithocycliidae Ehrenberg 1846	<div><p>Family LITHOCYCLIIDAE Ehrenberg, 1846</p> <p>Lithocyclidina Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [as a family]; 1847: 54 [as a family]; 1876: 156. — Schomburgk 1847: 124, 126 [as a family].</p> <p>Coccodiscida Haeckel, 1862: 240, 485 [as a tribe]; 1882: 458 [as a subfamily]; 1887: 409, 455-458 [as a family]. — Zittel 1876-1880: 124 [rank unknown]. — Mivart 1878: 176 [as subsection]. — Bütschli 1889: 1959 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 166 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 24 [as a family].</p> <p>Lithocyclida – Haeckel 1882: 458 [as a tribe]; 1887: 458, 459 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Staurocyclida Haeckel, 1882: 458 [as a tribe].</p> <p>Trochodiscida Haeckel, 1887: 411, 412 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 39 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Heliosestrida Haeckel, 1887: 421, 427 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 41 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Coccodiscidae – Poche 1913: 209. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944b: 14. — Campbell 1954: D82. — Chediya 1959: 128. — Riedel 1967b: 294; 1971: 653-654. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1971: 1588; 1977: 865. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1972: 45. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 522. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 169. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 125. — Dumitrica 1979: 21-22; 1984: 96. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1980: 1009 (sensu emend.). — Anderson 1983: 38-39. — Sanfilippo et al. 1985: 653. — Blueford 1988: 248. — Takahashi 1991: 79. — van de Paverd 1995: 137. — Boltovskoy 1998: 31. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1002. — De Wever et al. 2001: 121. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S288. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 131. — Chen et al. 2017: 137-138.</p> <p>Lithocyclinae – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944b: 14. — Chediya, 1959: 128.</p> <p>Heliosestrinae – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944b: 14. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 20. — Campbell 1954: D78. — Chediya 1959: 125.</p> <p>Trochodiscinae – Campbell 1954: D77 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 122.</p> <p>Coccodiscinae – Campbell 1954: D82. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1972: 45-46. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 523. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1980: 1009. — Dumitrica 1984: 97. — Sanfilippo et al. 1985: 653. — De Wever et al. 2001: 121. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S288. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 131.</p> <p>Lithocycliidae – Petrushevskaya 1986: 128. — Kozlova 1999: 83.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Lithocyclia Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [type species by subsequent monotypy: Astromma aristotelis Ehrenberg, 1847: 55].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Cromyatractus Haeckel, 1887: 334 (= Cromyatractium with the same type species; Caryatractus n. syn.). — Heliosestrum Haeckel, 1882: 457 (= Heliosestantha with the same type species; Astrosestrum synonymized by Kozur &amp; Mostler 1972: 19; Astrosestantha n. syn., Astrophacura n. syn.). — Heliostylus Haeckel, 1882: 457 (= Astrostylus synonymized by Kozur &amp; Mostler 1972: 19; Stylodiscus synonymized by Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1973: 522, Stylentodiscus n. syn.). — Lithocyclia Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Astrocyclia synonymized by Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970: 522; Coccodiscus synonymized by Kozur &amp; Mostler 1972: 46). — Phacostaurus Haeckel, 1882: 457 (= Phacostaurium with the same type species; Astrostaurus synonymized with Kozur &amp; Mostler 1972: 19; Crucidiscus n. syn., Heliostaurus n. syn., Sethostaurium n. syn., Sethostaurus n. syn., Staurentodiscus n. syn.). — Phacotriactis Sutton, 1896: 61. — Sethostylus Haeckel 1882: 457 (= Sethostylium with the same type species; Amphicyclia synonymized by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 522; Phacostylus n. syn., Phacostylium n. syn.). — Staurocyclia Haeckel, 1882: 458 (= Coccostaurus synonymized by Campbell 1954: D82). — Triactiscus Haeckel, 1882: 457 (= Trigonocyclia n. syn.).</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Coccocyclia, Echinactura, Heliosestomma, Pristodiscus, Stauractinium, Stauractura, Stauracturium, Staurexodiscus, Stylexodiscus, Theodiscoma, Theodiscura, Theodiscus, Trochodisculus, Trochodiscus.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYM. — Staurodiscus Krasheninnikov, 1960 (= Heliosestrum) nec Haeckel, 1879.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Shell roughly flat, consisting of a large convex lensshaped latticed shell. Radial beams arise from the outer medullary shell and radiate to both sides of the equatorial plane. They are connected to the large latticed shell. No three-dimensional gridlike arms are observed. One of the following exterior structures is present outside of the large latticed shell: - a wide ring made of a grid-like structure (e.g., Cromyatractus, Lithocyclia, Staurocyclia); - a solid flat circular edge surrounded by many solid arrowhead-like short spines (e.g., Heliosestrum); - and/or two to four solid spines distributed under two-fold, threefold or four-fold symmetries (e.g., Cromyatractus, Heliostylus, Phacostaurus, Phacotriactis, Staurocyclia, Triactiscus). Radial spines, if present, are not connected with the double medullary shell; or connected to the double medullary shell (e.g., Amphicyclia, Cromyatractus and Heliostylus). No significant structures develop on each of the two sides of the equatorial plane.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This family used to be named Coccodiscidae. However, the oldest senior synonym is Lithocycliidae Ehrenberg 1846, and not Coccodiscidae Haeckel 1862. Lithocycliidae was used as a valid family (see synonymy above); the valid family name must therefore be Lithocycliidae. The Lithocycliidae are distinguished from the Astracturidae due to presence of three-dimensional grid-like arms. Lithocycliidae are also distinguished from the Phacodiscidae in the absence of any exterior structure excepting a simple, circular solid edge. Differing from the distinguishing characteristics of the family Lithocycliidae; Amphicyclia, Cromyatractus and Heliostylus possess two polar primary radial beams connected by the polar radial spines and a spindle-shaped second inner shell which is connected to the innermost shell by a few radial beams. These three genera are to be separated from the Lithocycliidae. The drawings of Astrostaurus, Crucidiscus and Staurocyclia show a crisscrossing of four radial beams in the third shell, but these structures have not been observed in an actual specimen. Heliodiscus (Heliodiscidae) is sometimes confused with Heliosestrum due to the presence of equatorial radial spines, but the former genus has a characteristically different microsphere that is unusually located in the second inner shell. It should be noted that the Lithocycliidae is an extinct family whereas the Heliodiscidae is a living family. Moreover, overall images of Heliosestrum can be distinguished from Heliodiscus by the observed lateral profile of the cortical and pore patterns (Suyari &amp; Yamasaki 1987: pl. 3, fig. 15; 1988: pl. 3, fig. 14). Scanning electron images of Heliosestrum are also similar to those of Lithocyclia, but the latter tends to have an increased number of systematically arranged pores on the cortical shell and lattice margin (Suyari &amp; Yamasaki 1988: pl. 8, fig. 14).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Cromyatractus</p> <p>Cromyatractus and Cromyatractum have the same type species. Cromyatractus has two medullary shells and two cortical shells whereas Caryatractus is marked by three or more elliptical lattice shells (Campbell 1954: D70). As displayed by the supporting images for Cromyatractus and Cromyatractum, the number of shells is different in ontogenetic stages and/or following preservation. All these available genera are established in the same publication (Haeckel 1887: 334 for Cromyatractus, 335 for Cromyatractum and 336 for Caryatractus), the valid genus is objectively decided to be Cromyatractus because the remaining two available names are established as subgenera of Cromyatractus under Article 24.1 of ICZN (1999).</p> <p>Heliosestrum</p> <p>The combination of Astrosestrum and Astrosestantha, and that of Heliosestrum and Heliosestantha have respectively the same type species. The differences among the genera we synonymize here are the number of radial spines on the margin of the shell, the state of development of a solid equatorial girdle, a spiny or smooth cortical shell (Campbell 1954: D78 for Astrosestrum and Heliosestrum and D82 for Astrophacura). These characteristics were regarded as intraspecific variations in numerous papers. Astrosestrum and Heliosestrum are the oldest available name published in 1882. Hollis (1997: 41) acted as a first reviser to validate Heliosestrum.</p> <p>Phacostaurus</p> <p>The combination of Phacostaurus and Phacostaurium, of Crucidiscus and Staurentodiscus, and of Sethostaurus and Sethostaurium is based respectively on the same type species. Phacostaurus is characterized by a simple margin (Campbell 1954: D79), Astrostaurus by a solid equatorial girdle or a corona of tiny by-spines (Campbell 1954: D80), Crucidiscus by internal centripetal rods (Campbell 1954: D79), Sethostaurus by a simple medullary shell and a simple margin (Campbell 1954: D81), and Heliostaurus by a solid equatorial girdle (Campbell 1954: D81). As other genera in the Lithocycliidae, the state of development of the solid equatorial ring and the tiny by-spines are intraspecies variations. However, the presence of internal centripetal rods may be different among genera. Four oldest available names were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1882: 457 for Phacostaurus, Astrostaurus, Sethostaurus and Heliostaurus). As there are no fundamental differences among them, we selected Phacostaurus which is well illustrated in Haeckel (1887).</p> <p>Sethostylus</p> <p>The combined Phacostylus and Phacostylium, and the combined Sethostylus and Sethostylium have the same type species, respectively. Amphicyclia is characterized by two solid spines, no chambered arms, and double medually shells (Campbell 1954: D82); Phacostylus by a margin of the disc with two opposite radial spines and a double medullary shell (Campbell 1954: D78, 80); Sethostylus by a disc with a simple margin, two opposite radial spines and a simple medullary shell (Campbell 1954: D78, 81). A thick cortical shell such as in Sethostylus prevents any observation of the innermost shell. As far as we read the distinguishing morphological characteristics written in Campbell (1954), nothing appears different among these three genera except for the connection between a radial spine and the outer medullary shell. Amphicyclia, Phacostylus and Sethostylus were established in the same publication (Haeckel 1882: 485, 457, in ascending order). Nobody had used Amphicyclia except Kozur &amp; Mostler 1972 in a wrong way; however, Sethostylus has been used by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova (1972: 522) and even they considered Phacostylus a junior synonym of Sethostylus. In such case Sethostylus has priority over Amphicyclia.</p> <p>Triactiscus</p> <p>The illustrations of the type species of Triactiscus and Trigonocyclia show obviously different internal structures but no specimens supporting the illustration of Trigonocyclia were found. Triactiscus is an available name older than Trigonocyclia.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF85FE2606BBF909FA564D7D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF87FE200685FD86FE164DDC.text	038DDA73FF87FE200685FD86FE164DDC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Panartidae Haeckel 1887	<div><p>Family PANARTIDAE Haeckel, 1887</p> <p>Panartida Haeckel, 1887: 288, 375 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1957 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 161. — Schröder 1909: 3 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 23.</p> <p>Artiscida Haeckel, 1882: 462 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]; 1887: 288, 354 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1956 [as a family]; Schröder 1909: 3 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 23.</p> <p>Cyphinida Haeckel, 1882: 462 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]; 1887: 288, 359-360 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1956 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 160.— Schröder 1909: 3 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 23.</p> <p>Zygartida Haeckel, 1882: 462 [nomen dubium, as a family]; 1884: 29 [as a family]; 1887: 288, 391-392 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1958 [as a family]. — Schröder 1909: 3 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 23.</p> <p>Artisoida – Haeckel 1887: 288 [nomen dubium, as a family].</p> <p>Druppulida Haeckel, 1887: 288, 306 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1955 [as a family]. — Schröder 1909: 3 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 23 [as a family].</p> <p>Zygocampida Haeckel, 1887: 392 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Desmocampida Haeckel, 1887: 392 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Phacopylida Dreyer, 1889: 28 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Druppuliden – Haecker 1907: 119 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Druppulidae – Popofsky 1908: 219 [nomen dubium]; 1912: 114; Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 32; 1945: 19. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 18. — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 20. — Campbell 1954: D69. — Orlev 1959: 440. — Chediya 1959: 108. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 122. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 149. — Blueford 1988: 248. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 151. — Tan 1998: 189. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 195. — Chen et al. 2017: 134.</p> <p>Cyphinidae – Popofsky 1908: 220-221 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 116. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 237. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 150. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 151. — Tan 1998: 198. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 201. — Chen et al. 2017: 137.</p> <p>Panartidae – Popofsky 1908: 221; 1912: 121. — Campbell, 1954: D75. — Chediya 1959: 118. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 238. — Tan 1998: 200.</p> <p>Pipettarida Schröder, 1909: 37 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Artiscidae – Poche 1913: 209 [nomen dubium]. — Deflandre 1953: 421 (sensu emend.). — Campbell 1954: D74. — Chediya 1959: 115. — Petrushevskaya 1975: 577. — Dumitrica 1979: 22. — Petrushevskaya 1979: 114-115.</p> <p>Zygartidae – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 23 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D76. — Chediya 1959: 119. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 151.</p> <p>Zygartinae – Campbell 1954: D76 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Desmocampinae – Campbell 1954: D76. — Chediya 1959: 119 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Cyphantidae Campbell, 1954: D74 [junior homonym].</p> <p>Zygocampinae – Chediya 1959: 120 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Cyphantellidae – Loeblich &amp;Tappan 1961: 223 [junior homonym].</p> <p>Artiscinae – Riedel 1967b: 294 (sensu emend.) [nomen dubium]; 1971: 652. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1971: 1587. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 521. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 169. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 863. — Sakai 1980: 705. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1980: 1009. — Anderson 1983: 37-38. — Dumitrica 1984: 97. — Sanfilippo et al. 1985: 655. — Takahashi 1991: 79. — De Wever et al. 2001: 123. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S288. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 131.</p> <p>Artistidae [sic] – Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 122 [nomen dubium] (= Artiscidae).</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Panartus Haeckel, 1887: 376 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D76): Panartus tetrathalamus Haeckel, 1887: 378] = junior subjective synonym of Didymocyrtis Haeckel, 1862: 445 [type species by absolute tautonomy: Haliomma didymocyrtis Haeckel, 1861a: 816].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Cannartus Haeckel, 1882: 462 (= Cannartidissa, Cannartiscus, Pipetta, Pipettaria, Pipettella synonymized by Riedel 1971: 652; Druppula n. syn., Druppuletta n. syn.). — Diartus Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel, 1980: 1010. — Didymocyrtis Haeckel, 1862: 445 (= Artidium n. syn., Cyphinura n. syn., Cyphocolpus n. syn., Desmartus n. syn., Ommatocampula n. syn., Panaromium n. syn., Panartus, Panartella synonymized by Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1980: 1010, Panartidium n. syn., Panartissa n. syn., Panartura n. syn., Peripanartium n. syn., Peripanartula n. syn., Peripanartus n. syn., Peripanicula n. syn.). — Spongolivella Dumitrica, 2021: 2.</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Artocarpium.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Artiscium, Artiscus, Cannartidella, Cannartidium, Caryodruppula, Cladospyris, Cromyocarpus, Cromyodruppa, Cromyodruppium, Cypassis, Cyphantella, Cyphantissa, Cyphinidium, Cyphinidoma, Cyphinidura, Cyphinoma, Cyphinus, Cyphonium, Desmocampe, Didymospyris, Diplellipsis, Druppocarpetta, Druppocarpissa, Druppocarpus, Haeckelocyphanta, Ommatacantha, Ommatartus, Ommatocorona, Ommatocyrtis, Ommatospyris, Panarelium, Panarium, Panartoma, Panicidium, Panicium, Peripanarium, Peripanicea, Peripanicium, Phacopyle, Prunocarpetta, Prunocarpilla, Prunocarpus, Prunulissa, Spongoliva, Spongolivetta, Spongolivina, Stylartella, Stylartura, Stylartus, Zygartus, Zygocampe.</p> <p>NOMEN NUDUM. — Ommatocoryne.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYMS. — Cyphanta Haeckel, 1887 nec Walker, 1865 (= Cyphantella).</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Lithocyclioidea with twin oval balloon-shaped latticed shells. The equatorial plane of the flattened double medullary shell is vertical to the longest axis of the fully-grown shell. Balloonshaped latticed shells, nearly all equal in size, are disposed along the equatorial plane. Radial beams emanating from the flattened double medullary shell extend across the equatorial plane to connect with the latticed shell.</p> <p>A reddish endoplasm occupies the inner part of shell and a yellow-</p> <p>ish red endoplasm encases them within the outermost shell. Algal symbionts are scattered inside and outside of the outermost shell. Nucleus is located inside the medullary shell. A long, robust axoflagellum extends from the longest axis of the fully-grown shell. The axoflagellum is perpendicular to the equatorial plane of the flattened double medullary shell.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Oligocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This family is easily distinguishable from any other of the spumellarian families by the virtue of its morphology closely resembling that of a drum. This family was once called either as “ Artiscinae ” or “Artiscinidae”, but this familiar name is unacceptable as it is based on an unillustrated type species. The genus Panartus and the family name Panartidae were used in several Chinese radiolarian monographs (e.g., Tan &amp; Tchang 1976; Tan 1998) and there is no longer logical reason to retain the family name “ Artiscinae ” or “Artiscinidae.” Considering the genus Actinomma was significantly separated from the family Panartidae by molecular phylogeny analyses (KrabberØd et al. 2011; Sandin et al. 2021). The Panartidae is presumed to be quite different from the Lithocycliidae (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1981: fig. 12-6). The morphological changes of Panartidae genera were continually traced over the early Miocene at a morphospecies level (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1971: pls 1C, 2C; Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1980: text-fig. 1; Sanfilippo et al. 1985: 656). Their morphological changes were analyzed with quantitative methods (Sachs &amp; Hasson 1979; Kellogg 1980) and using more sophisticated mathematical methods (Yoshino et al. 2019). The Panartidae are polycystines of particular importance to high resolution age determination so the criteria for identifying at specific level should be standardized (Sakai 1980; Sanfilippo et al. 1985). However, the Panartidae have been carefully identified in mid-latitudes samples due to there being several undescribed species in the mid-latitudes of the North Pacific (e.g., “ Cannartus lineage” and “ Ommatartus lineage” in Sakai 1980), of the Southern Ocean (e.g., Lazarus 1992) and of the North Atlantic (Nishimura A. 1987). This suggests that the evolutionary history of Cannartus, Diartus and Didymocyrtis shown in Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel (1980) never included other panartid species.</p> <p>Many biological studies were carried out on living Didymocyrtis as they are commonly collected in plankton sampling.The relationship between their cytological structures was examined in detail (Sugiyama &amp; Anderson 1998a). Illustration of living forms were given for Didymocyrtis (Matsuoka 1993b: pl. 3, figs 5, 6; 2017: figs 9.1, 9.2; Sugiyama &amp; Anderson 1998a; text-figs 1-7, Takahashi et al. 2003: figs 3, 4; Suzuki &amp; Aita 2011: fig. 4K; Probert et al. 2014: S1, SES 19; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.4.1, 8.8.5; Matsuoka et al. 2017: appendix A) and its internal skeletal structure was illustrated (Anderson et al. 1986a: pl. 1, figs 3, 4; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 4, fig. 7; Matsuoka 2009: fig. 3.20-3.24). Algal symbionts were documented by epi-fluorescent observation with DAPI dyeing for Didymocyrtis (Zhang et al. 2018: 11, fig. 8). Algal symbionts of Didymocyrtis were identified as Brandtodinium nutricula by Probert et al. (2014).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Cannartus</p> <p>In addition to the synonymy published byRiedel (1971: 652), Druppula and Druppuletta are synonymized with Cannartus because the young form of Cannartus lacks the polar tubes as shown by the supporting images for these two genera. Cannartus was established in 1882 and all the other available genera listed here were published in 1887.</p> <p>Didymocyrtis</p> <p>All type species listed in the genera synonymy fall in the species conception of the Didymocyrtis -lineages of Sanfilippo et al. (1985: 656-660). Didymocyrtis, the oldest available name was published in 1862. All the other available names were published in 1882 and later.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF87FE200685FD86FE164DDC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF81FE2005C1FD24FA494C82.text	038DDA73FF81FE2005C1FD24FA494C82.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Phacodiscidae Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Family PHACODISCIDAE Haeckel, 1882</p> <p>Phacodiscida Haeckel, 1882: 456 [as a subfamily]; 1887: 409, 419-421 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1958 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 165 [as a family]. — Schröder 1909: 3 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 24 [as a family].</p> <p>Phacodisciden – Haecker 1907: 123.</p> <p>Phacodiscidae – Haecker 1908: 444. — Popofsky 1912: 126. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 38; 1945: 20. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944b: 14. — Campbell 1954: D78. — Orlev 1959: 443. — Chediya 1959: 124. — Riedel 1967b: 294; 1971: 653. — Nigrini 1974: 1065. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 169. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 125. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 241. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 864. — Dumitrica 1979: 21. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 35 (sensu emend.). — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 151. — Anderson 1983: 38. — Takahashi 1991: 89. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 151. — Hollis 1997: 40. — Boltovskoy 1998: 31. — Tan 1998: 203. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 204. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1002.</p> <p>Phacodiscinae – Campbell 1954: D78. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 522. — Dumitrica 1984: 96-97.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Phacodiscus Haeckel, 1882: 457 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D78): Phacodiscus rotula Haeckel, 1887: 424].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Periphaena Ehrenberg, 1874: 246 (= Astrophacomma, Heliodiscomma synonymized by Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1973: 522; Perizona synonymized by Kozur &amp; Mostler 1972: 19). — Phacodiscus Haeckel, 1882: 457 (= Phacodiscinus with the same type species; Astrophacilla n. syn., Paracenodiscus n. syn., Phacodisculus n. syn., Prunulum n. syn., Prunuletta n. syn., Sethodiscinus n. syn.).</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Coccymelium.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Conophacodiscus, Pentadiscus, Triadiscus.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Shell roughly flat, consists of a large convex lensshaped latticed shell. Radial beams arise from the outer medullary shell and radiate to both sides of the equatorial plane. These beams are connected to the large latticed shell. Exterior structure outside of the large latticed shell absent or exclusively represented by a simple solid flat circular edge which is surrounded by distinctive solid arrowhead-like short spines. No structure extends to both sides of the equatorial plane.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Eocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Phacodiscus shares a homeomorphous appearance to Heliodiscus representatives without spines. The latter genus is a living form and has a characteristic microsphere, always eccentrically placed in the second inner shell (outer double medullary shell). The Phacodiscidae are an extinct family, whereas Heliodiscidae is a common component of living plankton. Periphaena has a special distinguishable pore near its center on one side of the cortical shell, probably an exit for the axoflagellum (Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 16, fig. 6). The internal skeletal structure of Periphaena has been illustrated (Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 16, fig. 5).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Phacodiscus</p> <p>The same type species was designated for the following combinations of genera: Phacodiscus and Phacodiscinus; and Prunulum, Prunuletta and Coccymelium. Haeckel (1887) seems to propose new taxon name for differently oriented specimens in some cases. Sethodiscinus is considered to have a simple medullary shell (Campbell 1954: D78), but the innermost shell is known to be easily dissolved. Phacodiscus is validated due to the oldest available name among them. The type image for Phacodiscus is poor (Haeckel 1887: pl. 35, fig. 7) but it is unfortunately “ Phacodiscus ” can be precisely identified by using this poor image.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF81FE2005C1FD24FA494C82	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF81FE230644FBE5FE0849BC.text	038DDA73FF81FE230644FBE5FE0849BC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Spongodiscoidea Haeckel 1862	<div><p>Superfamily SPONGODISCOIDEA Haeckel, 1862</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Spongodiscida Haeckel, 1862: 239, 452, 460 [as a tribe]; 1882: 461 [as a subfamily]; 1887: 409, 573-575 [as a family].</p> <p>Euchitoniilae – Campbell 1954: D86 [as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Spongodiscacea [sic] – Pessagno 1971a: 16, 19 [as a superfamily] (= Spongodiscoidea); 1972: 273, 296 [as a superfamily]; 1973: 50, 56 [as a superfamily]; 1976: 25 [as a superfamily]; 1977b: 930 [as a superfamily]. — Dumitrica 1984: 100 [as a superfamily]. — De Wever et al. 2001: 158.</p> <p>Spongodiscilae – Pessagno 1971a: 19 [as a subsuperfamily]; 1972: 278 [as a subsuperfamily]; 1973: 50 [as a subsuperfamily]; 1976: 25 [as a subsuperfamily]; 1977b: 930 [as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Spongodiscoidea – Petrushevskaya 1975: 573;Petrushevskaya 1979: 110-111; 1984: 132; Petrushevskaya 1986: 128. — Dumitrica 1979: 25. — Amon 2000: 33. — Bragin 2011: 757-758. — Suzuki et al. 2009d: 251.</p> <p>Spongodiscata – Afanasieva et al. 2005: S288 [as an order, pars]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 130-131.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Flat-shaped Polycystinea with or without, un-walled pylome (excluding Ommatocampe). Radial spines and radial beams emanating from the center to the periphery of disk are absent.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Spongodiscoidea include the Spongodiscidae (including Clade E2) Euchitoniidae (including Clade E3), Spongobrachiidae and. Panartidae and Spongosphaeridae should also be preferable grouped with these three families according to molecular results (100% PhyML bootstrap values with 10000 replicates and&gt;0.99 posterior probabilities), but we keep morphological (instead molecular) groups as a consensus. Spongodiscoidea in the sense of this catalogue comprise Clades E2 and E3 of Sandin et al. (2021). Not only are these subclades unstable, but representatives of the genus Spongolivella (originally Cypassis) were scattered in Clades E2 and E3.</p> <p>Molecular phylogenetic studies (e.g., Ishitani et al. 2012; Sandin et al. 2021) clearly revealed that the so-called spongodiscids are divided into three groups at a superfamily level. One group includes Dictyocoryne, Tricranastrum (originally Myelastrum), Spongaster and Spongodiscus, classified in Spongodiscoidea; the second group, the Trematodiscoidea, includes Flustrella; and the third group is formed by Schizodiscus and Spongobrachiopyle, classified in Spongopyloidea. Flat-shaped Polycystinea show a high morphological convergence meaning that an unsophisticated recognition of such a structure as “spongy” or “concentric” leads to a completely false identification and contributes to confusion regarding Spongodiscoidea, Trematodiscoidea and Spongopyloidea. The principal differences among Euchitoniidae, Spongobrachiidae and Spongodiscidae are: 1) a central structure around the spinose microsphere; 2) an ultra-fine structure throughout the shell; and 3) an upcropping condition of the central structure on both polar sides. No simple difference between Spongodiscoidea and Trematodiscoidea is known. The Spongodiscoidea differs from Spongopyloidea by having a walled pylome tube emanating from the microsphere and a disk made of very short parts of discontinuous concentric structures. Trematodiscidae have a microsphere with decussate primary radial beams, exterior concentric hoops which never cover the inner hoops, and four or more straight radial beams originating from the center to the periphery of the disk. A simple way to differentiate the Spongodiscoidea from the Spongopyloidea lies in examining the wall-status of the pylome. The pylome was illustrated in Dictyocoryne (Euchitoniidae) (Matsuoka 1992c: pl. 2, figs 7, 8; 1993b: pl. 1, figs 1, 2; 1994: figs 3.B-3.D, 6.A-6.D), Spongaster (Spongodiscidae) (Matsuoka 1994: fig. 3.B-3.D) and the Pseudocephalis -form of an undescribed genus (Spongodiscidae) (Matsuoka 1994: figs 5.B-5.E).</p> <p>Many described species cannot be placed into an appropriate genus as many genera of Spongodiscoidea remain undescribed. In particular, “ Spongotrochus glacialis ” which is quite different from any other flat-shaped polycystines (Petrushevskaya 1975: pl. 35, figs 1-6; Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 29, figs 1-3; pl. 31, figs 2,3). Other undescribed genera remain in classically established Spongodiscoidea (Jouse 1977: pl. 137, fig. 7; pl. 141, fig. 16; Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 32, figs 3; pl. 33, fig. 1; pl. 35, fig. 4).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF81FE230644FBE5FE0849BC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF82FE2205D8F889FC334EFD.text	038DDA73FF82FE2205D8F889FC334EFD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Calocyclas sensu emend.	<div><p>Family SPONGODISCIDAE Haeckel, 1862 sensu Suzuki emend. hereinSpongodiscida Haeckel, 1862: 239, 452, 460 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1882: 461 [as a subfamily]; Haeckel 1887: 409, 573-575 [as a family]. — Stöhr 1880: 117 [as a family]. — Dunikowski 1882: 190 [as a subfamily]. — Bütschli 1889: 1964 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 172 [as a family]. — Schröder 1909: 3 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 24 [as a family].Spongodiscidae – Pantanelli 1880: 49. — Popofsky 1908: 226; 1912: 143. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 47; 1945: 25 — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 27; 1944b: 18. — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 25-26. — Campbell 1954: D93. — Orlev 1959: 449-450. — Chediya 1959: 146. — Riedel 1967b: 295 (sensu emend.); Riedel 1971: 654. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1971: 1588. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 528. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1973: 523- 524. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 169. — Petrushevskaya 1975: 547. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 125. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 255. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 866; 1977: 866. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 156 (sensu emend.). — Dumitrica 1979: 25; 1984: 100; 1995: 26. — Petrushevskaya 1979: 111-112. — De Wever 1982a: 190. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 157. — Anderson 1983: 39. — Sanfilippo et al. 1985: 660. — Blueford 1988: 252. — Takahashi 1991: 83. — van de Paverd 1995: 148-149. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 151. — Hollis 1997: 50. — Boltovskoy 1998: 31-32. — Cordey 1998: 92. — Kiessling 1999: 42. — Kozlova 1999: 93. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 230. — Amon 2000: 33-34. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1002. — De Wever et al. 2001: 158, 160. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S288. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 131. — Ogane et al. 2009a: 84. — Chen et al. 2017: 145. Spongotrochida Haeckel, 1882: 461 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 575 [as a subfamily]. — Dunikowski 1882: 190 [as a tribe]. — Schröder 1909: 50 [as a subfamily].Spongotrochinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 48; Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 26. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 27; 1944b: 18. — Campbell 1954: D94. — Chediya 1959: 147. Spongodiscinae – Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 26. — Campbell 1954: D93. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 255. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 157 (sensu emend.). — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 157. — Tan 1998: 236. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 230. Spongodiscudae [sic] – Tan 1998: 236 (= Spongodiscidae). Spongolonchidae Afanasieva &amp; Amon in Afanasieva, Amon, Agarkov &amp; Boltovskoy, 2005: S281 [nomen dubium]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 121. TYPE GENUS. — Spongodiscus Ehrenberg, 1854b: 237 [type species by subsequent designation (Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 26): Spongodiscus resurgens Ehrenberg, 1854b: 246]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Spongaster Ehrenberg, 1861b: 833 (= Spongastrella with the same type species; Histiastrellan. syn.). — Spongodiscus Ehrenberg, 1854b: 237 (= Spongodisculus with the same type species). — Spongotrochus Haeckel, 1861b: 844 (= Spongotrochiscus with the same type species). NOMINA DUBIA. — Pseudocephalis, Spongolonche, Stylotrochiscus, Stylotrochus.DIAGNOSIS. — Shell with a circular to rounded rectangle outline, complemented by a spinose microsphere and a dense, homogenous, concentric structure throughout the test. Large numbers of radial beams develop to join the adjacent concentric wall structure at very high to vertical angles. These radial beams barely penetrate through the concentric walls. Endoplasm fills the entire spongy shell. Its color varies from green to red in Spongaster and dark brown to gray for Spongodiscus and Spongotrochus. A robust, long axoflagellum emerges out the nonwalled pylome on the peripheral edge for Spongaster. This has not been confirmed for Spongodiscus and Spongotrochus. Dinoflagellate symbionts are found in Spongaster tetras tetras as well as cyanobacteria in Spongaster tetras irregularis. No algal symbionts have been determined in Spongodiscus and Spongotrochus. Pseudopodia radiate throughout the shell, and brown granules of an unknown origin are present in some bundles of pseudopodia in Spongaster. Isolated skeleton fragments are scattered in bundles of pseudopodia in Spongotrochus. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Eocene-Living.REMARKSSpongodiscus is often misinterpreted as Spongocyclia (Litheliidae). The former is distinguishable from the latter by its very distinctive and systematic concentric structure as well as its straight radial beams that penetrate through the concentric structure, the absence of a thick crust cover, a tunnel-like set of pores straightly disposed along the outermost concentric structure. Under a light microscope, the circular- outlined polycystines between the Spongodiscidae and Spongopylidae are commonly misidentified. The misidentification can be attributed to the overlooking of exact superficial shape and appendages. In the case of Spongotrochus (Spongodiscidae) and Spongospira (Spongopylidae), the former is flat with cover-like appendages (Yamauchi 1986: pl. 3, figs 15, 16) while the latter is “ringed” by a repeating pattern of thicker and thinner parts (Cheng &amp; Yeh 1989: pl. 1, fig. 19). The importance of the disk’s lateral profile will be discussed in the remarks regarding Trematodiscoidea. The genus Spongaster is easily recognizable, regularly encountered in plankton samples from tropical to subtropical oceans and is relatively easy to maintain in culture. Consequently, this genus was used for various environmental control tests: growth, seasonality and opal productivity (Anderson et al. 1989a); trophic activity and primary productivity of symbiont (Anderson et al. 1989c); temperature, salinity and light influence on growth and survival (Anderson et al. 1989b); recognition of silicalemma in warping the siliceous skeleton (Anderson 1994: fig. 24); growth experiment (Anderson 1994: figs 25, 26); as well as analysis of the internal skeletal structure (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 7, fig. 5). A living image was illustrated for Spongaster (Casey 1993: fig. 13.6; Matsuoka 1994: fig. 2B; 2007: fig. 4.D; 2017: figs 10.1, 10.2 Sugiyama &amp; Anderson 1997a: pl.1, figs 1, 2; pl. 2, figs 1, 3; Takahashi et al. 2004: fig. 3; Suzuki &amp; Aita 2011: fig. 4M; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.8.1; Matsuoka et al. 2017: appendix A), Spongodiscus (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.10.2), and Spongotrochus (Suzuki et al. 2013: fig. 7.3). Protoplasm and algal symbionts were documented by epi-fluorescent observation with DAPI dyeing in Spongodiscus (Zhang et al. 2018: 14, fig. 26, p. 16, figs 2-5), Spongaster (Suzuki et al. 2009b: figs 3M, 3N; Ogane et al. 2010: figs 1.3, 2.3; Zhang et al. 2018: 16, fig. 9). Several genera remain undescribed (e.g., Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 43, fig. 1; Takahashi 1991: pl. 17, figs 12-16; van de Paverd 1995: pl. 41, fig. 1; Onodera et al. 2011: pl. 6, figs 3, 4). VALIDITY OF GENERASpongasterHistiastrella is marked by a quadrangular shell, a patagium, four undivided distally blunt arms (Campbell 1954: D87-88). The type species of Histiastrella, Histiastrum quadrigatum, is characterized by the presence of seven to nine dividers in each arm but this character is not used as a distinguishing feature at the genus-rank (Haeckel 1887: 544). Presence of patagium and arms distally blunt are considered as intraspecies variations.</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Spongodiscida Haeckel, 1862: 239, 452, 460 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1882: 461 [as a subfamily]; Haeckel 1887: 409, 573-575 [as a family]. — Stöhr 1880: 117 [as a family]. — Dunikowski 1882: 190 [as a subfamily]. — Bütschli 1889: 1964 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 172 [as a family]. — Schröder 1909: 3 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 24 [as a family].</p> <p>Spongodiscidae – Pantanelli 1880: 49. — Popofsky 1908: 226; 1912: 143. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 47; 1945: 25 — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 27; 1944b: 18. — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 25-26. — Campbell 1954: D93. — Orlev 1959: 449-450. — Chediya 1959: 146. — Riedel 1967b: 295 (sensu emend.); Riedel 1971: 654. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1971: 1588. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 528. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1973: 523- 524. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 169. — Petrushevskaya 1975: 547. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 125. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 255. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 866; 1977: 866. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 156 (sensu emend.). — Dumitrica 1979: 25; 1984: 100; 1995: 26. — Petrushevskaya 1979: 111-112. — De Wever 1982a: 190. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 157. — Anderson 1983: 39. — Sanfilippo et al. 1985: 660. — Blueford 1988: 252. — Takahashi 1991: 83. — van de Paverd 1995: 148-149. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 151. — Hollis 1997: 50. — Boltovskoy 1998: 31-32. — Cordey 1998: 92. — Kiessling 1999: 42. — Kozlova 1999: 93. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 230. — Amon 2000: 33-34. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1002. — De Wever et al. 2001: 158, 160. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S288. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 131. — Ogane et al. 2009a: 84. — Chen et al. 2017: 145.</p> <p>Spongotrochida Haeckel, 1882: 461 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 575 [as a subfamily]. — Dunikowski 1882: 190 [as a tribe]. — Schröder 1909: 50 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Spongotrochinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 48; Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 26. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 27; 1944b: 18. — Campbell 1954: D94. — Chediya 1959: 147.</p> <p>Spongodiscinae – Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 26. — Campbell 1954: D93. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 255. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 157 (sensu emend.). — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 157. — Tan 1998: 236. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 230.</p> <p>Spongodiscudae [sic] – Tan 1998: 236 (= Spongodiscidae).</p> <p>Spongolonchidae Afanasieva &amp; Amon in Afanasieva, Amon, Agarkov &amp; Boltovskoy, 2005: S281 [nomen dubium]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 121.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Spongodiscus Ehrenberg, 1854b: 237 [type species by subsequent designation (Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 26): Spongodiscus resurgens Ehrenberg, 1854b: 246].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Spongaster Ehrenberg, 1861b: 833 (= Spongastrella with the same type species; Histiastrella n. syn.). — Spongodiscus Ehrenberg, 1854b: 237 (= Spongodisculus with the same type species). — Spongotrochus Haeckel, 1861b: 844 (= Spongotrochiscus with the same type species).</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Pseudocephalis, Spongolonche, Stylotrochiscus, Stylotrochus.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Shell with a circular to rounded rectangle outline, complemented by a spinose microsphere and a dense, homogenous, concentric structure throughout the test. Large numbers of radial beams develop to join the adjacent concentric wall structure at very high to vertical angles. These radial beams barely penetrate through the concentric walls.</p> <p>Endoplasm fills the entire spongy shell. Its color varies from green to red in Spongaster and dark brown to gray for Spongodiscus and Spongotrochus. A robust, long axoflagellum emerges out the nonwalled pylome on the peripheral edge for Spongaster. This has not been confirmed for Spongodiscus and Spongotrochus. Dinoflagellate symbionts are found in Spongaster tetras tetras as well as cyanobacteria in Spongaster tetras irregularis. No algal symbionts have been determined in Spongodiscus and Spongotrochus. Pseudopodia radiate throughout the shell, and brown granules of an unknown origin are present in some bundles of pseudopodia in Spongaster. Isolated skeleton fragments are scattered in bundles of pseudopodia in Spongotrochus.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Eocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Spongodiscus is often misinterpreted as Spongocyclia (Litheliidae). The former is distinguishable from the latter by its very distinctive and systematic concentric structure as well as its straight radial beams that penetrate through the concentric structure, the absence of a thick crust cover, a tunnel-like set of pores straightly disposed along the outermost concentric structure. Under a light microscope, the circular- outlined polycystines between the Spongodiscidae and Spongopylidae are commonly misidentified. The misidentification can be attributed to the overlooking of exact superficial shape and appendages. In the case of Spongotrochus (Spongodiscidae) and Spongospira (Spongopylidae), the former is flat with cover-like appendages (Yamauchi 1986: pl. 3, figs 15, 16) while the latter is “ringed” by a repeating pattern of thicker and thinner parts (Cheng &amp; Yeh 1989: pl. 1, fig. 19). The importance of the disk’s lateral profile will be discussed in the remarks regarding Trematodiscoidea.</p> <p>The genus Spongaster is easily recognizable, regularly encountered in plankton samples from tropical to subtropical oceans and is relatively easy to maintain in culture. Consequently, this genus was used for various environmental control tests: growth, seasonality and opal productivity (Anderson et al. 1989a); trophic activity and primary productivity of symbiont (Anderson et al. 1989c); temperature, salinity and light influence on growth and survival (Anderson et al. 1989b); recognition of silicalemma in warping the siliceous skeleton (Anderson 1994: fig. 24); growth experiment (Anderson 1994: figs 25, 26); as well as analysis of the internal skeletal structure (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 7, fig. 5). A living image was illustrated for Spongaster (Casey 1993: fig. 13.6; Matsuoka 1994: fig. 2B; 2007: fig. 4.D; 2017: figs 10.1, 10.2 Sugiyama &amp; Anderson 1997a: pl.1, figs 1, 2; pl. 2, figs 1, 3; Takahashi et al. 2004: fig. 3; Suzuki &amp; Aita 2011: fig. 4M; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.8.1; Matsuoka et al. 2017: appendix A), Spongodiscus (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.10.2), and Spongotrochus (Suzuki et al. 2013: fig. 7.3). Protoplasm and algal symbionts were documented by epi-fluorescent observation with DAPI dyeing in Spongodiscus (Zhang et al. 2018: 14, fig. 26, p. 16, figs 2-5), Spongaster (Suzuki et al. 2009b: figs 3M, 3N; Ogane et al. 2010: figs 1.3, 2.3; Zhang et al. 2018: 16, fig. 9). Several genera remain undescribed (e.g., Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 43, fig. 1; Takahashi 1991: pl. 17, figs 12-16; van de Paverd 1995: pl. 41, fig. 1; Onodera et al. 2011: pl. 6, figs 3, 4).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Spongaster</p> <p>Histiastrella is marked by a quadrangular shell, a patagium, four undivided distally blunt arms (Campbell 1954: D87-88).</p> <p>The type species of Histiastrella, Histiastrum quadrigatum, is characterized by the presence of seven to nine dividers in each arm but this character is not used as a distinguishing feature at the genus-rank (Haeckel 1887: 544). Presence of patagium and arms distally blunt are considered as intraspecies variations.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF82FE2205D8F889FC334EFD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF83FE2C0699FDC9FBB249BC.text	038DDA73FF83FE2C0699FDC9FBB249BC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Euchitoniidae StOhr 1880	<div><p>Family EUCHITONIIDAE Stöhr, 1880 sensu Suzuki emend. hereinEuchitonida Stöhr, 1880: 86 [as a subfamily]. — Haeckel 1882: 460 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 484, 516 [as a subfamily]. — Wisniowski 1889: 685 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 43 [as a subfamily].Ommacampida Haeckel, 1887: 392 [as a subfamily].Euchitoninae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 46 (= Euchitoniinae); Campbell &amp; Clark 1944b: 17. — Chediya 1959: 136. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 246-248. — Tan 1998: 219. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 217. — Amon 2000: 49.Ommatocampinae Campbell, 1954: D76. — Chediya, 1959: 119.Monaxoniinae Campbell, 1954: D76.Euchitoniidae – Campbell 1954: D86. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 125. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 134-135 (sensu emend.). — Petrushevskaya 1979: 112-113 (sensu emend.). — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 18-19. Euchitoniinae – Campbell 1954: D86. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 135-136. — Petrushevskaya 1979: 113 (sensu emend.). Myelastrinae Riedel, 1971: 654. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 153.Chitonastrinae Kozur &amp; Mostler, 1978: 136 [nomen dubium].Myelastridae – Takahashi 1991: 87. — De Wever et al. 2001: 160-161. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S284. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 127. Euchitonidae [sic] – Amon 2000: 48-49 (= Euchitoniidae).</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Euchitonida Stöhr, 1880: 86 [as a subfamily]. — Haeckel 1882: 460 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 484, 516 [as a subfamily]. — Wisniowski 1889: 685 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 43 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Ommacampida Haeckel, 1887: 392 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Euchitoninae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 46 (= Euchitoniinae); Campbell &amp; Clark 1944b: 17. — Chediya 1959: 136. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 246-248. — Tan 1998: 219. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 217. — Amon 2000: 49.</p> <p>Ommatocampinae Campbell, 1954: D76. — Chediya, 1959: 119.</p> <p>Monaxoniinae Campbell, 1954: D76.</p> <p>Euchitoniidae – Campbell 1954: D86. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 125. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 134-135 (sensu emend.). — Petrushevskaya 1979: 112-113 (sensu emend.). — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 18-19.</p> <p>Euchitoniinae – Campbell 1954: D86. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 135-136. — Petrushevskaya 1979: 113 (sensu emend.).</p> <p>Myelastrinae Riedel, 1971: 654. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 153.</p> <p>Chitonastrinae Kozur &amp; Mostler, 1978: 136 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Myelastridae – Takahashi 1991: 87. — De Wever et al. 2001: 160-161. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S284. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 127.</p> <p>Euchitonidae [sic] – Amon 2000: 48-49 (= Euchitoniidae).</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Euchitonia Ehrenberg, 1861b: 831 [type species by subsequent monotypy: Euchitonia furcata Ehrenberg, 1873a: 308] = junior subjective synonym of Dictyocoryne Ehrenberg, 1861b: 830 [type species by subsequent designation (Haeckel 1887: 591): Dictyocoryne profunda Ehrenberg, 1873a: 307].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Amphicraspedum Haeckel, 1882: 460 (= Amphicraspedon with the same type species; Amphirrhopella n. syn.). — Dictyocoryne Ehrenberg, 1861b: 830 (= Dictyocorynula with the same type species; Dictyastrum synonymized by Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 19, Dictyastrella, Euchitonia,? Hymenastromma, Rhopalodictya, Rhopalodictyum synonymized by Ogane et al. 2009a: 89), Styla synonymized by Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 19; Pteractis. — Hexinastrum Haeckel, 1882: 461 (= Hexalastromma n. syn., Pentalastromma n. syn., Pentinastrum n. syn.). — Ommatocampe Haeckel, 1861b: 832 (= Ommatocampium with the same type species; Amphymenium synonymized by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 527). — Tessarastrum Haeckel, 1887: 547 (= Tessarastrella with the same type species; Hagiastromma n. syn., Tessarostromma n. syn.). — Tricranastrum Haeckel, 1879: 705 (= Dicranaster n. syn., Dicranastrum n. syn., Myelastrella n. syn., Myelastrum n. syn., Spongomyelastrum n. syn., Myelastromma n. syn., Pentophiastromma n. syn., Spongodi- cranastrum n. syn., Spongohagiastrum n. syn., Spongopentophiastrum n. syn., Spongostaurina n. syn., Tetracranastrum n. syn., Triastrum, n. syn.). — Trigonastrum Haeckel, 1887: 538 (= Trigonastrella with the same type species; Rhopalastromma synonymized by Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 128; Chitonastromma synonymized byKozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 136; Amphicraspedina n. syn., Amphirrhopoma n. syn., Dictyastromma n. syn., Monaxonium n. syn., Trigonastromma n. syn.).</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Tessarastromma.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Amphirhopalum, Amphirrhopalium, Chitonastrella, Chitonastrum, Hexalastrum, Pentalastrella, Pentalastrum, Pentophiastrum, Rhopalastrella, Rhopalastrum.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYMS. — Spongostaurus Swanberg, Anderson &amp; Bennett, 1985 (= Spongostaurina) nec Haeckel, 1882; Stylactis Ehrenberg, 1873 (Ehrenberg 1873a = Styla Stechow, 1921) nec Allman, 1864.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Flat shaped Polycystinea with circular center and arms. The central part is a convex lens-shaped structure (named “margarita”) which includes a spinose microsphere and two to three concentric convex lens-shaped crusts. The exterior structure of the margarita with a variable number of arms: two to four, rarely eight. Arm is constituted by a very highly dense concentric structure which resembles a spongy, a segmented structure with dividers, or superimposed cupolas. Patagium developed in some members but were differentiated from the border of the arm. Both polar sides of the margarita crop out or are occasionally seen covered with fine appendages.</p> <p>The protoplasm can be divided in Dictyocoryne - and Tricranastrum - types. Typically, the spongy shell in Dictyocoryne is filled with a light brown endoplasm. A robust, long axoflagellum emerges from a non-walled pylome on one-side of the test. Pseudopodia radiate throughout the shell. The margarita portion is more transparent than the other skeletal parts. It should be noted that Dictyocoryne truncata (Ehrenberg) and Dictyocoryne profunda Ehrenberg exclusively possess cyanobacteria as symbionts, on the surface of the endoplasm. Dictyocoryne muelleri harbors algal symbionts outside the shell, as opposed to cyanobacteria. In Tricranastrum, the shell is occupied by a light brown endoplasm. A probable ectoplasmic membrane wraps around all skeletons including by-spines.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — early Middle Miocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The central part of the Euchitoniidae is named by the special word: “margarita” (Matsuoka 1992c: pl. 2, figs 1, 5; 1993b: pl. 1, figs 4, 5; Zheng 1994: pl. 40, figs 4-7, 9). This is confirmed in the Amphicraspedina -form of Trigonastrum (Takayanagi et al. 1979: pl. 1, figs 11, 12; Poluzzi 1982: pl. 20, figs 2, 3; Wang &amp; Yang 1992: pl. 2, figs 26-29; Zheng 1994: pl. 40, figs 5, 9; van de Paverd 1995: pl. 51, fig. 3), the Dictyastromma -form of Trigonastrum (Poluzzi 1982: pl. 20, fig. 5), Dictyocoryne (Poluzzi 1982: pl.20, fig. 4), the Euchitonia -form of Dictyocoryne (Poluzzi 1982: pl. 20, fig. 8; Anderson &amp; Bennett 1985: pl. 1, figs 1, 2, 3), Tricranastrum (Matsuoka 2017: figs 12.1, 12.3, 12.5- 12.7), Ommatocampe (Poluzzi 1982: pl. 20, fig. 1) and the Pteractis -form of Dictyocoryne (Matsuoka 2017: figs 15.4- 15.7; Zheng 1994: pl. 40, figs 4, 6, 7). The margarita is not covered by a patagium in the Amphicraspedina -form of Trigonastrum (Cheng &amp; Yeh 1989: pl. 1, figs 7, 10), Dictyocoryne (Onodera et al. 2011: pl. 6, fig. 8), the Pteractis - and Euchitonia -forms of Dictyocoryne (Yamauchi 1986: pl. 4, figs 10, 12), Trigonastrum (Dumitrica 1973a: pl. 10, figs 1-4). Typically, Dictyocoryne tends to thicken in its central part (Cheng &amp; Yeh 1989: pl. 2, fig. 12) whereas the Pteractis -form of Dictyocoryne remains very flat (Cheng &amp; Yeh 1989: pl. 2, figs 8, 14). Internal skeletal structure was illustrated for the Hymenastromma -form of Dictyocoryne (Sugano, 1976: pl. 6, fig. 3), but Hymenastromma appears to be similar to the Phorticiidae.</p> <p>Molecular studies sometimes noted trouble separating Dictyocoryne and Euchitonia. This issue has been already solved from the morphological classification’s point of view (Ogane et al. 2009a; Matsuzaki et al. 2015). The genus name Euchitonia must not no longer be applied. The existence of Amphicraspedum and Hexinastrum has been considered doubtful because no specimens identified as such have been reported. These genera are kept as valid until future confirmation of their existence.</p> <p>Dictyocoryne is one of the most examined and studied living radiolarians in ecological observations (Matsuoka 1992 a, 1992c, 1993 a, 1993b, 2017; Sugiyama &amp; Anderson 1997a), ecological experimental studies (Matsuoka &amp; Anderson 1992; Sugiyama &amp; Anderson 1997a), cytological ultrafine structures, symbionts, symbiosis (Matsuoka 1992c), and cytomechanics (Anderson et al. 1987). Images of living forms were repeatedly illustrated for Dictyocoryne (Matsuoka 1992a: pls 1, 3; 1992c: pls 1, 3; 1992b, figs 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B; 1993a: pl. 2, figs 1, 2; 1993b: pl. 3, figs 1-4; 1994: fig. 2A; 2017: figs 13.1, 13.2; 14.1, 14.2; Sugiyama &amp; Anderson 1997a: pl. 2, figs 2, 4; Matsuoka et al. 2001: pl. 1, fig. 1; Takahashi et al. 2004: figs 1, 2; Yuasa et al. 2005: fig. 1a; Ichinohe et al. 2019: fig. 2), the Euchitonia -form of Dictyocoryne (Matsuoka 1993b: pl. 4, figs 1, 2), Tricranastrum (Yuasa et al. 2005: figs 1b, 1c; Matsuoka 2007: fig. 12; 2017: figs 12.1, 12.2), the Pteractis -form of Dictyocoryne (Matsuoka 1992b: figs 2C, 2D; 1993a: fig. 2.4; 1993b: pl. 4, figs 3, 4; 1994: fig. 2D; 2017: figs 15.1, 15.2) and the Spongostaurus -form of Tricranastrum (Caron &amp; Swanberg 1990: fig. 3.B). Protoplasm and algal symbionts were documented by epi-fluorescent observation with DAPI dyeing and other dyeing methods for Dictyocoryne (Ogane et al. 2010: figs 1.14-1.15; 2.14- 2.15; Zhang et al. 2018: 11, figs 1, 6, 7, p. 14, figs 4, 5; p. 16, figs 2, 3), the Euchitonia -form of Dictyocoryne (Ogane et al. 2010: figs 1.13, 2.13), and Tricranastrum (Zhang et al. 2018: 16, fig. 4). An image fixed using dye method was published for Tricranastrum (Aita et al. 2009: pl. 27, fig. 1; pl. 29, fig. 1). A cytological ultrafine-structure was observed in Tricranastrum (Swanberg et al. 1985: pl. 2).</p> <p>Algal symbionts of Dictyocoryne elegans were identified as Gymnoxanthella radiolariae by Yuasa et al. (2016), the same dinoflagellate species as those of Acanthodesmia (Acanthodesmiidae, Nassellaria) and Dictyopodium (originally Pterocanium, Lithochytrididae, Nassellaria).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Amphicraspedum</p> <p>Amphirrhopella is characterized by terminal spines but this character is induced by intraspecies or intraspecies variation.</p> <p>Dictyocoryne</p> <p>The combinations Dictyocoryne and Dictyocorynula, Dictyastrum and Dictyastrella, and Rhopalodictyum and Rhopalodictya have respectively the same type species. Since Rhopalodictyum has already been synonymized with Dictyocoryne (Ogane et al. 2009a: 89) and Dictyastrum also synonymized with Dictyocoryne (Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 19), Rhopalodictya and Dictyastrella are both automatically synonyms of Dictyocoryne. “ Styla ” is also synonymized with Dictyocoryne as the name of Stylactis by Matsuzaki et al. (2015:19). In this context, our paper newly synonymized Hymenastromma with Dictyocoryne. As shown in the supporting image of the Atlas for Hymenastromma, the central structure is different from Dictyocoryne. Both these genera may be independent from each other.</p> <p>The oldest available names are listed as Dictyocoryne, Dictyastrum, Euchitonia and Rhopalodictyum fromEhrenberg (1861b). The formal publication and years of publication for these genera have been confused due to a nomen nudum in Ehrenberg (1861a) and the mismatch of volume number as “1860” and the published year for Ehrenberg (1861a; 1861b) (Lazarus &amp; Suzuki 2009: 31). The names Dictyocoryne and Rhopalodictyum are commonly used in references but the condition of preservation and the completeness of the shell are better for the lectotype of Dictyocoryne than for Rhopalodictyum.</p> <p>Hexinastrum</p> <p>As far as we know, real specimens identifiable as Hexinastrum, Hexalastromma, Pentalastromma and Pentinastrum have never been so far illustrated. Here we simply put together these suspected genera. Six-armed genera might be conjoined specimens like in the Jurassic Tritrabs worzeli illustrated by Dumitrica (2013b: fig. 4.1). The oldest available names are Hexinastrum and Pentinastrum in Haeckel (1882: 450 for Hexinastrum and 460 for Pentinastrum). If their morphology results from a conjoined phenomenon, six-armed specimens like Hexinastrum are predicted to be found rather than starlike five-armed specimens like Pentinastrum.</p> <p>Tricranastrum</p> <p>Tricranastrum corresponds to the current usage of Myelastrum. The following genera have the same type species, respectively: Myelastrum, Myelastrella and Spongomyelastrum; Dicranastrum, Dicranaster and Spongodicranastrum; Pentophiastromma and Spongopentophiastrum. The ontogenetic changes at intraspecies or species level are well illustrated in Tan &amp; Tchang (1976: 246-250). The authors seemed to consider these variations at a genus level but their illustrated morphological variations are obviously continuous among specimens. The number of arms at least is variable at intraspecific level because if it is used as a genus criterion, many genera would be “created” by monotypy. The oldest available name is Tricranastrum Haeckel (1879: 705). As this name was once used as valid in van de Paverd (1995: 175), it is unable to keep the name Myelastrum.</p> <p>Tessarastrum</p> <p>The difference between Tessarastrum and Ommatocampe is in the number of arms but two of the four arms of Tessarastrum are developed in secondary growth mode in the sense of Ogane et al. (2010) (the supporting image for Tessarastrella in the Atlas). Hagiastromma is characterized by a patagium and dissimilar longitudinal arms (Campbell 1954: D86) whereas Tessarostromma by a bilateral symmetry along the long axis, the presence of a patagium and dissimilar arms (Campbell 1954: D88 as Tessarastromma, the invalid name at present). The shorter arms illustrated in the type images of Hagiastromma and Tessarostromma are explained by a different ontogenetic growth in Tessarastrum. The patagium changes during ontogenetic growth in the Euchitoniidae. The bilateral symmetry change is related to intraspecies variation. All of these available genera were simultaneously published inHaeckel (1887: 543 for Hagiastromma; 547 for Tessarastrum and Tessarastrella; 548 for Tessarostromma). Of these, Tessarastrum is the only name established with a generic-rank.</p> <p>Trigonastrum</p> <p>This genus is different from Dictyocoryne due to the significant diversity of each arm. The illustrated type specimen of Dictyastromma shows a significant diversity but the probable same species of Dictyastrum trispinosum looks to be a Dictyocoryne (the supporting image for Dictyastromma in the Atlas). The stratigraphically important species “ Amphirhopalum ypsilon ” is classified into this genus, although this species itself is a nomen dubium due to an un-illustrated type. Monaxonium initially belong to the Panartidae (= Zygartidae originally) (Popofsky 1912: 125-126) and it was later moved to the Spongodiscidae sensu Riedel (1971: 653). The distinguishing features of the listed genera are the occurrence of terminal spines (Campbell 1954: D86 for Amphicraspedina and Dictyastromma) or spinules on arms (Campbell 1954: D89 for Rhopalastromma), the occurrence of a patagium (Amphicraspedina, Rhopalastromma; Campbell 1954: D86 for Chitonastromma, D88 for Trigonastromma), the occurrence of two to three forked arms (Amphicraspedina, Chitonastromma, Trigonastromma) or undivided arms (Dictyastromma). As repeatedly responsible of the validity of genera in Euchitoniidae, terminal spines and spinules on arms as well as patagium are intraspecies variations. The condition of forked arms is so variable that it is considered as an intraspecies or species variation. All available synonym genera except for Monaxonium were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1887: 523 for Amphicraspedina and Amphirrhopoma; 525 for Dictyastromma; 528 for Rhopalastromma; 537 for Chitonastromma; 538 for Trigonastrum; 539 for Trigonastrella, Trigonastromma). As the forked arms are one of the characters of this morphotype, Trigonastrum is selected as the valid name.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF83FE2C0699FDC9FBB249BC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF8DFE2F06B2F889FB9B4C1C.text	038DDA73FF8DFE2F06B2F889FB9B4C1C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Calocyclas sensu emend.	<div><p>Family SPONGOBRACHIIDAE Haeckel, 1882 sensu Suzuki emend. hereinSpongobrachida Haeckel, 1882: 461 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 575 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 50 [as a subfamily].Spongobrachinae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 49 (= Spongobrachiinae); Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 26. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 28; 1944b: 20. — Chediya 1959: 149. Spongobrachiinae – Campbell 1954: D94. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 140-142 (sensu emend.). Spongobrachiidae – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 139-140 (sensu emend.). TYPE GENUS. — Spongobrachium Haeckel, 1882: 461 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D94): Spongodiscus ellipticus Haeckel, 1861b: 844]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Spongasteriscus Haeckel, 1862: 474 (= Spongasterisculus with the same type species; Dictyocoryniumn. syn.). — Spongastromma Haeckel, 1887: 598. — Spongobrachium Haeckel, 1882: 461. DIAGNOSIS. — Flat shaped Polycystinea with a circular center and a spongy disk with an irregular outline. Central part is a convex lensshaped structure (margarita) which includes a spinose microsphere and four to five densely-concentric, convex lens-shaped crusts. The center of the margarita is thick. The periphery of the margarita is more transparent than its center. A spongy structure surrounds the margarita and its outline varies from elliptical to rounded rectangle. The peripheral ends of the corners tend to be thicker than the central part; other remaining parts tend to be thin. The thicker, spongy part resembles an arm whereas the thinner part more closely resembles a patagium. These parts are intimately connected without a distinguishable boundary. Both polar sides of the margarita extend outwards or in certain cases are covered with fine appendages. The endoplasm is bright red in color whereas the central part is discolored appearing as transparent or white. The peripheral region of the shell does not appear in red. A robust, long axoflagellum extends from the pylome and is located on the shortest line of the shell. No color is recognized along the central part to the exit of the pylome. The pylome is not walled.STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — early Middle Miocene-Living.REMARKSSpongobrachiidae was first recognized as an independent Clade E1 when Dictyocoryne and Spongaster were placed into another independent Clade E 3 in a molecular phylogenetic study (Sandin et al. 2021). As explained in the remarks regarding Spongodiscoidea, an appropriate family needed to be applied to Clade E. Originally, the Dictyocorynium - form of Spongasteriscus was informally known as “strange Dictyocoryne ” or was wrongly identified as “ Dictyocoryne perforatum (Popofsky) ” (see figs 8.8.3, 8.8. 4 in Suzuki &amp; Not 2015). This illustrated specimen is actually conspecific with specimens coded as Vil449 and Mge17-17 by Sandin et al. (2021). These specimens coded as Vil449 and Mge17-17 are the Clade E 3 specimens. To maintain consistency between morphological and molecular phylogenetic classification, the genus Dictyocorynium -form of Spongasteriscus should be re-validated as a genus having an ambiguous disk with many concentric fine ambiguous hoops and spongy triangular-like external triangular parts. The importance of the disk’s lateral profile was largely ignored in the taxonomic works of classic Spongodiscoidea (see remarks in Trematodiscoidea); however, it was an important character to define and differentiate this family. A detailed skeletal image in scanning electron microscopy (SEM) has been captured for the Dictyocorynium -form of Spongasteriscus (Matsuoka 2009: fig. 3.30). Fine protoplasmic structure is illustrated in Spongasteriscus (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 23, fig. 3), but protoplasmic structures particular to the Spongobrachiidae, or differences from Euchitoniidae, are unknown due to there being no section image of the protoplasm of Euchitoniidae.</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Spongobrachida Haeckel, 1882: 461 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 575 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 50 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Spongobrachinae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 49 (= Spongobrachiinae); Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 26. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 28; 1944b: 20. — Chediya 1959: 149.</p> <p>Spongobrachiinae – Campbell 1954: D94. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 140-142 (sensu emend.).</p> <p>Spongobrachiidae – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 139-140 (sensu emend.).</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Spongobrachium Haeckel, 1882: 461 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D94): Spongodiscus ellipticus Haeckel, 1861b: 844].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Spongasteriscus Haeckel, 1862: 474 (= Spongasterisculus with the same type species; Dictyocorynium n. syn.). — Spongastromma Haeckel, 1887: 598. — Spongobrachium Haeckel, 1882: 461.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Flat shaped Polycystinea with a circular center and a spongy disk with an irregular outline. Central part is a convex lensshaped structure (margarita) which includes a spinose microsphere and four to five densely-concentric, convex lens-shaped crusts. The center of the margarita is thick. The periphery of the margarita is more transparent than its center. A spongy structure surrounds the margarita and its outline varies from elliptical to rounded rectangle. The peripheral ends of the corners tend to be thicker than the central part; other remaining parts tend to be thin. The thicker, spongy part resembles an arm whereas the thinner part more closely resembles a patagium. These parts are intimately connected without a distinguishable boundary. Both polar sides of the margarita extend outwards or in certain cases are covered with fine appendages.</p> <p>The endoplasm is bright red in color whereas the central part is discolored appearing as transparent or white. The peripheral region of the shell does not appear in red. A robust, long axoflagellum extends from the pylome and is located on the shortest line of the shell. No color is recognized along the central part to the exit of the pylome. The pylome is not walled.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — early Middle Miocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Spongobrachiidae was first recognized as an independent Clade E1 when Dictyocoryne and Spongaster were placed into another independent Clade E 3 in a molecular phylogenetic study (Sandin et al. 2021). As explained in the remarks regarding Spongodiscoidea, an appropriate family needed to be applied to Clade E. Originally, the Dictyocorynium - form of Spongasteriscus was informally known as “strange Dictyocoryne ” or was wrongly identified as “ Dictyocoryne perforatum (Popofsky) ” (see figs 8.8.3, 8.8. 4 in Suzuki &amp; Not 2015). This illustrated specimen is actually conspecific with specimens coded as Vil449 and Mge17-17 by Sandin et al. (2021). These specimens coded as Vil449 and Mge17-17 are the Clade E 3 specimens. To maintain consistency between morphological and molecular phylogenetic classification, the genus Dictyocorynium -form of Spongasteriscus should be re-validated as a genus having an ambiguous disk with many concentric fine ambiguous hoops and spongy triangular-like external triangular parts. The importance of the disk’s lateral profile was largely ignored in the taxonomic works of classic Spongodiscoidea (see remarks in Trematodiscoidea); however, it was an important character to define and differentiate this family. A detailed skeletal image in scanning electron microscopy (SEM) has been captured for the Dictyocorynium -form of Spongasteriscus (Matsuoka 2009: fig. 3.30). Fine protoplasmic structure is illustrated in Spongasteriscus (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 23, fig. 3), but protoplasmic structures particular to the Spongobrachiidae, or differences from Euchitoniidae, are unknown due to there being no section image of the protoplasm of Euchitoniidae.</p> <p>Validity of genera</p> <p>Spongasteriscus</p> <p>This genus has been separated from the Euchitoniidae and Spongodiscidae in consideration of the molecular phylogeny observations published by Sandin et al. (2021). Until the molecular phylogenetic differences were pointed out, they have been identified as other genera of the Euchitoniidae, Spongodiscidae and other spongy discoidal groups. For instance, probable Spongasteriscus specimens might have been mixed with true Spongaster representatives in a previous study (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1978a: pl. 2). In consideration of the wide variation in the development of the arms and their number, the four-armed Spongasteriscus is the oldest synonym of the three-armed Dictyocorynium.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF8DFE2F06B2F889FB9B4C1C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF8EFE2E067CFB65FECF4EFD.text	038DDA73FF8EFE2E067CFB65FECF4EFD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cladococcoidea Haeckel 1862	<div><p>Superfamily CLADOCOCCOIDEA Haeckel, 1862 n. stat.</p> <p>Cladococcida Haeckel, 1862: 238, 364 [as a family].</p> <p>Heteracanthidea – Bertolini 1937: 1269-1270 [as an order, junior homonym].</p> <p>Liosphaericae – Campbell 1954: D48 [as a superfamily]. — Nakaseko 1957: 23 [as a superfamily]. — Dieci 1964: 184 [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Cenodiscicae – Campbell 1954: D76 [nomen dubium, as a superfamily]. — Nakaseko 1957: 23 [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Cenodiscilae – Campbell 1954: D76 [nomen dubium, as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Etmosphaeracea – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 221 [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Liosphaeracea – Pessagno &amp; Blome 1980: 229. — Blome 1984: 350. — Pessagno et al. 1984: 22 (sensu emend.). — Cheng 1986: 173.</p> <p>Arachnosphaerilae – Dumitrica 1984: 98 [as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Liosphaeroidea – Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 12.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — One large spherical latticed cortical shell with no internal skeletal structure.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Cladococcoidea consist of Ethmosphaeridae (including Clade F1) and Cladococcidae (including Clade F2), grouped in a major group, the Clade F1: Heliosphaera and Liosphaera in Ethmosphaeridae; and the Clade F2: Arachnospongus, Diplosphaera (originally Astrosphaera) and Cladococcus in Cladococcidae (Sandin et al. 2021). As this superfamily is primarily marked by a hollow large cortical shell, the Mesozoic Xiphostylidae Haeckel 1882 may likewise belong to the Cladococcoidea.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF8EFE2E067CFB65FECF4EFD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF8FFE2905D7FDC6FB314DDF.text	038DDA73FF8FFE2905D7FDC6FB314DDF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ethmosphaeridae Haeckel 1862	<div><p>Family ETHMOSPHAERIDAE Haeckel, 1862</p> <p>Ethmosphaerida Haeckel, 1862: 238, 346 [as a family]; Haeckel 1882: 448 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 61 (sensu emend.) [as a subfamily]. — Mivart 1878: 179 [as a subsection]. — Dunikowski 1882: 184 [as a tribe]. — Wisniowski 1889: 682. — Schröder 1909: 5 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Monosphaerida Haeckel, 1862: 230 [nomen nudum, above Cladococcida]. — Stöhr 1880: 85. — Dreyer 1913: 5 [as a family].</p> <p>Heliosphaerida Haeckel, 1862: 238, 348 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1882: 450 [as a tribe].</p> <p>Ethmosphaeriden – Haeckel 1865: 366 [as a family].</p> <p>Etmosphaeridae – Claus 1876: 159. — Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 221. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 23 (sensu emend.). — Dumitrica 1984: 95. — Takahashi 1991: 61. — Tan 1998: 95 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Monosphaeridae – Zittel 1876-1880: 119 [nomen nudum].</p> <p>Triosphaeria Haeckel, 1882: 452 [nomen nudum, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Monosphaeria – Haeckel 1882: 448 [nomen nudum, as a subfamily]. — Dunikowski 1882: 184.</p> <p>Liosphaerida Haeckel, 1887: 59 [as a family] (not 1882: 449). — Wisniowski 1889: 682 [as a family]. — Rüst 1892: 133. — Bütschli 1889: 1948 [as a family]. — Cayeux 1894: 204 [as a family]. — Hill &amp; Jukes-Browne 1895: 605. — Schröder 1909: 5 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 23 [as a family].</p> <p>Cenodiscida Haeckel, 1887: 409-411 [nomen nudum, as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1958 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 161 [as a family]. — Schröder 1909: 3 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 24 [as a family].</p> <p>Zonodiscida Haeckel, 1887: 411 [nomen nudum, as a subfamily. — Schröder 1909: 39 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Larcarida Haeckel, 1887: 604, 605-606 [nomen nudum, as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1965 [as a family]. — Schröder 1909: 4 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 24 [as a family].</p> <p>Cenolarcida Haeckel, 1887: 606 [nomen nudum, as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 52 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Coccolarcida Haeckel, 1887: 606, 610 [nomen nudum, as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 52 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Liosphaeriden – Haecker 1907: 118 [as a family]. — Orlev 1959: 430.</p> <p>Liosphaeridae – Popofsky 1908: 206; Popofsky 1912: 82. — Enriques 1932: 982. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 19; 1945: 5. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 8. — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 9. — Campbell 1954: D48. — Chediya 1959: 68. — Orlev 1959: 430. — Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: 70. — Dieci 1964: 184. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 119. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 225. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 136. — Blueford 1988: 247. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 150. — Tan 1998: 95. — Chen et al. 2017: 81 (sensu emend.).</p> <p>Larcaridae – Popofsky 1908: 229 [nomen nudum]. — Enriques 1932: 985. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 50; 1945: 27. — Chediya 1959: 151.</p> <p>Monosphaerinae – Mast 1910: 155. — Popofsky 1912: 95.</p> <p>Larcariidae – Poche 1913: 209 [nomen dubium]. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 45.</p> <p>Cenodiscidae – Poche 1913: 209 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D77. — Orlev 1959: 441. — Chediya 1959: 120. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 125. — Amon 2000: 40.</p> <p>Liosphaerinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 19. — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 9. — Campbell 1954: D48.</p> <p>Ethmosphaerinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 19. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 8. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 6. — Campbell 1954: D48. — Chediya 1959: 68. — Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 222. — Dieci 1964: 64. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 25.</p> <p>Coccolarcinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 50 [nomen dubium]; Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 28. — Campbell 1954: D95. — Chediya 1959: 152.</p> <p>Heliosphaerinae – Campbell 1954: D62. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 230.</p> <p>Cenodiscinae – Campbell 1954: D77 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Zonodiscinae – Chediya 1959: 12 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Cenolarcinae – Chediya 1959: 151 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Macrosphaeridae Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960: 48, 69, 114, 120 [nomen nudum]. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1972c: 297. — Petrushevskaya 1975: 571. — Anderson 1983: 51, 66. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 286 [as a superfamily]. — Suzuki &amp; Sugiyama 2001: 138.</p> <p>Cyrtidosphaeridae Cachon &amp; Cachon, 1972c: 293; Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 288.</p> <p>Ethmosphaerini – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 25 [as a tribe].</p> <p>Cenodiscini – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 26 [nomen nudum].</p> <p>Cyrtidosphaerid-type – Anderson 1983: 169.</p> <p>Liosphaeracea – Göke 1984: 38 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Ethmosphaera Haeckel, 1861a: 802 [type species by monotypy: Ethmosphaera siphonophora Haeckel, 1861a: 802].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Cyrtidosphaera Haeckel, 1861a: 803. — Ethmosphaera Haeckel, 1861a: 802 (= Ethmosphaerella with the same type species; Monosphaera n. syn.). — Haplosphaera Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960: 114. — Heliosphaera Haeckel, 1861a: 803 (= Heliosphaerella with the same type species). — Liosphaera Haeckel, 1887: 76 (= Melitomma with the same type species; Craspedomma n. syn.).</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Briorradiolites, Cenodiscus, Cenolarcus, Coccolarcus, Ethmosphaeromma, Heliosphaeromma, Larcarium, Phormosphaera, Rhodosphaera, Rhodosphaerella, Rhodosphaeromma, Zonodiscus.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Cladococcoidea without any other ornaments such as radial spines, excepting by-spines. Endoplasm is variable from transparent (Haplosphaera) to milky-white (Cyrtidosphaera) Size of the endoplasm is different in very large (Cyrtidosphaera) or very small forms (Haplosphaera and Heliosphaera).</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Oligocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This family used to be called Liosphaeridae, but the oldest senior synonym is Ethmosphaeridae. Since both Liosphaeridae and Ethmosphaeridae were used valid names, the correct valid name is Ethmosphaeridae. The Ethmosphaeridae are distinguishable from the Cladococcidae by virtue of their radial spines and other ornaments. Cenosphaera has long been characterized as the genus having a single latticed cortical shell without any internal structure, but the usage of Cenosphaera was also problematic due to the following conditions: 1) The genus name was applied to spherical radiolarians whose internal structure might have been absent due to poor preservation. More specifically, very large numbers of Cenosphaera species were described from thin sections, increasing the problem of nomina dubia species in this genus; 2) It is practically necessary to separate in a “provisional group” such specimens as a tentative genus; 3) As explained in detail in the remarks of Haliommidae, the name-bearing type specimen of Cenosphaera has three concentric shells. Thus, it does not reconcile with the practical use of the representative genus; 4) Following the Code, the real Cenosphaera is a junior synonym of Haliomma; 5) The true genus having a single latticed cortical shell may or may not exist; 6) No appropriate genus has been proposed to inherit the widely accepted concept of Cenosphaera; and 7) We previously thought to use Monosphaera as a replacement name of the single-shelled “ Cenosphaera ” but this would have created another problem as to the nomen dubium status of the type species of Monosphaera. Considering these reasons, the definition of Ethmosphaera is expanded so as to include the widely accepted concept of Cenosphaera in the catalogue. In accordance with the Code, it was not possible to keep Cenosphaera as is (see details in the Remarks for Haliommidae). Classic Cenosphaera, classified as Ethmosphaera in this catalogue, may be misidentified as spherical radiolarians whose radial spines were broken off, Nanina (Hexacromyidae), Hollandosphaera (Hollandosphaeridae), Cyrtidosphaera (Ethmosphaeridae), Haplosphaera (Ethmosphaeridae), young forms of Liosphaera (Ethmosphaeridae), young forms of Cromyosphaera (Haliommidae), Haliomma (Haliommidae), Haliommantha (Haliommidae) and Entapium (Entapiidae) when the internal structure is lost. Moreover, it is impossible to differentiate these genera with scanning electron photos or with light microscopic photos under very shallow focus depths. The genus member of Ethmosphaeridae is solely determined by the lack of a skeletal structure within the large cortical shell and has not been supported by any molecular phylogenetic data. It is fundamentally impossible to discard morphospecies with a retrograde development of internal structures from the “true” Ethmosphaeridae. A living image for Cyrtidosphaera was obtained (Kurihara et al. 2006: figs 4.1, 4.2; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.10.7). Protoplasm and algal symbionts were documented by epi-fluorescent observation with DAPI dyeing for Cyrtidosphaera (Zhang et al. 2018: 19, fig. 3). Fine protoplasmic structure was illustrated for “ Cenosphaera ” (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 1, figs 1-6; pl. 3, figs 1-5, 8-14; pl. 6, figs 1-4, 6; pl. 31, figs 1-7; pl. 32, figs 1, 2; Cachon &amp; Cachon 1972b: fig. 1) and Heliosphaera (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 55, figs 4, 5), but there are concerns regarding whether they were correctly identified as the same genus due to the fact that the axoplast system is often quite different among their assigned species.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Ethmosphaera</p> <p>Genera with one cortical shell are synonymized herein. The oldest available name is selected.</p> <p>Liosphaera</p> <p>Craspedomma is characterized by irregular pores on both inner and outer cortical shells (Campbell 1954: D48). Irregularity of pores is an intraspecies or intraspecies difference in such kinds of cortical shells in any families.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF8FFE2905D7FDC6FB314DDF	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF88FE2B06A3FCEBFD394CA3.text	038DDA73FF88FE2B06A3FCEBFD394CA3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cladococcidae Haeckel 1862	<div><p>Family CLADOCOCCIDAE Haeckel, 1862</p> <p>Cladococcida Haeckel, 1862: 238, 364 [as a family]. — Mivart 1878: 177 [as a subdivision].</p> <p>Arachnosphaerida Haeckel, 1862: 238, 354 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1882: 454 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 208.</p> <p>Cladococcidae – Pantanelli 1880: 46.</p> <p>Diplosphaerida Stöhr, 1880: 86 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Haeckel 1882: 451 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 208. — Schröder 1909: 16 [as a rank between subfamily and genus].</p> <p>Lychnosphaerida Haeckel, 1882: 452 [as a tribe].</p> <p>Astrosphaerida Haeckel, 1887: 55, 206 (not 1882: 449). — nec Wisniowski 1889: 684. — Bütschli 1889: 1952 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 133. — Cayeux 1894: 205. — nec Hill &amp; Jukes- Browne 1895: 605-606. — Schröder 1909: 2 [as a family]. — Mast 1910: 155 [as a family]. — Anderson 1980: 3, 5, 19 [as a family]; Anderson 1981: 248, 351, 360, 368 [as a family]; Anderson 1983: 23 [as a family].</p> <p>Caryommida Haeckel, 1887: 208, 265 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 17 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Astrosphaeridae – Haecker 1908: 435. — Popofsky 1908: 211; 1912: 93. — Poche 1913: 207. — Enriques 1932: 982. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 15; 1944b: 11. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 16. — Deflandre 1953: 416. — Campbell 1954: D60. — Dogiel &amp; Reshetnyak 1955: 32. — Chediya 1959: 94. — Orlev 1959: 437. — Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: 72-73. — Mamedov 1973: 49. — Pessagno 1976: 42. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 228. — BjØrklund 1976: 119. — Dumitrica 1979: 20. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 146. — van de Paverd 1995: 77. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 150. — Tan 1998: 146. — De Wever et al. 2001: 108. — Afanasieva et al. 2005, S275. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 111. — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 13. — Chen et al. 2017: 106.</p> <p>Arachnosphaerinae – Mast 1910: 173 (sensu emend.). — Popofsky 1912: 104. — Campbell 1954: D66. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 231. — Petrushevskaya 1979: 108.</p> <p>Astrosphaerinae – Campbell 1954: D60. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 228.</p> <p>Caryomminae – Chediya 1959: 100 [nomen dubium]. Arachnosphaeridae – Petrushevskaya 1979: 106. — Dumitrica 1984: 99.</p> <p>Cladococcid type – Anderson 1983: 168.</p> <p>Astrosphaerins [sic] – Casey 1993: 253.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Cladococcus Müller, 1856: 485 [type species by monotypy: Cladococcus arborescens Müller, 1856: 485].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Arachnosphaera Haeckel, 1861a: 804 (= Arachnosphaerella with the same type species). — Arachnospongus Mast, 1910: 56. — Cladococcus Müller, 1856: 485 (= Cladococcalis with the same type species; Anomalacantha n. syn., Cladococcodes synonymized by Mast 1910; 158; Cladococcurus n. syn., Porococcus n. syn.). — Diplosphaera Haeckel, 1861a: 804 (= Diplosphaeromma with the same type species; Astrosphaera, Diplosphaerella, Leptosphaera, Leptosphaerella, synonymized by Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: 116; Astrosphaerella n. syn., Astrospongus, Drymosphaeromma n. syn., Leptosphaeromma n. syn.). — Haeckeliella Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960: 119. — Lychnosphaera Haeckel, 1882: 452 (= Rhizoplegmidium n. syn., Rhizospongus n. syn., Thalassoplegma n. syn.).</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Acanthospongus, Arachnopegma, Arachnopila, Arachnosphaeromma, Astrosphaeromma, Caryomma, Cladococcinus, Drymosphaera, Drymosphaerella, Elaphococcus, Elaphococcinus, Elaphococculus, Hexacladus, Rhizoplegma, Rhizoplegmarium, Spongopila.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYM. — Heteracantha Mast, 1910 (= Anomalacantha) nec Brullé, 1834.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Cladococcoidea with radial spines and/or other ornaments. Endoplasm is distributed from the center to the outer side of the first spherical cortical shell. Tens to hundreds of brownish grains, but not algal symbionts, are found scattered around the endoplasm in some genera with innumerous pseudopodia radiate throughout. In the “ Elaphococcinus ”-form of Cladococcus, a large reddish to brown endoplasm and a surrounding milky-white endoplasm nearly fill the entirety of the shell’s area; such that, the distal ends of ramified radial spines are exposed. Algal symbionts also appear to be present.</p> <p>The axopodial system is that of anaxoplastid-type; no axoplast and no bundles of axoneme are present. The intracapsular zone includes the nucleus, a thin endoplasmic reticulum, an empty area with axoneme strands and a main endoplasmic reticulum from the center to the outer part. The presence of an empty zone between the nucleus and the main endoplasmic reticulum zone is a significant protoplasmic character. The nucleus, as well as the empty zone with axoneme strands, is always encrusted in the innermost latticed shell.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Middle Miocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Cladococcidae is the oldest senior synonym of Astrosphaeridae. Classical papers considered the family Astrosphaeridae as a junior synonym of Actinommidae Haeckel 1882, but this was obviously rejected by both morphological and molecular studies. Cladococcus and Haeckeliella are regularly found in Cenozoic sediments and rocks. Arachnosphaera, Diplosphaera, the “ Elaphococcus ” form of Cladococcus are often encountered in shallow surface plankton samples. Notwithstanding, all genera except “ Elaphococcus ” are not preserved, not even on surface sediments other than in exceptional cases. As the living Cladococcidae are large and have easily recognizable endoplasm, they are easily observed in seawater momentarily after plankton towing and at lower magnitudes of binocular microscopes. Owing to this facility, living specimens were analyzed in several papers. Living image were illustrated for Arachnosphaera (Anderson 1983: fig. 1.1.B?; Yuasa et al. 2009: fig. 1c; Suzuki &amp; Aita 2011: fig. 4J), Diplosphaera (Suzuki &amp; Sugiyama 2001: figs 2.2- 2.4; Matsuoka 2007: fig. 2.e; 2017: figs 2.1, 2.2; Yuasa et al. 2009: fig. 1d; Suzuki &amp; Aita 2011: fig. 4B-right) and the “ Elaphococculus ” form of Cladococcus (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.8.23; Matsuoka 2017: figs 3.1, 3.2). Protoplasm and algal symbionts were documented by epi-fluorescent observation with DAPI dyeing or other dyeing methods for Arachnosphaera (Ogane et al. 2014: pl. 1, figs 5-6), Diplosphaera (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.8.19; Zhang et al. 2018: 19, fig. 4), and Cladococcus (Zhang et al. 2018: 19, fig. 2). Fixed images with dyeing were published for Arachnosphaera (Aita et al. 2009: pl. 6, fig. 4; pl. 19, fig. 4; pl. 21, fig. 2; pl. 22, fig. 3), Cladococcus (Aita et al. 2009: pl. 8, 4), “ Elaphococculus ” of Cladococcus (Aita et al. 2009: pl. 26, fig. 1) and Lychnosphaera (Aita et al. 2009: pl. 7, fig. 1). Fine protoplasmic structures were illustrated for Arachnosphaera (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 9, figs 11, 12; pl. 11, figs 1-7; pl. 12, figs 2-5; pl. 22, fig. 6; pl. 29, figs 1, 2), Diplosphaera (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 12, fig. 6; pl. 23, fig. 2; pl. 26, fig. 2), Cladococcus (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 6, fig. 12; pl. 12, fig. 1; pl. 15, figs 4-6; pl. 26, fig. 1), Haeckeliella (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 15, figs 1-3) and Lychnosphaera (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 30, figs 1, 2). Internal skeletal structures were illustrated for Arachnosphaera (Cachon &amp; Cachon 1972b: pl. 29, fig. b) and Haeckeliella (Takahashi 1991: pl. 10, fig. 2; van de Paverd 1995: pl. 23, fig. 3). Although it is impossible to amend the taxonomy for the host, parasites were recognized in Cladococcus as Solenodinium (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1955: fig. 8). The environmental RAD-III Clade of Not et al. (2007) collected from 200-400 m water depths in the tropical Pacific was specified as the Cladococcidae (originally Astrosphaeridae) by Li &amp; Endo (2020).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Diplosphaera</p> <p>The combinations of Astrosphaera and Astrosphaerella and of Leptosphaera and Leptosphaeromma have the same type species, respectively. Astrosphaera -specimens were repeatedly named Diplosphaera (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: 116; Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 12; Suzuki &amp; Sugiyama 2001: 118). Observation of living representatives of Diplosphaera hexagonalis easily proves the distinguishing characteristics between Astrospongus, Diplosphaerella, Drymosphaeromma, Leptosphaera and Leptosphaeromma at intraspecies or species levels. The oldest available name is Diplosphaera among them.</p> <p>Cladococcus</p> <p>The translated description of Anomalacantha (originally Heteracantha) by Mast (1910: 37) from German follows. “ Monosphaerids with main and secondary spines. Three-sided main spines ramified or not, secondary spines always dichotomized.Shell always very thick with funnel-shaped pores. ” Cladococcodes is characterized by ramified branches on the radial spine, regular pores with similar sizes on the cortical shell (Campbell 1954: D63); and Cladococcurus by ramified branches on the radial spine, irregular pores with dissimilar sizes on the cortical shell (Campbell 1954: D63). Regularity of pores and their sizes are not distinguishing features at generic level. Ramified and branched patterns of radial spines are too variable among specimens to be useful for determination of genus. As for the taxonomic value of funnel-shaped pores, we have never met such pores like that in Anomalacantha so far. The young Cladococcus -form often looks like the type species of Porococcus, and the latter genus is, thus, regarded as a young form. This genus may be also used as a collective group that is defined by an assemblage of species, or stages of organisms, that cannot be allocated with confidence to nominal genera (See the Glossary of ICZN 1999). If Porococcus is a collective group, this genus does not compete in priority with another genus-group (ICZN 1999: article 23.7.2); typification for this genus is not necessary (ICZN 1999: article 42.3.1) and a type species can be disregarded (ICZN 1999: article 67.14). The oldest available name is Cladococcus among synonyms.</p> <p>Lychnosphaera</p> <p>Lychnosphaera has an empty space just above the cortical shell. Thalassoplegma is also the case with a very narrow space. The oldest synonym is Leptosphaera (Haeckel 1887: 452).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF88FE2B06A3FCEBFD394CA3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF8AFE2A065CFEC6FEB84BE2.text	038DDA73FF8AFE2A065CFEC6FEB84BE2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Suzuki Suzuki & Caulet & Dumitrica 2021	<div><p>Superfamily TREMATODISCOIDEA Haeckel, 1862 sensu Suzuki emend. hereinTrematodiscida Haeckel, 1862: 240, 485, 491 [as a tribe]; 1882: 459 [as a tribe]; 1887: 484, 491 [as a subfamily].Trematodiscea – Zittel 1876-1880: 124 [rank unknown].Trematodiscacea – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 125-126 [as a superfamily]; 1990: 217-218 [as a superfamily]. Stylodictyoidea – Suzuki in Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 25.</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Trematodiscida Haeckel, 1862: 240, 485, 491 [as a tribe]; 1882: 459 [as a tribe]; 1887: 484, 491 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Trematodiscea – Zittel 1876-1880: 124 [rank unknown].</p> <p>Trematodiscacea – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 125-126 [as a superfamily]; 1990: 217-218 [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Stylodictyoidea – Suzuki in Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 25.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Flat or convex lens shape with circular outline. Central structure consisting of many discontinuous rings connected by short radial beams or a microsphere with four decussated primary radial spines.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This superfamily includes only the family Trematodiscidae. Homeomorphy between Spongodiscoidea and Trematodiscoidea was first detected by a molecular phylogenetic study (Ishitani et al. 2012). The group of Schizodiscus, Spongobrachiopyle, Flustrella and Stylodictya was analyzed by molecular studies and further subdivided into two subgroups, namely a subgroup of Schizodiscus and Spongobrachiopyle (originally Spongopyle) as Clade L2, and a subgroup of Flustrella and Stylodictya as Clade J (Sandin et al. 2021). The former group morphologically corresponds to the Spongopylidae and the latter to the Trematodiscidae. The general morphology of Spongopylidae closely resembles that of Spongodiscidae (Spongodiscoidea). It is estimated that identifying the classical Spongodiscidae family, used to include the Spongodiscoidea and Trematodiscoidea is difficult. However, this is largely due to an insufficient observation of many taxonomical markers. In particular, the difference in the disk’s lateral profiles is almost completely ignored. This complicates the taxonomic process. The structural difference between the “empty” space and “thin” structural parts must be carefully recognized upon dark to bright appearance of disc parts under a light microscope. An “empty” space can be bright irrespective of disk thickness. Meanwhile, a “thin” place may be bright based on its relationship to the disk thickness. It is sometimes presumptively concluded, to a fault, that differences in brightness may be caused by supplemental gowns on both faces of the disk. If this is observed, shallow depth focused photos are essential. Many previous papers repeatedly noticed the different lateral profiles of the classical Spongodiscidae (Müller 1859b: pl. 1, figs 8, 9; Haeckel 1862: pl. 27, figs 3, 5; pl. 28, figs 6, 9; 1887: pl. 42, figs 5, 6, 9, 10; Hertwig 1879: pl. 6, 7a, 7b, 8a; JØrgensen 1905: pl. 10, figs 39a, 40b, 41c; Riedel 1953: pl. 84, fig. 6; Kozlova 1960; Krasheninnikov 1960: 3, figs 5-7; Moksyakova 1961: pl. 1, fig. 11; 1972: pls 1-9; Kozlova &amp; Gorbovetz 1966: pl. 14, figs 1-2; Petrushevskaya 1967: pl. 19, fig. 2; pl. 20, figs 2, 4; pl. 21, figs 3, 6; pl. 22, fig. 7; pl. 25, figs 3, 5; 1975: pl. 34, figs 1, 2; pl. 36, figs 3, 5; pl. 38, figs 1, 3, 7; pl. 39, figs 2; pl. 40, fig. 4, Barwicz-Piskorz 1978: pl. 5, figs 1-3; Zaynutdinov 1978: pl. 7, figs 1-3; pl. 12, fig. 7; Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1979: figs 431, 432, 434, 438, 441; Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 29, fig. 1c; pl. 31, figs 2b, 3a; pl. 32, fig. 3; pl. 34, fig. 2a; pl. 37, fig. 1b; pl. 40, fig. 6b; pl. 41, fig. 2a; pl. 42, figs 1, 4; pl. 43, figs 1b, 2a; Poluzzi 1982: pl. 20, fig. 17; O’Connor 1997b: text-fig. 2; pl. 4, figs 4, 6; Ogane &amp; Suzuki 2006: pl. 1, figs 6, 9; pl. 2, fig. 2; Onodera et al. 2011: pl. 6, fig. 6). The difference of lateral profile in classic Spongodiscidae is directly related to the fundamental rule of skeletal growth patterns and construction scheme of a biological design. Regardless of the repeated rediscovery of this profile difference, systematic examination regarding these differences have been under-appreciated and the majority of studies identify a spongy disk without radial spines as Spongodiscus, a spongy disk without radial spines as Spongotrochus, a spongy disk with a pylome as Spongopyle, a concentric disk without radial spines as Porodiscus, and/or a concentric disk with radial spines as Stylodictya. Everyone empirically knows that this simple scheme does not work for any real specimens. This is easily recognizable if we look at names such as Spongodiscus spp., Spongodiscidae gen. et sp. indet. and other ambiguous indications for classic Spongodiscidae. Nevertheless, the validity of described genera such as Schizodiscus, Spongobrachiopyle, Spongospira and Staurospira was rejected without any further careful anatomical considerations. It is noteworthy that some studies still strongly adhere to this flawed principle, despite the clear rejection of this treatment by the molecular phylogeny (Ishitani et al. 2012). To understand these groups, shallow focus photos like pl. 13, fig. 3a of Suzuki et al. (2009d) are essential. Otherwise, progress is stifled.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF8AFE2A065CFEC6FEB84BE2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF8BFE1405D0FB05FAD74E9C.text	038DDA73FF8BFE1405D0FB05FAD74E9C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Porodiscidae	<div><p>Family TREMATODISCIDAE Haeckel, 1862 sensu Suzuki emend. hereinTrematodiscida Haeckel, 1862: 240, 485, 491 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1882: 459 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 484, 491 [as a subfamily]. — Mivart 1878: 176. — Stöhr 1880: 107 [as a family]. — Schröder 1909: 42 [as a subfamily].Discospirida Haeckel, 1862: 240, 485, 513 [as a tribe]. — Zittel 1876-1880: 124 [rank unknown]. — Mivart 1878: 176 [as a subsection]. — Stöhr 1880: 113 [as a family].Porodiscida Haeckel, 1882: 459 [junior homonym, as a subfamily]; Haeckel 1887: 409, 481-485 [as a family]. — Wisniowski 1889: 685 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1961 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 166 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 24 [as a family].Stylodictyida Haeckel, 1882: 459 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 484, 503 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 42 [as a subfamily].Stylocyclida Haeckel, 1887: 458, 461.Spongophacida Haeckel, 1882: 461 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]. — Dunikowski 1882: 190 [as a tribe]. — Haeckel 1887: 575 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 50 [as a subfamily].Porodiscidae – Popofsky 1908: 222 [junior homonym]; 1912: 127. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 41; 1945: 23. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 24; 1944b: 15. — Orlev 1959: 444. — Chediya 1959: 132. — Kozlova 1967: 1171-1173 (sensu emend.). — Petrushevska- ya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 524-525 (sensu emend by Kozlova). — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 242. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 865. — Dumitrica 1979: 24-25; 1984: 102. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 152. —Anderson 1983: 39. — Blueford 1988: 250. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 151. — Hollis 1997: 53. — Tan 1998: 209. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 208. — Amon 2000: 41. — Chen et al. 2017: 138. Trematodiscinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 41; 1945: 23. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 24; 1944b: 15. — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 23. — Chediya 1959: 133. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 128. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 152. — Tan 1998: 209. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 208.Stylodictyinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 42; Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 23. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 25; 1944b: 16. — Campbell 1954: D92. — Chediya 1959: 134. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 242. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 128. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 153. — Tan 1998: 210. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 210. — Chen et al. 2017: 141.Spongophacinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 47 [nomen dubium]; Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 25. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 27;— Campbell &amp; Clark 1944b: 18. — Chediya 1959: 146.Trematodiscidae – Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 23. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 127. Stylocycliinae – Campbell 1954: D82.Flustrellinae Campbell, 1954: D88-89.Stylocyclinae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 129 (= Stylocycliinae). — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1972: 46.Amphibrachiinae Pessagno, 1971a: 20 [nomen dubium].Stylodictyidae – Petrushevskaya 1975: 576.Spongostaurinae Kozur &amp; Mostler, 1978: 157-159 [nomen dubium]. TYPE GENUS. — Trematodiscus Haeckel, 1861b: 841 [type species by subsequent designation (Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 24): Trematodiscus orbiculatus Haeckel, 1862: 492] = junior subjective synonym of Flustrella Ehrenberg, 1839: 90 [type species by monotypy: Flustrella concentrica Ehrenberg, 1839: 132]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Flustrella Ehrenberg, 1839: 90 (nec Gray, 1848) (= Centrospira, Discospirella, Trematodiscus synonymized by Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 128; Perichlamydium synonymized byOgane et al. 2009a: 86; Perispirella n. syn., Stylochlamyumn. syn.). — Staurospira Haeckel, 1887: 507 (= Staurodictyon synonymized by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 525; Tholodiscusn. syn., Xiphospiran. syn.). — Stylodictya Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Stylodictyon with the same type species; Stylochlamydiumn. syn., Stylochlamysn. syn., Stylospongian. syn.; Stylocyclia synonymized by Müller 1859b: 41; Stylospira synonymized by Haeckel 1887: 513). — Tripodictya Haeckel, 1882: 459 (= Xiphodictyonn. syn.). NOMINA DUBIA. — Amphibrachium, Spongophacus, Spongostaurus Haeckel, 1882 (nec Swanberg et al., 1985), Spongotripodiscus, Spongotripodium, Spongotripus, Stylodictula, Stylospongidium. JUNIOR HOMONYMS. — Discospira Haeckel, 1862 (= Discospirella) nec Mantell, 1850; Perispira Haeckel, 1882 (= Perispirella) nec Stein, 1859. NOMEN NUDUM. — Polydiscus.DIAGNOSIS. — A spherical microsphere with four decussated radial beams is surrounded by 2 to 20 concentric rings. The ring wall has a variable appearance, ranging from a distinct shape to a very ambiguous shadow. In uncertain identifications, walls are observed in the sectioned specimens. Four, eight, or more non-bladed primary radial beams may be observed.The endoplasm fills the disc part but does not fill the peripheral gowns or one to three of the peripheral hoops. The central part endoplasm is different from the endoplasm found in the concentric hoops. In these last cases, the U-letter shaped or round bracket-shaped designs are visible on the disk of the concentric hoop parts. The protoplasm sometimes appears as a transparent yellowish-green color under a light microscope, or as a light, bright blue autofluorescent emission after DAPI dyeing under an epi-fluorescent microscope.No algal symbionts were identified. Ectoplasmic membrane wrapping the skeletal part including the radial spines. In general, a single axoflagellum is observable in living forms but there is no pylome.STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-Living.REMARKS Despite the efforts to resolve the synonymy problem between Flustrella and Porodiscus (Ogane et al. 2009a), this family was classically known as “ Porodiscidae ”. The genus name Porodiscus was proposed for a diatom (Greville 1863), for Polycystinea (Haeckel 1882), and for fungi (Murrill 1903). The genus Porodiscus has been erroneously considered as a primary junior synonym of Trematodiscus (see discussion p. 84-85 in Ogane et al. 2009a), actually there was a long debate on the type species of Porodiscus. Frizzell (in Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 24) designates Trematodiscus orbiculatus Haeckel, 1862 as the type species of Porodiscus; later on, Flustrella concentrica Ehrenberg, 1854 (Ehrenberg 1854c) was designated as the type species of Porodiscus (Campbell 1954: D89). However, these seem inappropriate as neither species was among those first subsequently assigned to the genus Porodiscus. Species first subsequently assigned to Porodiscus are: Porodiscus communis Rüst, 1885; P. nuesslinii Rüst, 1885; P. simplex Rüst, 1885. The first attempt to fix the type species of Porodiscus among those first species subsequently assigned to the genus is by De Wever et al. 2001: 158. The Mesozoic revision of genera (O’Dogherty et al. 2009a) revalidate such taxonomic act and considered Porodiscus as an available Mesozoic radiolarian name (but dubium), being Porodiscus communis Rüst, 1885 the type species. Molecular phylogeny supports a close relationship between Flustrella and Stylodictya. Thus, Stylodictyidae is herein synonymized with Trematodiscidae.Two types of equatorial radial spines were identified as primary radial spines: One type is the spine that is directly connects to the radial beams, the other is the spine that is disconnected from the radial beams. The latter has no value at genus level taxonomy. Ogane et al. (2009a: 84) originally thought that the structure of margarita was different between Flustrella and Stylodictya, but Flustrella in the sense of Ogane et al. (2009a) was tightly connected to Stylodictya stellata and Stylochlamydium venustum in the molecular phylogenetic study and belongs to Clade J (Sandin et al. 2021). According to Ogane et al. (2009a: 86), differences in the internal structure between Flustrella and Perichlamydium are unknown. Considering, these results and newly obtained images in the catalogue, we hereby grouped them together into a single genus. The taxonomic definition employed hitherto for classical Spongodiscidae could not distinguish Trematodiscidae from the Spongodiscidae in sensu stricto (e.g., De Wever et al. 2001: 158, 160). In particular, their internal structure cannot be identified with normal observation methods. Nonetheless, surface images under scanning electronic microscopes (SEM) provide a clear, perceivable difference between the Trematodiscidae and the Spongodiscidae. The central part observed in several genera of the Trematodiscidae crop out throughout their life. Hoops are generally added one by one, outside the external most hoop on the equatorial plane. The subsequent hoops never cover the previous ones, as such, sutures between hoops remain well visible. Furthermore, external hoops tend to be larger and thicker than inner hoops. Consequently, the center of the disk is thinner than the outer extremities. The observed change in thickness of this disk helps us understand the structure of the Trematodiscidae under a light microscope. These patterns are confirmed by SEM image of the surface in Flustrella (Dumitrica 1973a: pl. 8, figs 1-6; Petrushevskaya 1975: pl. 40, figs 1-4; Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 44, figs 1-3; Poluzzi 1982: pl. 20, figs 10-12; Yamauchi 1986: pl. 4, fig. 8; Cheng &amp; Yeh 1989: pl. 1, figs, 15: 18; van de Paverd 1995: pl. 52, fig. 1; Ogane &amp; Suzuki 2006: pl. 1, figs 5-9; pl. 2, figs 1-5; Onodera et al. 2011: pl. 6, figs 1, 2), Staurospira (Suyari &amp; Yamasaki 1988: pl. 3, fig. 9) and Stylodictya (Suyari &amp; Yamasaki 1987: pl. 7, fig. 11). The Trematodiscidae includes morphotypes with “covers” on the faces of the disk. Both “ Spongophacus ” - and “ Perichlamydium ” - forms of Flustrella have two gowns which circumscribe the disk on both faces, though a peripheral slit zone is recognizable in lateral view (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 41, figs 2, 3; pl. 42, figs 1-4; Poluzzi 1982: pl. 21, figs 1-8; Takahashi 1991: pl. 20, fig. 5; van de Paverd 1995: pl. 51, fig. 1; Onodera et al. 2011: pl. 5, figs 15, 16). The degree of coverage of the gown is varies from the peripheral edge, to the entire area of the disk. The Stylochlamydium -form of Stylodictya also tends to become smooth on the surface, as well as a peripheral gown is observed (Onodera et al. 2011: pl. 5, figs 17, 18). Th internal skeletal structure of Stylodictya was illustrated (Dumitrica 1989: pl. 15, fig. 11). The images of living specimens were identified for the “ Stylochlamydium ” -form of Flustrella (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.10.6) and Stylodictya (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.8.13; Matsuoka et al. 2017: appendix A). Protoplasm and algal symbionts were documented by epi-fluorescent observation with DAPI dyeing in the “ Spongophacus ”-form of Flustrella (Zhang et al. 2018: 13, fig. 20, p. 19, fig. 9), the “ Stylocyclia ” -form of Stylodictya (Zhang et al. 2018: 14, figs 6-8, p. 23, fig. 2). Samples fixed with dyeing were shown for Stylocyclia (Aita et al. 2009: pl. 3, fig. 4; pl. 24, fig. 1; pl. 26, fig. 4; pl. 27, fig. 3; pl. 28, fig. 6). Many undescribed genera still remain (e.g., Ogane &amp; Suzuki 2006: pl. 2, figs 8-12). VALIDITY OF GENERAFlustrella The combination of Discospira and Discospirella, and that of Perispira and Perispirella have respectively the same type species. Trematodiscus has already been practically synonymized by Campbell (1954: D89) with all concentric rings forms. Centrospira is defined by a spiral inner ring and outer concentric rings (Campbell 1954: D89-90), Discospirella is characterized by spiral rings (Campbell 1954 as Discospira: D90), Perispirella is characterized by concentric inner rings and outer spiral ones (Campbell 1954 as Perispira: D90). Many illustrations of the Trematodiscidae display the development of a partial ring outside the complete ring (van de Paverd et al. 1995: pl. 52, figs 2, 3, 5, 7), but no photos of spiral development are known to indicate the formation of a ring like that of a spiral foraminifer. These spiral morphologies are intraspecific variations. Perichlamydium is marked by a smooth shell margin with a thin porous equatorial girdle (Campbell: D91-92) and Stylochlamyum is marked by a thin porous equatorial girdle and all rings concentric (Campbell: D92). Equatorial rings develop in later growth stages so that there is no difference at the genus level. StaurospiraTholodiscus is characterized by four zig-zag radial lines and the multi-annular outline of the disk (Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 525) and Xiphospira is defined by the presence of all partly or completely spiral rings and two opposite radial spines (Campbell 1954: D92). The structure of the disk divided by four zig-zag radial lines gives a “decussate” appearance. The zig-zag lines depend obviously on the growth irregularity of each ring part between two “zig-zag radial lines”. The type species of Xiphospira surely shows two radial spines but the type-illustration is a broken specimen in which the other two radial spines are broken off. As the difference between Staurospira and Stylodictya is characterized by the number of solid radial beams or the relevant structure inside the disk (four for Staurospira and more than four for Stylodictya), these three genera (Staurospira, Tholodiscus and Xiphospira) have in common a decussate appearance indicating synonymic relationships. Staurodictyon should be synonymized with Staurospira due to the decussate disk structure. Staurospira, Staurodictyon, and Xiphospira were simultaneously published as subgenera in Haeckel (1887: 504 for Xiphospira, 506 for Staurodictyon, and 507 for Staurospira). Staurospira is validated herein due to a more complete illustration of the type species. Stylodictya The combined genera Stylodictya and Stylodictyon, and the combined genera Stylochlamydium and Stylochlamys have respectively the same type species. Sandin et al. (2021) placed “ Flustrella arachnea ” and Stylodictya stellata in the same molecular clade J2 and “ F. arachnea ” and Perichlamydium venustum in clade J1. The criteria at generic level in Sandin et al. (2021) follow those established by Ogane et al. (2009a) who clarified the difference between Flustrella and Stylodictya by examination of the Ehrenberg collection. “ Flustrella arachnea ” is conspecific with Stylodictya arachnea which is also the type species of Stylocyclia. The results obtained by Sandin et al. (2021) likely imply small differences among Stylodictya, Stylocyclia and Stylochlamydium. Stylochlamydium is described as “Like Stylodictya but with thin porous equatorial girdle” and “all concentric rings” (Campbell 1954: D92) but presence of equatorial girdle developed in later growth stage like the Perichlamydium -form of Flustrella. Stylospongia looks like a spongy surface but the type-illustration shows no large difference from Stylodictya arachnea in principal. The oldest available name is Stylodictya. Tripodictya This synonymy is tentative. We have never confirmed the occurrence of real specimens similar to Xiphodictyon. Tripodictya is the oldest available name among them.</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Trematodiscida Haeckel, 1862: 240, 485, 491 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1882: 459 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 484, 491 [as a subfamily]. — Mivart 1878: 176. — Stöhr 1880: 107 [as a family]. — Schröder 1909: 42 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Discospirida Haeckel, 1862: 240, 485, 513 [as a tribe]. — Zittel 1876-1880: 124 [rank unknown]. — Mivart 1878: 176 [as a subsection]. — Stöhr 1880: 113 [as a family].</p> <p>Porodiscida Haeckel, 1882: 459 [junior homonym, as a subfamily]; Haeckel 1887: 409, 481-485 [as a family]. — Wisniowski 1889: 685 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1961 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 166 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 24 [as a family].</p> <p>Stylodictyida Haeckel, 1882: 459 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 484, 503 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 42 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Stylocyclida Haeckel, 1887: 458, 461.</p> <p>Spongophacida Haeckel, 1882: 461 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]. — Dunikowski 1882: 190 [as a tribe]. — Haeckel 1887: 575 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 50 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Porodiscidae – Popofsky 1908: 222 [junior homonym]; 1912: 127. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 41; 1945: 23. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 24; 1944b: 15. — Orlev 1959: 444. — Chediya 1959: 132. — Kozlova 1967: 1171-1173 (sensu emend.). — Petrushevska- ya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 524-525 (sensu emend by Kozlova). — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 242. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 865. — Dumitrica 1979: 24-25; 1984: 102. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 152. —Anderson 1983: 39. — Blueford 1988: 250. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 151. — Hollis 1997: 53. — Tan 1998: 209. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 208. — Amon 2000: 41. — Chen et al. 2017: 138.</p> <p>Trematodiscinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 41; 1945: 23. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 24; 1944b: 15. — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 23. — Chediya 1959: 133. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 128. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 152. — Tan 1998: 209. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 208.</p> <p>Stylodictyinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 42; Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 23. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 25; 1944b: 16. — Campbell 1954: D92. — Chediya 1959: 134. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 242. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 128. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 153. — Tan 1998: 210. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 210. — Chen et al. 2017: 141.</p> <p>Spongophacinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 47 [nomen dubium]; Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 25. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 27;— Campbell &amp; Clark 1944b: 18. — Chediya 1959: 146.</p> <p>Trematodiscidae – Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 23. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 127.</p> <p>Stylocycliinae – Campbell 1954: D82.</p> <p>Flustrellinae Campbell, 1954: D88-89.</p> <p>Stylocyclinae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 129 (= Stylocycliinae). — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1972: 46.</p> <p>Amphibrachiinae Pessagno, 1971a: 20 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Stylodictyidae – Petrushevskaya 1975: 576.</p> <p>Spongostaurinae Kozur &amp; Mostler, 1978: 157-159 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Trematodiscus Haeckel, 1861b: 841 [type species by subsequent designation (Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 24): Trematodiscus orbiculatus Haeckel, 1862: 492] = junior subjective synonym of Flustrella Ehrenberg, 1839: 90 [type species by monotypy: Flustrella concentrica Ehrenberg, 1839: 132].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Flustrella Ehrenberg, 1839: 90 (nec Gray, 1848) (= Centrospira, Discospirella, Trematodiscus synonymized by Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 128; Perichlamydium synonymized byOgane et al. 2009a: 86; Perispirella n. syn., Stylochlamyum n. syn.). — Staurospira Haeckel, 1887: 507 (= Staurodictyon synonymized by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 525; Tholodiscus n. syn., Xiphospira n. syn.). — Stylodictya Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Stylodictyon with the same type species; Stylochlamydium n. syn., Stylochlamys n. syn., Stylospongia n. syn.; Stylocyclia synonymized by Müller 1859b: 41; Stylospira synonymized by Haeckel 1887: 513). — Tripodictya Haeckel, 1882: 459 (= Xiphodictyon n. syn.).</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Amphibrachium, Spongophacus, Spongostaurus Haeckel, 1882 (nec Swanberg et al., 1985), Spongotripodiscus, Spongotripodium, Spongotripus, Stylodictula, Stylospongidium.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYMS. — Discospira Haeckel, 1862 (= Discospirella) nec Mantell, 1850; Perispira Haeckel, 1882 (= Perispirella) nec Stein, 1859.</p> <p>NOMEN NUDUM. — Polydiscus.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — A spherical microsphere with four decussated radial beams is surrounded by 2 to 20 concentric rings. The ring wall has a variable appearance, ranging from a distinct shape to a very ambiguous shadow. In uncertain identifications, walls are observed in the sectioned specimens. Four, eight, or more non-bladed primary radial beams may be observed.</p> <p>The endoplasm fills the disc part but does not fill the peripheral gowns or one to three of the peripheral hoops. The central part endoplasm is different from the endoplasm found in the concentric hoops. In these last cases, the U-letter shaped or round bracket-shaped designs are visible on the disk of the concentric hoop parts. The protoplasm sometimes appears as a transparent yellowish-green color under a light microscope, or as a light, bright blue autofluorescent emission after DAPI dyeing under an epi-fluorescent microscope.</p> <p>No algal symbionts were identified. Ectoplasmic membrane wrapping the skeletal part including the radial spines. In general, a single axoflagellum is observable in living forms but there is no pylome.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Despite the efforts to resolve the synonymy problem between Flustrella and Porodiscus (Ogane et al. 2009a), this family was classically known as “ Porodiscidae ”. The genus name Porodiscus was proposed for a diatom (Greville 1863), for Polycystinea (Haeckel 1882), and for fungi (Murrill 1903). The genus Porodiscus has been erroneously considered as a primary junior synonym of Trematodiscus (see discussion p. 84-85 in Ogane et al. 2009a), actually there was a long debate on the type species of Porodiscus. Frizzell (in Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 24) designates Trematodiscus orbiculatus Haeckel, 1862 as the type species of Porodiscus; later on, Flustrella concentrica Ehrenberg, 1854 (Ehrenberg 1854c) was designated as the type species of Porodiscus (Campbell 1954: D89). However, these seem inappropriate as neither species was among those first subsequently assigned to the genus Porodiscus. Species first subsequently assigned to Porodiscus are: Porodiscus communis Rüst, 1885; P. nuesslinii Rüst, 1885; P. simplex Rüst, 1885. The first attempt to fix the type species of Porodiscus among those first species subsequently assigned to the genus is by De Wever et al. 2001: 158. The Mesozoic revision of genera (O’Dogherty et al. 2009a) revalidate such taxonomic act and considered Porodiscus as an available Mesozoic radiolarian name (but dubium), being Porodiscus communis Rüst, 1885 the type species.</p> <p>Molecular phylogeny supports a close relationship between Flustrella and Stylodictya. Thus, Stylodictyidae is herein synonymized with Trematodiscidae.Two types of equatorial radial spines were identified as primary radial spines: One type is the spine that is directly connects to the radial beams, the other is the spine that is disconnected from the radial beams. The latter has no value at genus level taxonomy. Ogane et al. (2009a: 84) originally thought that the structure of margarita was different between Flustrella and Stylodictya, but Flustrella in the sense of Ogane et al. (2009a) was tightly connected to Stylodictya stellata and Stylochlamydium venustum in the molecular phylogenetic study and belongs to Clade J (Sandin et al. 2021). According to Ogane et al. (2009a: 86), differences in the internal structure between Flustrella and Perichlamydium are unknown. Considering, these results and newly obtained images in the catalogue, we hereby grouped them together into a single genus.</p> <p>The taxonomic definition employed hitherto for classical Spongodiscidae could not distinguish Trematodiscidae from the Spongodiscidae in sensu stricto (e.g., De Wever et al. 2001: 158, 160). In particular, their internal structure cannot be identified with normal observation methods. Nonetheless, surface images under scanning electronic microscopes (SEM) provide a clear, perceivable difference between the Trematodiscidae and the Spongodiscidae. The central part observed in several genera of the Trematodiscidae crop out throughout their life. Hoops are generally added one by one, outside the external most hoop on the equatorial plane. The subsequent hoops never cover the previous ones, as such, sutures between hoops remain well visible. Furthermore, external hoops tend to be larger and thicker than inner hoops. Consequently, the center of the disk is thinner than the outer extremities. The observed change in thickness of this disk helps us understand the structure of the Trematodiscidae under a light microscope. These patterns are confirmed by SEM image of the surface in Flustrella (Dumitrica 1973a: pl. 8, figs 1-6; Petrushevskaya 1975: pl. 40, figs 1-4; Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 44, figs 1-3; Poluzzi 1982: pl. 20, figs 10-12; Yamauchi 1986: pl. 4, fig. 8; Cheng &amp; Yeh 1989: pl. 1, figs, 15: 18; van de Paverd 1995: pl. 52, fig. 1; Ogane &amp; Suzuki 2006: pl. 1, figs 5-9; pl. 2, figs 1-5; Onodera et al. 2011: pl. 6, figs 1, 2), Staurospira (Suyari &amp; Yamasaki 1988: pl. 3, fig. 9) and Stylodictya (Suyari &amp; Yamasaki 1987: pl. 7, fig. 11). The Trematodiscidae includes morphotypes with “covers” on the faces of the disk. Both “ Spongophacus ” - and “ Perichlamydium ” - forms of Flustrella have two gowns which circumscribe the disk on both faces, though a peripheral slit zone is recognizable in lateral view (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 41, figs 2, 3; pl. 42, figs 1-4; Poluzzi 1982: pl. 21, figs 1-8; Takahashi 1991: pl. 20, fig. 5; van de Paverd 1995: pl. 51, fig. 1; Onodera et al. 2011: pl. 5, figs 15, 16). The degree of coverage of the gown is varies from the peripheral edge, to the entire area of the disk. The Stylochlamydium -form of Stylodictya also tends to become smooth on the surface, as well as a peripheral gown is observed (Onodera et al. 2011: pl. 5, figs 17, 18).</p> <p>Th internal skeletal structure of Stylodictya was illustrated (Dumitrica 1989: pl. 15, fig. 11). The images of living specimens were identified for the “ Stylochlamydium ” -form of Flustrella (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.10.6) and Stylodictya (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.8.13; Matsuoka et al. 2017: appendix A). Protoplasm and algal symbionts were documented by epi-fluorescent observation with DAPI dyeing in the “ Spongophacus ”-form of Flustrella (Zhang et al. 2018: 13, fig. 20, p. 19, fig. 9), the “ Stylocyclia ” -form of Stylodictya (Zhang et al. 2018: 14, figs 6-8, p. 23, fig. 2). Samples fixed with dyeing were shown for Stylocyclia (Aita et al. 2009: pl. 3, fig. 4; pl. 24, fig. 1; pl. 26, fig. 4; pl. 27, fig. 3; pl. 28, fig. 6). Many undescribed genera still remain (e.g., Ogane &amp; Suzuki 2006: pl. 2, figs 8-12).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Flustrella</p> <p>The combination of Discospira and Discospirella, and that of Perispira and Perispirella have respectively the same type species. Trematodiscus has already been practically synonymized by Campbell (1954: D89) with all concentric rings forms. Centrospira is defined by a spiral inner ring and outer concentric rings (Campbell 1954: D89-90), Discospirella is characterized by spiral rings (Campbell 1954 as Discospira: D90), Perispirella is characterized by concentric inner rings and outer spiral ones (Campbell 1954 as Perispira: D90). Many illustrations of the Trematodiscidae display the development of a partial ring outside the complete ring (van de Paverd et al. 1995: pl. 52, figs 2, 3, 5, 7), but no photos of spiral development are known to indicate the formation of a ring like that of a spiral foraminifer. These spiral morphologies are intraspecific variations. Perichlamydium is marked by a smooth shell margin with a thin porous equatorial girdle (Campbell: D91-92) and Stylochlamyum is marked by a thin porous equatorial girdle and all rings concentric (Campbell: D92). Equatorial rings develop in later growth stages so that there is no difference at the genus level.</p> <p>Staurospira</p> <p>Tholodiscus is characterized by four zig-zag radial lines and the multi-annular outline of the disk (Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 525) and Xiphospira is defined by the presence of all partly or completely spiral rings and two opposite radial spines (Campbell 1954: D92). The structure of the disk divided by four zig-zag radial lines gives a “decussate” appearance. The zig-zag lines depend obviously on the growth irregularity of each ring part between two “zig-zag radial lines”. The type species of Xiphospira surely shows two radial spines but the type-illustration is a broken specimen in which the other two radial spines are broken off. As the difference between Staurospira and Stylodictya is characterized by the number of solid radial beams or the relevant structure inside the disk (four for Staurospira and more than four for Stylodictya), these three genera (Staurospira, Tholodiscus and Xiphospira) have in common a decussate appearance indicating synonymic relationships. Staurodictyon should be synonymized with Staurospira due to the decussate disk structure. Staurospira, Staurodictyon, and Xiphospira were simultaneously published as subgenera in Haeckel (1887: 504 for Xiphospira, 506 for Staurodictyon, and 507 for Staurospira). Staurospira is validated herein due to a more complete illustration of the type species.</p> <p>Stylodictya</p> <p>The combined genera Stylodictya and Stylodictyon, and the combined genera Stylochlamydium and Stylochlamys have respectively the same type species. Sandin et al. (2021) placed “ Flustrella arachnea ” and Stylodictya stellata in the same molecular clade J2 and “ F. arachnea ” and Perichlamydium venustum in clade J1. The criteria at generic level in Sandin et al. (2021) follow those established by Ogane et al. (2009a) who clarified the difference between Flustrella and Stylodictya by examination of the Ehrenberg collection. “ Flustrella arachnea ” is conspecific with Stylodictya arachnea which is also the type species of Stylocyclia. The results obtained by Sandin et al. (2021) likely imply small differences among Stylodictya, Stylocyclia and Stylochlamydium. Stylochlamydium is described as “Like Stylodictya but with thin porous equatorial girdle” and “all concentric rings” (Campbell 1954: D92) but presence of equatorial girdle developed in later growth stage like the Perichlamydium -form of Flustrella. Stylospongia looks like a spongy surface but the type-illustration shows no large difference from Stylodictya arachnea in principal. The oldest available name is Stylodictya.</p> <p>Tripodictya</p> <p>This synonymy is tentative. We have never confirmed the occurrence of real specimens similar to Xiphodictyon. Tripodictya is the oldest available name among them.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF8BFE1405D0FB05FAD74E9C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFB5FE170646FDA7FDBB4E9C.text	038DDA73FFB5FE170646FDA7FDBB4E9C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Haliommoidea Ehrenberg 1846	<div><p>Superfamily HALIOMMOIDEA Ehrenberg, 1846</p> <p>Haliommatina Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [as a family]; 1847: 54 [as a family]; 1876: 156.</p> <p>Sphaeropylidea – Lankester et al. 1909: 145 [as a suborder].</p> <p>Haliommoidea – Petrushevskaya 1975: 568; 1979: 105. — Dumitrica 1979: 19.</p> <p>Actinommacea [sic] – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 2-7 (= Actinommoidea) (sensu emend.) [as a superfamily]. — Dumitrica 1984: 95 [as a superfamily]. — De Wever et al. 2001: 107-108 (sensu emend.) [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Actinommilae – Dumitrica 1984: 96 [as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Actinommoidea – Petrushevskaya 1984: 130; 1986: 125-127. — Bragin 2007: 971; 2011: 742. — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 6-7.</p> <p>Actinommaceae [sic] – O’Dogherty 1994: 277 (= Actinommoidea) [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Actinommoida – Amon 2000: 29 [as an order].</p> <p>Actinommata – Afanasieva et al. 2005: S274 [as an order]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 111 [as an order].</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Double medullary shell and one or more spherical or flattened concentric shells with many radial beams.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Some authors placed this taxonomic category at the order level but this placement is unacceptable with regard to rank consistency in Eukaryotes (Cavalier-Smith et al. 2018; Adl et al. 2019). “Actinommoidea” has been a very large group that has included all spherical Polycystinea having many radial spines in traced history (11 families in Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979; 14 family groups in Dumitrica 1984; 7 family groups in Petrushevskaya 1984; 18 family groups in De Wever et al. 2001). In the catalogue, the Haliommoidea include the Actinommidae, Haliommidae and Heliodiscidae, but molecular phylogenetic information is only available for Actinomma (Sandin et al. 2021). Thus, it is uncertain whether or not the Heliodiscidae belong to the Haliommoidea considering the Heliodiscidae are marked by the presence of a microsphere that is eccentrically located in the second shell. As for the Cenozoic families of “Actinommoidea” sensu De Wever et al. (2001) are here excluded from the Haliommoidea. The exclusion encompasses the Cladococcidae (originally Astrosphaeridae), Stylatractidae and Stylosphaeridae, Entapiidae, Phacodiscidae (originally Coccodiscinae), Panartidae (originally Artiscinae), Suttoniidae and Conocaryommidae. Additionally, Cladococcidae and Panartidae are separated from Haliommoidea due to the strong molecular phylogenetic information presented by Sandin et al. (2021). Several spherical genera have not been formally described yet, as their probable taxonomic position at family or superfamily level is still difficult to determine (e.g., Nishimura 1982: pl. 1, figs 12, 13).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFB5FE170646FDA7FDBB4E9C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFB6FE1605C1FDE6FEFF4880.text	038DDA73FFB6FE1605C1FDE6FEFF4880.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Actinomminae Takahashi 1991	<div><p>Family ACTINOMMIDAE Haeckel, 1862 sensu Suzuki emend. hereinActinommatida Haeckel, 1862: 239, 412, 440 [as a tribe]. — Mivart 1878: 177 [as a subsection].Cromyommida Haeckel, 1882: 453 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 208, 260 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 17 [as a subfamily].Caryosphaerida Haeckel, 1882: 454 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 60, 71 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 5 [as a subfamily].Staurocaryida Haeckel, 1882: 454 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 152, 167 [as a subfamily]. Actinommida [sic] – Haeckel 1887: 208, 251 (= Actinomminae) [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 17 [as a subfamily]. Sphaeropylida Dreyer, 1889: 11-12 [as a family].Heterosphaerinae Mast, 1910: 49 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]. — Popofsky 1912: 93. — Campbell 1954: D62.Sphaeropylidae – Poche 1913: 207.Caryosphaerinae – Campbell 1954: D50 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 72. Actinommatinae [sic] – Campbell 1954: D64(= Actinomminae). — Pessagno 1976: 42. Staurocaryinae – Campbell 1954: D58. — Chediya 1959: 89.Cromyommatinae – Campbell 1954: D66.Sphaeropyinae – Campbell 1954: D66.— Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 13-14.Stomatosphaerinae Campbell, 1954: D66. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 44-45.Actinommidae – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 222. — Riedel 1967b: 294 (sensu emend.); Riedel 1971: 651. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1971: 1587; 1977: 862. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1973: 486; 1980: 1008-1009 (sensu emend.). — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 167, 169. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 122. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 7-10 (sensu emend.). — De Wever 1982b: 175. — Anderson 1983: 37. — Dumitrica 1984: 96; 1995: 22-23. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1985: 586. — Sanfilippo et al. 1985: 651. — nec Gourmelon 1987: 35. — Blueford 1988: 247. — Takahashi 1991: 64. — Sashida &amp; Igo 1992: 1306. — Kito &amp; De Wever 1994: 125. — van de Paverd 1995: 118. — Sashida &amp; Uematsu 1996: 48. — Hollis 1997: 32. — Boltovskoy 1998: 31. — Cordey 1998: 54. — Kozlova 1999: 67. — Amon 2000: 32. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1002. — De Wever et al. 2001: 119-121 (sensu emend.). — Suzuki &amp; Gawlick 2003: 164. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S274-275. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 111. — Bragin 2007: 971; 2011: 742. — Chen et al. 2017: 152. — nec Suzuki H. et al. 2020: 109. Actinomminae – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 17. — Chediya 1959: 98. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 515 (sensu emend.). — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 10-11 (sensu emend.). TYPE GENUS. — Actinomma Haeckel, 1861a: 815 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D64): Haliomma trinacrium Haeckel, 1861a: 815]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Actinomma Haeckel, 1861a: 815 (= Actinommetta with the same type species; Haliommuran. syn.,? Rhaphidococcus n. syn., Riedelipyle n. syn.; Dreyerella synonymized by Burridge et al. 2014: 51; Drymyomma synonymized by Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 7; Cromyomma synonymized by BjØrklund 1976: 114; Echinommura, Heliosomura, Sphaeropyle synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 568). — Cromyechinus Haeckel, 1882: 453 (= Cromyodrymus synonymized by Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 12). — Rhaphidocapsa Haeckel, 1887: 211. —? Sphaeractis Brandt in Wetzel, 1936: 50. —? Staurocaryum Haeckel, 1882: 454. — Stomatosphaera Dreyer, 1889: 26. —? Stuermeria Deflandre, 1964: 2119. INVALID NAME. — Heterosphaerina. NOMINA DUBIA. — Acanthosphaera, Caryosphaera, Echinomma, Echinommetta, Haliommetta, Heterosphaera, Parastomatosphaera, Raphidodrymus, Rhaphidosphaera, Sethosphaera. NOMEN NUDUM. — Dermatosphaera.NOMEN OBLITUM. — Chilomma. DIAGNOSIS. — Concentric spherical shells with many bladed radial beams. Three shells are present, one or two may also be observed in rare cases. The central structure consists of a double medullary shell. Both shells of the double medullary shell are latticed, of spherical shape, and are connected by many radial beams. Radial spines, if present, arise directly from these radial beams. Endoplasm fills the cortical shell in Actinomma. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-Living.REMARKS The presence of radial spines is not a determining factor in identifying members of the Actinommidae. The Actinommidae are different from the Haliommidae. The latter have non-bladed radial beams. Many junior synonyms of Actinomma were determined by finding intermediate forms between three-shelled and four-shelled forms with a countless number of “ Actinomma ” (BjØrklund 1976; Suzuki 2006; Burridge et al. 2014). Cromyechinus is validated in this catalogue, but several previous papers (BjØrklund 1976: 114; Petrushevskaya 1975: 568; Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 7) presented it as a junior synonym of Actinomma. The genus name Acanthosphaera was used for a single cortical shell with numerous bladed spines, but the name-bearing type specimen of Acanthosphaera, archived in the Ehrenberg collection, apparently displays some internal structure (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 42, figs 1a-1c). For the classic Acanthosphaera, the only viable solution is to apply the term Rhaphidocapsa. However, classic representatives of Acanthosphaera may be mixed with Actinomma (Actinommidae), Anomalosoma (Hollandosphaeridae), Tetrapetalon (Hollandosphaeridae), a single shelled-form of Diplosphaera (young form) (Cladococcidae), Heliosphaera (Ethmosphaeridae), Centro- lonche (Centrolonchidae), Stigmostylus (Centrolonchidae) or Stylosphaera (Stylosphaeridae) consisting of many radial spine-forms if their internal structure is missing, dissolved or unseen; such as in scanning electron microscopic photos. Several genera selected as members of this family (e.g., Rhaphidocapsa, Sphaeractis, Staurocaryum, Stuermeria) are still problematic. Unfortunately, this problem could not be resolved in this catalogue due to insufficient reports of these genera. Internal skeletal structure was illustrated for Actinomma (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 21, fig. 6; Suzuki 1998b: pl. 3, figs 6-8), Riedelipyle -form of Actinomma (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 25, fig. 1; Nishimura 2003; pl. 1, figs 6-9) and Sphaeropyle -form of Actinomma (Suzuki 1998b: pl. 3, figs 13, 14; 2006: figs 3.1-3.15, 4.1- 4.10). Protoplasm is illustrated for Actinomma (KrabberØd et al. 2011: figs 1.A-1.D). Actinomma can be infected with the Marine Alveolata Group I and II (Ikenoue et al. 2016). Some still remain as undescribed genera (e.g., Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 6, fig. 2; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 1, figs 7, 8). VALIDITY OF GENERAActinomma The combination of Actinomma and Actinommetta has the same type species. The morphological commonality among several available genera with Actinomma is repeatedly explained in several previous studies (Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972; BjØrklund 1976; Burridge et al. 2014; Matsuzaki et al. 2015).The lectotype of Acanthosphaera has probably three concentric shells like Actinomma (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 42, figs 1a-1b) but it is regarded as a nomen dubium because the lectotype is insufficient to observe important distinguishing features such as the number of internal shells. The type species for Haliommura was subsequently designated as Haliomma beroes in the Atlas due to the invalid designation status by Campbell (1954: D62) and the lectotype of this type species (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 36, figs 1a-c) fits exactly with the morphological character of Actinomma. Riedelipyle was established by Kozur &amp; Mostler (1979: 14) with Sphaeropyle kuekenthalii as type species. They differ from the Sphaeropyle -form of Actinomma by the empty space in the cortical shell, but the H.M.S. Challenger Station 267, the next to the Station 268, the type locality, includes “ Riedelipyle ” as the “ Sphaeropyle ” specimen whose internal structure is lost (See supporting image of the Atlas for Riedelipyle). The oldest available name is Actinomma among them. CromyechinusCromyodrymus is characterized by branched radial spines and four concentric lattice shells (Campbell 1954: D66). The branched part in the type-illustration of Cromyodrymu s is identical to the lateral spinule vertical to the radial spine. This kind of lateral spinules is a pre-development condition for a new cortical shell which is reported in the Sphaeropyle - and Dreyeropyle -forms of Actinomma (Suzuki 2006; Burridge et al. 2014). Family HALIOMMIDAE Ehrenberg, 1846 sensu Suzuki emend. hereinHaliommatina Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [as a family]; 1847: 54 [as a family]; Ehrenberg 1876: 156. — Schomburgk 1847: 124, 126 [as a family].Haliommatida – Haeckel 1862: 239, 412, 423 [as a tribe]. — Mivart 1878: 177 [as a subdivision of the subsection Ommatida].Carposphaerida Haeckel, 1882: 451 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 60, 85 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 5 [as a subfamily].Cromyosphaerida Haeckel, 1882: 453 [as a tribe]; 1887: 60, 84 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 5 [as a subfamily].Haliommida – Haeckel 1887: 208, 230 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 16 [as a subfamily].Carposphaerinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 20 [nomen dubium]; 1945: 9. — Chediya 1959: 70.Cromyosphaerinae – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 9. — Campbell 1954: D50. — Chediya 1959: 72.Haliomminae – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 16; 1944b: 11. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 17. — Chediya 1959: 97.Cenosphaeridae Deflandre, 1953: 420-421. — Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: 68, 86. — Petrushevskaya 1975: 567. — Dumitrica 1979: 18. — Anderson 1983: 49.Haliommidae – Petrushevskaya 1975: 568; 1979: 105-106. — Dumitrica 1979: 20. TYPE GENUS. — Haliomma Ehrenberg, 1839: 128 [invalid subsequent designation (new subsequent designation in this revision): Haliomma medusa Ehrenberg, 1839: 130]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Cromyosphaera Haeckel, 1882: 453 (= Cromyommettan. syn.; Cromyommura synonymized by Matsuzaki et al. 2015:7). — Haliomma Ehrenberg, 1839: 128 (= Actinommillan. syn., Cenosphaeran. syn., Circosphaera n. syn.; Thecosphaerella synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 568). — Haliommantha Haeckel, 1887: 230. — Hexacontella Haeckel, 1887: 194. — Melittosphaera Haeckel, 1882: 451 (= Conoactinomma n. syn.). — Pseudostaurosphaera Krasheninnikov, 1960: 276 (= Pseudostaurolonche synonymized Kozlova 1999: 75). INVALID NAME. — Circulosphaera. NOMINA DUBIA. — Chaunosphaera, Prunosphaera, Thecosphaerantha, Thecosphaerina, Thecosphaeromma. JUNIOR HOMONYM. — Porosphaera Haeckel, 1887 (= Chaunosphaera) nec Steinman, 1878. DIAGNOSIS. — Two to three, rarely more than three, concentric spherical shells with many non-bladed radial beams. Central structure consists of a double medullary shell. Both shells of the double medullary shell are latticed, spherical in shape, and connected by many radial beams. Radial spines may be present or absent. Nodelike or by-spine-like short spines are observable in some species. Endoplasm is illustrated in the Cromyommetta -form of Cromyosphaera and in Haliomma. Endoplasm is gray to light gray in color and fills the double medullary shell. It is also distributed around the medullary shell in younger forms and occupies a large portion of the cortical shell. The axopodial system is unknown. No algal symbionts were observed. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Paleocene-Living.REMARKS Differing from the Actinommidae, the Haliommidae are distinguished by the presence of non-bladed radial beams. This family may include a single-latticed, cortical shell member whose internal shells and radial beams have been lost or dissolved. Pseudostaurosphaera is tentatively included in this family as the similarity to the number of shells of Melittosphaera was taken into consideration. The taxonomic differences between Haliomma, Haliommantha and Melittosphaera require further study. The catalogue finally synonymized Cenosphaera with Haliomma following anatomical observations and rules included in the Code. The type species of Cenosphaera (Cenosphaera plutonis) was illustrated without any information about its internal structure (Ehrenberg 1854c: pl. 35B-B.IV, fig. 20). The genus was originally defined as a single shell genus (Ehrenberg 1854b: 237). However, the real type-specimen illustrated and archived in the Ehrenberg collection possessed three concentric shells (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 30, figs 1a-1d). Under the principles of the Code, “ every name within the scope of the Code [...] is permanently attached to a name-bearing type.” (see the Principles in the Introduction). Conforming to this rule, Cenosphaera based on the name-bearing type is a genus with three concentric shells, thus Haliomma is the oldest senior synonym for the group of Cenosphaera under this sense. This solution avoids an important instability and confusion between one-shelled and three-shelled genera. Conversely, we expanded the definition of Ethmosphaera to include the previous oneshelled species in order to avoid further potential confusion. Here, Hexacontella is included into Haliommidae due to the presence of non-bladed radial beams directly connected with bladed six radial spines (Dumitrica’s personal observation). Haliomma poses certain problems to common morphology if referring to the type material for Haliomma medusa Ehrenberg, 1839 (type species of Haliomma in the Ehrenberg collection). The illustration (publishes in pl. 22, figs 34a, 34b of Ehrenberg 1854c) appears to show six radial beams inside the shell. This drawing corresponds to the type specimen found and examined in the Ehrenberg collection (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 1, fig. 3d). However, this type material contains several specimens of the morphotype that look identical, if the differing number of radial beams are not considered (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pls 1-3). This suggests intraspecific variability of H. medusa based on the number of radial beams. In light of this infra-species variation, the definition of Haliomma is expanded in so far as to include the morphotypes with variable numbers of radial beams. These morphotypes are generally identified as Thecosphaera (with non-bladed radial beams in the original diagnosis), but the representative genus can no longer be used because the type species is a Mesozoic nomen dubium (Thecosphaera unica Rüst, 1885). Although there is some doubt regarding the shape of the radial beams in the lectotype of H. medusa, the presence of non-bladed radial beams is considered specific to Haliomma. Internal skeletal structure was illustrated for Cromyosphaera (Nishimura 1992: pl. 1, fig. 11), Haliomma (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 1, fig. 4; pl. 4, figs 1, 4; Suzuki 1998b: pl. 3, figs 4, 5; pl. 6, figs 3, 4) and Melittosphaera (Barwicz-Piskorz 1997: pl. 1, fig. 1;1999: figs 2.B-2.G). Protoplasm and algal symbionts were documented with epi-fluorescent observation with DAPI dyeing in the Cromyommetta -form of Cromyosphaera (Zhang et al. 2018: 17, fig. 4) and Haliomma (Zhang et al. 2018: 17, figs 7, 8). Some undescribed genera probably belonging to the Haliommidae remain (Hollis 1997: pl. 3, fig. 6: Jackett &amp; Baumgartner 2007: pl. 1, fig. 37; Jackett et al. 2008: pl. 3, fig. 1). VALIDITY OF GENERACromyosphaeraCromyommetta is characterized by regular pores with same sizes on the cortical shell, four concentric lattice shells, and numerous radial spines (Campbell 1954: D66). The type species of Cromyomma was subsequently designated as Cromyomma villosum in the Atlas due to an invalid designation of the type species by Campbell (1954). The “numerous radial spines” in the definition correspond to spiny by-spines in the modern terminological sense. The occurrence of by-spines is not used as a genus criterion in the Haliommoidea. The oldest available name is Cromyosphaera among them. Haliomma The same type species is designated for Cenosphaera and Circosphaera. As explained in the remarks for the Ethmosphaeridae and Haliommidae, the lectotype of Cenosphaera has three concentric shells with many radial beams, differing from the widely applied concept of a single cortical shell with an empty space. This structure is exactly the same as the current concept of Thecosphaera and Haliomma in the Atlas. Actinommilla was newly established as a subgenus of Actinomma by Haeckel (1887: 254) and is marked by irregular pores with dissimilar sizes on the cortical shell and spines covering the entire surface of the cortical shell (Campbell 1954: D65-66). The “spines” is an interpretation of by-spines if the illustration of the type species of Actinommilla is referred. Differences in both pores and by-spines on the cortical shell are variable within or between species. Haliomma is the oldest available genus among them. MelittosphaeraMelittosphaera is characterized by one medullary shell, one cortical shell whose pores within hexagonal frames are circular or hexagonal in shape and dissimilar in size, radial beams joining two shells, and no radial spines on the shell surface (Campbell 1954 as Melitosphaera [sic]: D48). Conoactinomma is defined by three concentric shells, conical protuberances (“tubercles”) on the cortical shell, and by-spines on each tubercle (Gorbunov in Kozlova &amp; Gorbovetz 1966: 104). The supporting image of Conoactinomma in the Atlas shows a “weak” shadow of the innermost double medullary shell but this type of shell is easily dissolved. In consideration of difference on the resistance on preservation effect, Conoactinomma is separated from Haliomma. As Melittosphaera looks to lose the innermost double medullary shell, this genus is also separated from Haliomma until an exact observation could be carried out for both these genera. Roughness of the cortical shell is different between Melittosphaera and Conoactinomma but this difference is not so significant. It is unnecessary to differentiate them at the genus level. Melittosphaera is an available name older than Conoactinomma.</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Actinommatida Haeckel, 1862: 239, 412, 440 [as a tribe]. — Mivart 1878: 177 [as a subsection].</p> <p>Cromyommida Haeckel, 1882: 453 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 208, 260 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 17 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Caryosphaerida Haeckel, 1882: 454 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 60, 71 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 5 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Staurocaryida Haeckel, 1882: 454 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 152, 167 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Actinommida [sic] – Haeckel 1887: 208, 251 (= Actinomminae) [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 17 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Sphaeropylida Dreyer, 1889: 11-12 [as a family].</p> <p>Heterosphaerinae Mast, 1910: 49 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]. — Popofsky 1912: 93. — Campbell 1954: D62.</p> <p>Sphaeropylidae – Poche 1913: 207.</p> <p>Caryosphaerinae – Campbell 1954: D50 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 72.</p> <p>Actinommatinae [sic] – Campbell 1954: D64(= Actinomminae). — Pessagno 1976: 42.</p> <p>Staurocaryinae – Campbell 1954: D58. — Chediya 1959: 89.</p> <p>Cromyommatinae – Campbell 1954: D66.</p> <p>Sphaeropyinae – Campbell 1954: D66.— Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 13-14.</p> <p>Stomatosphaerinae Campbell, 1954: D66. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 44-45.</p> <p>Actinommidae – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 222. — Riedel 1967b: 294 (sensu emend.); Riedel 1971: 651. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1971: 1587; 1977: 862. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1973: 486; 1980: 1008-1009 (sensu emend.). — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 167, 169. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 122. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 7-10 (sensu emend.). — De Wever 1982b: 175. — Anderson 1983: 37. — Dumitrica 1984: 96; 1995: 22-23. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1985: 586. — Sanfilippo et al. 1985: 651. — nec Gourmelon 1987: 35. — Blueford 1988: 247. — Takahashi 1991: 64. — Sashida &amp; Igo 1992: 1306. — Kito &amp; De Wever 1994: 125. — van de Paverd 1995: 118. — Sashida &amp; Uematsu 1996: 48. — Hollis 1997: 32. — Boltovskoy 1998: 31. — Cordey 1998: 54. — Kozlova 1999: 67. — Amon 2000: 32. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1002. — De Wever et al. 2001: 119-121 (sensu emend.). — Suzuki &amp; Gawlick 2003: 164. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S274-275. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 111. — Bragin 2007: 971; 2011: 742. — Chen et al. 2017: 152. — nec Suzuki H. et al. 2020: 109.</p> <p>Actinomminae – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 17. — Chediya 1959: 98. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 515 (sensu emend.). — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 10-11 (sensu emend.).</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Actinomma Haeckel, 1861a: 815 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D64): Haliomma trinacrium Haeckel, 1861a: 815].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Actinomma Haeckel, 1861a: 815 (= Actinommetta with the same type species; Haliommura n. syn.,? Rhaphidococcus n. syn., Riedelipyle n. syn.; Dreyerella synonymized by Burridge et al. 2014: 51; Drymyomma synonymized by Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 7; Cromyomma synonymized by BjØrklund 1976: 114; Echinommura, Heliosomura, Sphaeropyle synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 568). — Cromyechinus Haeckel, 1882: 453 (= Cromyodrymus synonymized by Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 12). — Rhaphidocapsa Haeckel, 1887: 211. —? Sphaeractis Brandt in Wetzel, 1936: 50. —? Staurocaryum Haeckel, 1882: 454. — Stomatosphaera Dreyer, 1889: 26. —? Stuermeria Deflandre, 1964: 2119.</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Heterosphaerina.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Acanthosphaera, Caryosphaera, Echinomma, Echinommetta, Haliommetta, Heterosphaera, Parastomatosphaera, Raphidodrymus, Rhaphidosphaera, Sethosphaera.</p> <p>NOMEN NUDUM. — Dermatosphaera.</p> <p>NOMEN OBLITUM. — Chilomma.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Concentric spherical shells with many bladed radial beams. Three shells are present, one or two may also be observed in rare cases. The central structure consists of a double medullary shell. Both shells of the double medullary shell are latticed, of spherical shape, and are connected by many radial beams. Radial spines, if present, arise directly from these radial beams. Endoplasm fills the cortical shell in Actinomma.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The presence of radial spines is not a determining factor in identifying members of the Actinommidae. The Actinommidae are different from the Haliommidae. The latter have non-bladed radial beams. Many junior synonyms of Actinomma were determined by finding intermediate forms between three-shelled and four-shelled forms with a countless number of “ Actinomma ” (BjØrklund 1976; Suzuki 2006; Burridge et al. 2014). Cromyechinus is validated in this catalogue, but several previous papers (BjØrklund 1976: 114; Petrushevskaya 1975: 568; Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 7) presented it as a junior synonym of Actinomma. The genus name Acanthosphaera was used for a single cortical shell with numerous bladed spines, but the name-bearing type specimen of Acanthosphaera, archived in the Ehrenberg collection, apparently displays some internal structure (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 42, figs 1a-1c). For the classic Acanthosphaera, the only viable solution is to apply the term Rhaphidocapsa. However, classic representatives of Acanthosphaera may be mixed with Actinomma (Actinommidae), Anomalosoma (Hollandosphaeridae), Tetrapetalon (Hollandosphaeridae), a single shelled-form of Diplosphaera (young form) (Cladococcidae), Heliosphaera (Ethmosphaeridae), Centro- lonche (Centrolonchidae), Stigmostylus (Centrolonchidae) or Stylosphaera (Stylosphaeridae) consisting of many radial spine-forms if their internal structure is missing, dissolved or unseen; such as in scanning electron microscopic photos. Several genera selected as members of this family (e.g., Rhaphidocapsa, Sphaeractis, Staurocaryum, Stuermeria) are still problematic. Unfortunately, this problem could not be resolved in this catalogue due to insufficient reports of these genera. Internal skeletal structure was illustrated for Actinomma (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 21, fig. 6; Suzuki 1998b: pl. 3, figs 6-8), Riedelipyle -form of Actinomma (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 25, fig. 1; Nishimura 2003; pl. 1, figs 6-9) and Sphaeropyle -form of Actinomma (Suzuki 1998b: pl. 3, figs 13, 14; 2006: figs 3.1-3.15, 4.1- 4.10). Protoplasm is illustrated for Actinomma (KrabberØd et al. 2011: figs 1.A-1.D). Actinomma can be infected with the Marine Alveolata Group I and II (Ikenoue et al. 2016). Some still remain as undescribed genera (e.g., Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 6, fig. 2; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 1, figs 7, 8).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Actinomma</p> <p>The combination of Actinomma and Actinommetta has the same type species. The morphological commonality among several available genera with Actinomma is repeatedly explained in several previous studies (Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972; BjØrklund 1976; Burridge et al. 2014; Matsuzaki et al. 2015).The lectotype of Acanthosphaera has probably three concentric shells like Actinomma (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 42, figs 1a-1b) but it is regarded as a nomen dubium because the lectotype is insufficient to observe important distinguishing features such as the number of internal shells. The type species for Haliommura was subsequently designated as Haliomma beroes in the Atlas due to the invalid designation status by Campbell (1954: D62) and the lectotype of this type species (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 36, figs 1a-c) fits exactly with the morphological character of Actinomma. Riedelipyle was established by Kozur &amp; Mostler (1979: 14) with Sphaeropyle kuekenthalii as type species. They differ from the Sphaeropyle -form of Actinomma by the empty space in the cortical shell, but the H.M.S. Challenger Station 267, the next to the Station 268, the type locality, includes “ Riedelipyle ” as the “ Sphaeropyle ” specimen whose internal structure is lost (See supporting image of the Atlas for Riedelipyle). The oldest available name is Actinomma among them.</p> <p>Cromyechinus</p> <p>Cromyodrymus is characterized by branched radial spines and four concentric lattice shells (Campbell 1954: D66). The branched part in the type-illustration of Cromyodrymu s is identical to the lateral spinule vertical to the radial spine. This kind of lateral spinules is a pre-development condition for a new cortical shell which is reported in the Sphaeropyle - and Dreyeropyle -forms of Actinomma (Suzuki 2006; Burridge et al. 2014).</p> <p>Family HALIOMMIDAE Ehrenberg, 1846 sensu Suzuki emend. hereinHaliommatina Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [as a family]; 1847: 54 [as a family]; Ehrenberg 1876: 156. — Schomburgk 1847: 124, 126 [as a family].Haliommatida – Haeckel 1862: 239, 412, 423 [as a tribe]. — Mivart 1878: 177 [as a subdivision of the subsection Ommatida].Carposphaerida Haeckel, 1882: 451 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 60, 85 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 5 [as a subfamily].Cromyosphaerida Haeckel, 1882: 453 [as a tribe]; 1887: 60, 84 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 5 [as a subfamily].Haliommida – Haeckel 1887: 208, 230 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 16 [as a subfamily].Carposphaerinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 20 [nomen dubium]; 1945: 9. — Chediya 1959: 70.Cromyosphaerinae – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 9. — Campbell 1954: D50. — Chediya 1959: 72.Haliomminae – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 16; 1944b: 11. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 17. — Chediya 1959: 97.Cenosphaeridae Deflandre, 1953: 420-421. — Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: 68, 86. — Petrushevskaya 1975: 567. — Dumitrica 1979: 18. — Anderson 1983: 49.Haliommidae – Petrushevskaya 1975: 568; 1979: 105-106. — Dumitrica 1979: 20. TYPE GENUS. — Haliomma Ehrenberg, 1839: 128 [invalid subsequent designation (new subsequent designation in this revision): Haliomma medusa Ehrenberg, 1839: 130]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Cromyosphaera Haeckel, 1882: 453 (= Cromyommettan. syn.; Cromyommura synonymized by Matsuzaki et al. 2015:7). — Haliomma Ehrenberg, 1839: 128 (= Actinommillan. syn., Cenosphaeran. syn., Circosphaera n. syn.; Thecosphaerella synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 568). — Haliommantha Haeckel, 1887: 230. — Hexacontella Haeckel, 1887: 194. — Melittosphaera Haeckel, 1882: 451 (= Conoactinomma n. syn.). — Pseudostaurosphaera Krasheninnikov, 1960: 276 (= Pseudostaurolonche synonymized Kozlova 1999: 75). INVALID NAME. — Circulosphaera. NOMINA DUBIA. — Chaunosphaera, Prunosphaera, Thecosphaerantha, Thecosphaerina, Thecosphaeromma. JUNIOR HOMONYM. — Porosphaera Haeckel, 1887 (= Chaunosphaera) nec Steinman, 1878. DIAGNOSIS. — Two to three, rarely more than three, concentric spherical shells with many non-bladed radial beams. Central structure consists of a double medullary shell. Both shells of the double medullary shell are latticed, spherical in shape, and connected by many radial beams. Radial spines may be present or absent. Nodelike or by-spine-like short spines are observable in some species. Endoplasm is illustrated in the Cromyommetta -form of Cromyosphaera and in Haliomma. Endoplasm is gray to light gray in color and fills the double medullary shell. It is also distributed around the medullary shell in younger forms and occupies a large portion of the cortical shell. The axopodial system is unknown. No algal symbionts were observed. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Paleocene-Living.REMARKS Differing from the Actinommidae, the Haliommidae are distinguished by the presence of non-bladed radial beams. This family may include a single-latticed, cortical shell member whose internal shells and radial beams have been lost or dissolved. Pseudostaurosphaera is tentatively included in this family as the similarity to the number of shells of Melittosphaera was taken into consideration. The taxonomic differences between Haliomma, Haliommantha and Melittosphaera require further study. The catalogue finally synonymized Cenosphaera with Haliomma following anatomical observations and rules included in the Code. The type species of Cenosphaera (Cenosphaera plutonis) was illustrated without any information about its internal structure (Ehrenberg 1854c: pl. 35B-B.IV, fig. 20). The genus was originally defined as a single shell genus (Ehrenberg 1854b: 237). However, the real type-specimen illustrated and archived in the Ehrenberg collection possessed three concentric shells (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 30, figs 1a-1d). Under the principles of the Code, “ every name within the scope of the Code [...] is permanently attached to a name-bearing type.” (see the Principles in the Introduction). Conforming to this rule, Cenosphaera based on the name-bearing type is a genus with three concentric shells, thus Haliomma is the oldest senior synonym for the group of Cenosphaera under this sense. This solution avoids an important instability and confusion between one-shelled and three-shelled genera. Conversely, we expanded the definition of Ethmosphaera to include the previous oneshelled species in order to avoid further potential confusion. Here, Hexacontella is included into Haliommidae due to the presence of non-bladed radial beams directly connected with bladed six radial spines (Dumitrica’s personal observation). Haliomma poses certain problems to common morphology if referring to the type material for Haliomma medusa Ehrenberg, 1839 (type species of Haliomma in the Ehrenberg collection). The illustration (publishes in pl. 22, figs 34a, 34b of Ehrenberg 1854c) appears to show six radial beams inside the shell. This drawing corresponds to the type specimen found and examined in the Ehrenberg collection (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 1, fig. 3d). However, this type material contains several specimens of the morphotype that look identical, if the differing number of radial beams are not considered (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pls 1-3). This suggests intraspecific variability of H. medusa based on the number of radial beams. In light of this infra-species variation, the definition of Haliomma is expanded in so far as to include the morphotypes with variable numbers of radial beams. These morphotypes are generally identified as Thecosphaera (with non-bladed radial beams in the original diagnosis), but the representative genus can no longer be used because the type species is a Mesozoic nomen dubium (Thecosphaera unica Rüst, 1885). Although there is some doubt regarding the shape of the radial beams in the lectotype of H. medusa, the presence of non-bladed radial beams is considered specific to Haliomma. Internal skeletal structure was illustrated for Cromyosphaera (Nishimura 1992: pl. 1, fig. 11), Haliomma (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 1, fig. 4; pl. 4, figs 1, 4; Suzuki 1998b: pl. 3, figs 4, 5; pl. 6, figs 3, 4) and Melittosphaera (Barwicz-Piskorz 1997: pl. 1, fig. 1;1999: figs 2.B-2.G). Protoplasm and algal symbionts were documented with epi-fluorescent observation with DAPI dyeing in the Cromyommetta -form of Cromyosphaera (Zhang et al. 2018: 17, fig. 4) and Haliomma (Zhang et al. 2018: 17, figs 7, 8). Some undescribed genera probably belonging to the Haliommidae remain (Hollis 1997: pl. 3, fig. 6: Jackett &amp; Baumgartner 2007: pl. 1, fig. 37; Jackett et al. 2008: pl. 3, fig. 1). VALIDITY OF GENERACromyosphaeraCromyommetta is characterized by regular pores with same sizes on the cortical shell, four concentric lattice shells, and numerous radial spines (Campbell 1954: D66). The type species of Cromyomma was subsequently designated as Cromyomma villosum in the Atlas due to an invalid designation of the type species by Campbell (1954). The “numerous radial spines” in the definition correspond to spiny by-spines in the modern terminological sense. The occurrence of by-spines is not used as a genus criterion in the Haliommoidea. The oldest available name is Cromyosphaera among them. Haliomma The same type species is designated for Cenosphaera and Circosphaera. As explained in the remarks for the Ethmosphaeridae and Haliommidae, the lectotype of Cenosphaera has three concentric shells with many radial beams, differing from the widely applied concept of a single cortical shell with an empty space. This structure is exactly the same as the current concept of Thecosphaera and Haliomma in the Atlas. Actinommilla was newly established as a subgenus of Actinomma by Haeckel (1887: 254) and is marked by irregular pores with dissimilar sizes on the cortical shell and spines covering the entire surface of the cortical shell (Campbell 1954: D65-66). The “spines” is an interpretation of by-spines if the illustration of the type species of Actinommilla is referred. Differences in both pores and by-spines on the cortical shell are variable within or between species. Haliomma is the oldest available genus among them. MelittosphaeraMelittosphaera is characterized by one medullary shell, one cortical shell whose pores within hexagonal frames are circular or hexagonal in shape and dissimilar in size, radial beams joining two shells, and no radial spines on the shell surface (Campbell 1954 as Melitosphaera [sic]: D48). Conoactinomma is defined by three concentric shells, conical protuberances (“tubercles”) on the cortical shell, and by-spines on each tubercle (Gorbunov in Kozlova &amp; Gorbovetz 1966: 104). The supporting image of Conoactinomma in the Atlas shows a “weak” shadow of the innermost double medullary shell but this type of shell is easily dissolved. In consideration of difference on the resistance on preservation effect, Conoactinomma is separated from Haliomma. As Melittosphaera looks to lose the innermost double medullary shell, this genus is also separated from Haliomma until an exact observation could be carried out for both these genera. Roughness of the cortical shell is different between Melittosphaera and Conoactinomma but this difference is not so significant. It is unnecessary to differentiate them at the genus level. Melittosphaera is an available name older than Conoactinomma.</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Haliommatina Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [as a family]; 1847: 54 [as a family]; Ehrenberg 1876: 156. — Schomburgk 1847: 124, 126 [as a family].</p> <p>Haliommatida – Haeckel 1862: 239, 412, 423 [as a tribe]. — Mivart 1878: 177 [as a subdivision of the subsection Ommatida].</p> <p>Carposphaerida Haeckel, 1882: 451 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 60, 85 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 5 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Cromyosphaerida Haeckel, 1882: 453 [as a tribe]; 1887: 60, 84 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 5 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Haliommida – Haeckel 1887: 208, 230 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 16 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Carposphaerinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 20 [nomen dubium]; 1945: 9. — Chediya 1959: 70.</p> <p>Cromyosphaerinae – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 9. — Campbell 1954: D50. — Chediya 1959: 72.</p> <p>Haliomminae – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 16; 1944b: 11. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 17. — Chediya 1959: 97.</p> <p>Cenosphaeridae Deflandre, 1953: 420-421. — Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: 68, 86. — Petrushevskaya 1975: 567. — Dumitrica 1979: 18. — Anderson 1983: 49.</p> <p>Haliommidae – Petrushevskaya 1975: 568; 1979: 105-106. — Dumitrica 1979: 20.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Haliomma Ehrenberg, 1839: 128 [invalid subsequent designation (new subsequent designation in this revision): Haliomma medusa Ehrenberg, 1839: 130].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Cromyosphaera Haeckel, 1882: 453 (= Cromyommetta n. syn.; Cromyommura synonymized by Matsuzaki et al. 2015:7). — Haliomma Ehrenberg, 1839: 128 (= Actinommilla n. syn., Cenosphaera n. syn., Circosphaera n. syn.; Thecosphaerella synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 568). — Haliommantha Haeckel, 1887: 230. — Hexacontella Haeckel, 1887: 194. — Melittosphaera Haeckel, 1882: 451 (= Conoactinomma n. syn.). — Pseudostaurosphaera Krasheninnikov, 1960: 276 (= Pseudostaurolonche synonymized Kozlova 1999: 75).</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Circulosphaera.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Chaunosphaera, Prunosphaera, Thecosphaerantha, Thecosphaerina, Thecosphaeromma.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYM. — Porosphaera Haeckel, 1887 (= Chaunosphaera) nec Steinman, 1878.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Two to three, rarely more than three, concentric spherical shells with many non-bladed radial beams. Central structure consists of a double medullary shell. Both shells of the double medullary shell are latticed, spherical in shape, and connected by many radial beams. Radial spines may be present or absent. Nodelike or by-spine-like short spines are observable in some species.</p> <p>Endoplasm is illustrated in the Cromyommetta -form of Cromyosphaera and in Haliomma. Endoplasm is gray to light gray in color and fills the double medullary shell. It is also distributed around the medullary shell in younger forms and occupies a large portion of the cortical shell. The axopodial system is unknown. No algal symbionts were observed.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Differing from the Actinommidae, the Haliommidae are distinguished by the presence of non-bladed radial beams. This family may include a single-latticed, cortical shell member whose internal shells and radial beams have been lost or dissolved. Pseudostaurosphaera is tentatively included in this family as the similarity to the number of shells of Melittosphaera was taken into consideration. The taxonomic differences between Haliomma, Haliommantha and Melittosphaera require further study.</p> <p>The catalogue finally synonymized Cenosphaera with Haliomma following anatomical observations and rules included in the Code. The type species of Cenosphaera (Cenosphaera plutonis) was illustrated without any information about its internal structure (Ehrenberg 1854c: pl. 35B-B.IV, fig. 20). The genus was originally defined as a single shell genus (Ehrenberg 1854b: 237). However, the real type-specimen illustrated and archived in the Ehrenberg collection possessed three concentric shells (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 30, figs 1a-1d). Under the principles of the Code, “ every name within the scope of the Code [...] is permanently attached to a name-bearing type.” (see the Principles in the Introduction). Conforming to this rule, Cenosphaera based on the name-bearing type is a genus with three concentric shells, thus Haliomma is the oldest senior synonym for the group of Cenosphaera under this sense. This solution avoids an important instability and confusion between one-shelled and three-shelled genera. Conversely, we expanded the definition of Ethmosphaera to include the previous oneshelled species in order to avoid further potential confusion. Here, Hexacontella is included into Haliommidae due to the presence of non-bladed radial beams directly connected with bladed six radial spines (Dumitrica’s personal observation).</p> <p>Haliomma poses certain problems to common morphology if referring to the type material for Haliomma medusa Ehrenberg, 1839 (type species of Haliomma in the Ehrenberg collection). The illustration (publishes in pl. 22, figs 34a, 34b of Ehrenberg 1854c) appears to show six radial beams inside the shell. This drawing corresponds to the type specimen found and examined in the Ehrenberg collection (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 1, fig. 3d). However, this type material contains several specimens of the morphotype that look identical, if the differing number of radial beams are not considered (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pls 1-3). This suggests intraspecific variability of H. medusa based on the number of radial beams. In light of this infra-species variation, the definition of Haliomma is expanded in so far as to include the morphotypes with variable numbers of radial beams. These morphotypes are generally identified as Thecosphaera (with non-bladed radial beams in the original diagnosis), but the representative genus can no longer be used because the type species is a Mesozoic nomen dubium (Thecosphaera unica Rüst, 1885). Although there is some doubt regarding the shape of the radial beams in the lectotype of H. medusa, the presence of non-bladed radial beams is considered specific to Haliomma.</p> <p>Internal skeletal structure was illustrated for Cromyosphaera (Nishimura 1992: pl. 1, fig. 11), Haliomma (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 1, fig. 4; pl. 4, figs 1, 4; Suzuki 1998b: pl. 3, figs 4, 5; pl. 6, figs 3, 4) and Melittosphaera (Barwicz-Piskorz 1997: pl. 1, fig. 1;1999: figs 2.B-2.G). Protoplasm and algal symbionts were documented with epi-fluorescent observation with DAPI dyeing in the Cromyommetta -form of Cromyosphaera (Zhang et al. 2018: 17, fig. 4) and Haliomma (Zhang et al. 2018: 17, figs 7, 8). Some undescribed genera probably belonging to the Haliommidae remain (Hollis 1997: pl. 3, fig. 6: Jackett &amp; Baumgartner 2007: pl. 1, fig. 37; Jackett et al. 2008: pl. 3, fig. 1).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Cromyosphaera</p> <p>Cromyommetta is characterized by regular pores with same sizes on the cortical shell, four concentric lattice shells, and numerous radial spines (Campbell 1954: D66). The type species of Cromyomma was subsequently designated as Cromyomma villosum in the Atlas due to an invalid designation of the type species by Campbell (1954). The “numerous radial spines” in the definition correspond to spiny by-spines in the modern terminological sense. The occurrence of by-spines is not used as a genus criterion in the Haliommoidea. The oldest available name is Cromyosphaera among them.</p> <p>Haliomma</p> <p>The same type species is designated for Cenosphaera and Circosphaera. As explained in the remarks for the Ethmosphaeridae and Haliommidae, the lectotype of Cenosphaera has three concentric shells with many radial beams, differing from the widely applied concept of a single cortical shell with an empty space. This structure is exactly the same as the current concept of Thecosphaera and Haliomma in the Atlas. Actinommilla was newly established as a subgenus of Actinomma by Haeckel (1887: 254) and is marked by irregular pores with dissimilar sizes on the cortical shell and spines covering the entire surface of the cortical shell (Campbell 1954: D65-66). The “spines” is an interpretation of by-spines if the illustration of the type species of Actinommilla is referred. Differences in both pores and by-spines on the cortical shell are variable within or between species. Haliomma is the oldest available genus among them.</p> <p>Melittosphaera</p> <p>Melittosphaera is characterized by one medullary shell, one cortical shell whose pores within hexagonal frames are circular or hexagonal in shape and dissimilar in size, radial beams joining two shells, and no radial spines on the shell surface (Campbell 1954 as Melitosphaera [sic]: D48). Conoactinomma is defined by three concentric shells, conical protuberances (“tubercles”) on the cortical shell, and by-spines on each tubercle (Gorbunov in Kozlova &amp; Gorbovetz 1966: 104). The supporting image of Conoactinomma in the Atlas shows a “weak” shadow of the innermost double medullary shell but this type of shell is easily dissolved. In consideration of difference on the resistance on preservation effect, Conoactinomma is separated from Haliomma. As Melittosphaera looks to lose the innermost double medullary shell, this genus is also separated from Haliomma until an exact observation could be carried out for both these genera. Roughness of the cortical shell is different between Melittosphaera and Conoactinomma but this difference is not so significant. It is unnecessary to differentiate them at the genus level. Melittosphaera is an available name older than Conoactinomma.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFB6FE1605C1FDE6FEFF4880	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFB7FE1006ADFF06FDAB4E1D.text	038DDA73FFB7FE1006ADFF06FDAB4E1D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Haliommidae Ehrenberg 1846	<div><p>Family HALIOMMIDAE Ehrenberg, 1846 sensu Suzuki emend. hereinHaliommatina Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [as a family]; 1847: 54 [as a family]; Ehrenberg 1876: 156. — Schomburgk 1847: 124, 126 [as a family].Haliommatida – Haeckel 1862: 239, 412, 423 [as a tribe]. — Mivart 1878: 177 [as a subdivision of the subsection Ommatida].Carposphaerida Haeckel, 1882: 451 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 60, 85 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 5 [as a subfamily].Cromyosphaerida Haeckel, 1882: 453 [as a tribe]; 1887: 60, 84 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 5 [as a subfamily].Haliommida – Haeckel 1887: 208, 230 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 16 [as a subfamily].Carposphaerinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 20 [nomen dubium]; 1945: 9. — Chediya 1959: 70.Cromyosphaerinae – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 9. — Campbell 1954: D50. — Chediya 1959: 72.Haliomminae – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 16; 1944b: 11. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 17. — Chediya 1959: 97.Cenosphaeridae Deflandre, 1953: 420-421. — Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: 68, 86. — Petrushevskaya 1975: 567. — Dumitrica 1979: 18. — Anderson 1983: 49.Haliommidae – Petrushevskaya 1975: 568; 1979: 105-106. — Dumitrica 1979: 20. TYPE GENUS. — Haliomma Ehrenberg, 1839: 128 [invalid subsequent designation (new subsequent designation in this revision): Haliomma medusa Ehrenberg, 1839: 130]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Cromyosphaera Haeckel, 1882: 453 (= Cromyommettan. syn.; Cromyommura synonymized by Matsuzaki et al. 2015:7). — Haliomma Ehrenberg, 1839: 128 (= Actinommillan. syn., Cenosphaeran. syn., Circosphaera n. syn.; Thecosphaerella synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 568). — Haliommantha Haeckel, 1887: 230. — Hexacontella Haeckel, 1887: 194. — Melittosphaera Haeckel, 1882: 451 (= Conoactinomma n. syn.). — Pseudostaurosphaera Krasheninnikov, 1960: 276 (= Pseudostaurolonche synonymized Kozlova 1999: 75). INVALID NAME. — Circulosphaera. NOMINA DUBIA. — Chaunosphaera, Prunosphaera, Thecosphaerantha, Thecosphaerina, Thecosphaeromma. JUNIOR HOMONYM. — Porosphaera Haeckel, 1887 (= Chaunosphaera) nec Steinman, 1878. DIAGNOSIS. — Two to three, rarely more than three, concentric spherical shells with many non-bladed radial beams. Central structure consists of a double medullary shell. Both shells of the double medullary shell are latticed, spherical in shape, and connected by many radial beams. Radial spines may be present or absent. Nodelike or by-spine-like short spines are observable in some species. Endoplasm is illustrated in the Cromyommetta -form of Cromyosphaera and in Haliomma. Endoplasm is gray to light gray in color and fills the double medullary shell. It is also distributed around the medullary shell in younger forms and occupies a large portion of the cortical shell. The axopodial system is unknown. No algal symbionts were observed. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Paleocene-Living.REMARKS Differing from the Actinommidae, the Haliommidae are distinguished by the presence of non-bladed radial beams. This family may include a single-latticed, cortical shell member whose internal shells and radial beams have been lost or dissolved. Pseudostaurosphaera is tentatively included in this family as the similarity to the number of shells of Melittosphaera was taken into consideration. The taxonomic differences between Haliomma, Haliommantha and Melittosphaera require further study. The catalogue finally synonymized Cenosphaera with Haliomma following anatomical observations and rules included in the Code. The type species of Cenosphaera (Cenosphaera plutonis) was illustrated without any information about its internal structure (Ehrenberg 1854c: pl. 35B-B.IV, fig. 20). The genus was originally defined as a single shell genus (Ehrenberg 1854b: 237). However, the real type-specimen illustrated and archived in the Ehrenberg collection possessed three concentric shells (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 30, figs 1a-1d). Under the principles of the Code, “ every name within the scope of the Code [...] is permanently attached to a name-bearing type.” (see the Principles in the Introduction). Conforming to this rule, Cenosphaera based on the name-bearing type is a genus with three concentric shells, thus Haliomma is the oldest senior synonym for the group of Cenosphaera under this sense. This solution avoids an important instability and confusion between one-shelled and three-shelled genera. Conversely, we expanded the definition of Ethmosphaera to include the previous oneshelled species in order to avoid further potential confusion. Here, Hexacontella is included into Haliommidae due to the presence of non-bladed radial beams directly connected with bladed six radial spines (Dumitrica’s personal observation). Haliomma poses certain problems to common morphology if referring to the type material for Haliomma medusa Ehrenberg, 1839 (type species of Haliomma in the Ehrenberg collection). The illustration (publishes in pl. 22, figs 34a, 34b of Ehrenberg 1854c) appears to show six radial beams inside the shell. This drawing corresponds to the type specimen found and examined in the Ehrenberg collection (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 1, fig. 3d). However, this type material contains several specimens of the morphotype that look identical, if the differing number of radial beams are not considered (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pls 1-3). This suggests intraspecific variability of H. medusa based on the number of radial beams. In light of this infra-species variation, the definition of Haliomma is expanded in so far as to include the morphotypes with variable numbers of radial beams. These morphotypes are generally identified as Thecosphaera (with non-bladed radial beams in the original diagnosis), but the representative genus can no longer be used because the type species is a Mesozoic nomen dubium (Thecosphaera unica Rüst, 1885). Although there is some doubt regarding the shape of the radial beams in the lectotype of H. medusa, the presence of non-bladed radial beams is considered specific to Haliomma. Internal skeletal structure was illustrated for Cromyosphaera (Nishimura 1992: pl. 1, fig. 11), Haliomma (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 1, fig. 4; pl. 4, figs 1, 4; Suzuki 1998b: pl. 3, figs 4, 5; pl. 6, figs 3, 4) and Melittosphaera (Barwicz-Piskorz 1997: pl. 1, fig. 1;1999: figs 2.B-2.G). Protoplasm and algal symbionts were documented with epi-fluorescent observation with DAPI dyeing in the Cromyommetta -form of Cromyosphaera (Zhang et al. 2018: 17, fig. 4) and Haliomma (Zhang et al. 2018: 17, figs 7, 8). Some undescribed genera probably belonging to the Haliommidae remain (Hollis 1997: pl. 3, fig. 6: Jackett &amp; Baumgartner 2007: pl. 1, fig. 37; Jackett et al. 2008: pl. 3, fig. 1). VALIDITY OF GENERACromyosphaeraCromyommetta is characterized by regular pores with same sizes on the cortical shell, four concentric lattice shells, and numerous radial spines (Campbell 1954: D66). The type species of Cromyomma was subsequently designated as Cromyomma villosum in the Atlas due to an invalid designation of the type species by Campbell (1954). The “numerous radial spines” in the definition correspond to spiny by-spines in the modern terminological sense. The occurrence of by-spines is not used as a genus criterion in the Haliommoidea. The oldest available name is Cromyosphaera among them. Haliomma The same type species is designated for Cenosphaera and Circosphaera. As explained in the remarks for the Ethmosphaeridae and Haliommidae, the lectotype of Cenosphaera has three concentric shells with many radial beams, differing from the widely applied concept of a single cortical shell with an empty space. This structure is exactly the same as the current concept of Thecosphaera and Haliomma in the Atlas. Actinommilla was newly established as a subgenus of Actinomma by Haeckel (1887: 254) and is marked by irregular pores with dissimilar sizes on the cortical shell and spines covering the entire surface of the cortical shell (Campbell 1954: D65-66). The “spines” is an interpretation of by-spines if the illustration of the type species of Actinommilla is referred. Differences in both pores and by-spines on the cortical shell are variable within or between species. Haliomma is the oldest available genus among them. MelittosphaeraMelittosphaera is characterized by one medullary shell, one cortical shell whose pores within hexagonal frames are circular or hexagonal in shape and dissimilar in size, radial beams joining two shells, and no radial spines on the shell surface (Campbell 1954 as Melitosphaera [sic]: D48). Conoactinomma is defined by three concentric shells, conical protuberances (“tubercles”) on the cortical shell, and by-spines on each tubercle (Gorbunov in Kozlova &amp; Gorbovetz 1966: 104). The supporting image of Conoactinomma in the Atlas shows a “weak” shadow of the innermost double medullary shell but this type of shell is easily dissolved. In consideration of difference on the resistance on preservation effect, Conoactinomma is separated from Haliomma. As Melittosphaera looks to lose the innermost double medullary shell, this genus is also separated from Haliomma until an exact observation could be carried out for both these genera. Roughness of the cortical shell is different between Melittosphaera and Conoactinomma but this difference is not so significant. It is unnecessary to differentiate them at the genus level. Melittosphaera is an available name older than Conoactinomma.</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Haliommatina Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [as a family]; 1847: 54 [as a family]; Ehrenberg 1876: 156. — Schomburgk 1847: 124, 126 [as a family].</p> <p>Haliommatida – Haeckel 1862: 239, 412, 423 [as a tribe]. — Mivart 1878: 177 [as a subdivision of the subsection Ommatida].</p> <p>Carposphaerida Haeckel, 1882: 451 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 60, 85 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 5 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Cromyosphaerida Haeckel, 1882: 453 [as a tribe]; 1887: 60, 84 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 5 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Haliommida – Haeckel 1887: 208, 230 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 16 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Carposphaerinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 20 [nomen dubium]; 1945: 9. — Chediya 1959: 70.</p> <p>Cromyosphaerinae – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 9. — Campbell 1954: D50. — Chediya 1959: 72.</p> <p>Haliomminae – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 16; 1944b: 11. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 17. — Chediya 1959: 97.</p> <p>Cenosphaeridae Deflandre, 1953: 420-421. — Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: 68, 86. — Petrushevskaya 1975: 567. — Dumitrica 1979: 18. — Anderson 1983: 49.</p> <p>Haliommidae – Petrushevskaya 1975: 568; 1979: 105-106. — Dumitrica 1979: 20.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Haliomma Ehrenberg, 1839: 128 [invalid subsequent designation (new subsequent designation in this revision): Haliomma medusa Ehrenberg, 1839: 130].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Cromyosphaera Haeckel, 1882: 453 (= Cromyommetta n. syn.; Cromyommura synonymized by Matsuzaki et al. 2015:7). — Haliomma Ehrenberg, 1839: 128 (= Actinommilla n. syn., Cenosphaera n. syn., Circosphaera n. syn.; Thecosphaerella synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 568). — Haliommantha Haeckel, 1887: 230. — Hexacontella Haeckel, 1887: 194. — Melittosphaera Haeckel, 1882: 451 (= Conoactinomma n. syn.). — Pseudostaurosphaera Krasheninnikov, 1960: 276 (= Pseudostaurolonche synonymized Kozlova 1999: 75).</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Circulosphaera.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Chaunosphaera, Prunosphaera, Thecosphaerantha, Thecosphaerina, Thecosphaeromma.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYM. — Porosphaera Haeckel, 1887 (= Chaunosphaera) nec Steinman, 1878.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Two to three, rarely more than three, concentric spherical shells with many non-bladed radial beams. Central structure consists of a double medullary shell. Both shells of the double medullary shell are latticed, spherical in shape, and connected by many radial beams. Radial spines may be present or absent. Nodelike or by-spine-like short spines are observable in some species.</p> <p>Endoplasm is illustrated in the Cromyommetta -form of Cromyosphaera and in Haliomma. Endoplasm is gray to light gray in color and fills the double medullary shell. It is also distributed around the medullary shell in younger forms and occupies a large portion of the cortical shell. The axopodial system is unknown. No algal symbionts were observed.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Differing from the Actinommidae, the Haliommidae are distinguished by the presence of non-bladed radial beams. This family may include a single-latticed, cortical shell member whose internal shells and radial beams have been lost or dissolved. Pseudostaurosphaera is tentatively included in this family as the similarity to the number of shells of Melittosphaera was taken into consideration. The taxonomic differences between Haliomma, Haliommantha and Melittosphaera require further study.</p> <p>The catalogue finally synonymized Cenosphaera with Haliomma following anatomical observations and rules included in the Code. The type species of Cenosphaera (Cenosphaera plutonis) was illustrated without any information about its internal structure (Ehrenberg 1854c: pl. 35B-B.IV, fig. 20). The genus was originally defined as a single shell genus (Ehrenberg 1854b: 237). However, the real type-specimen illustrated and archived in the Ehrenberg collection possessed three concentric shells (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 30, figs 1a-1d). Under the principles of the Code, “ every name within the scope of the Code [...] is permanently attached to a name-bearing type.” (see the Principles in the Introduction). Conforming to this rule, Cenosphaera based on the name-bearing type is a genus with three concentric shells, thus Haliomma is the oldest senior synonym for the group of Cenosphaera under this sense. This solution avoids an important instability and confusion between one-shelled and three-shelled genera. Conversely, we expanded the definition of Ethmosphaera to include the previous oneshelled species in order to avoid further potential confusion. Here, Hexacontella is included into Haliommidae due to the presence of non-bladed radial beams directly connected with bladed six radial spines (Dumitrica’s personal observation).</p> <p>Haliomma poses certain problems to common morphology if referring to the type material for Haliomma medusa Ehrenberg, 1839 (type species of Haliomma in the Ehrenberg collection). The illustration (publishes in pl. 22, figs 34a, 34b of Ehrenberg 1854c) appears to show six radial beams inside the shell. This drawing corresponds to the type specimen found and examined in the Ehrenberg collection (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 1, fig. 3d). However, this type material contains several specimens of the morphotype that look identical, if the differing number of radial beams are not considered (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pls 1-3). This suggests intraspecific variability of H. medusa based on the number of radial beams. In light of this infra-species variation, the definition of Haliomma is expanded in so far as to include the morphotypes with variable numbers of radial beams. These morphotypes are generally identified as Thecosphaera (with non-bladed radial beams in the original diagnosis), but the representative genus can no longer be used because the type species is a Mesozoic nomen dubium (Thecosphaera unica Rüst, 1885). Although there is some doubt regarding the shape of the radial beams in the lectotype of H. medusa, the presence of non-bladed radial beams is considered specific to Haliomma.</p> <p>Internal skeletal structure was illustrated for Cromyosphaera (Nishimura 1992: pl. 1, fig. 11), Haliomma (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 1, fig. 4; pl. 4, figs 1, 4; Suzuki 1998b: pl. 3, figs 4, 5; pl. 6, figs 3, 4) and Melittosphaera (Barwicz-Piskorz 1997: pl. 1, fig. 1;1999: figs 2.B-2.G). Protoplasm and algal symbionts were documented with epi-fluorescent observation with DAPI dyeing in the Cromyommetta -form of Cromyosphaera (Zhang et al. 2018: 17, fig. 4) and Haliomma (Zhang et al. 2018: 17, figs 7, 8). Some undescribed genera probably belonging to the Haliommidae remain (Hollis 1997: pl. 3, fig. 6: Jackett &amp; Baumgartner 2007: pl. 1, fig. 37; Jackett et al. 2008: pl. 3, fig. 1).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Cromyosphaera</p> <p>Cromyommetta is characterized by regular pores with same sizes on the cortical shell, four concentric lattice shells, and numerous radial spines (Campbell 1954: D66). The type species of Cromyomma was subsequently designated as Cromyomma villosum in the Atlas due to an invalid designation of the type species by Campbell (1954). The “numerous radial spines” in the definition correspond to spiny by-spines in the modern terminological sense. The occurrence of by-spines is not used as a genus criterion in the Haliommoidea. The oldest available name is Cromyosphaera among them.</p> <p>Haliomma</p> <p>The same type species is designated for Cenosphaera and Circosphaera. As explained in the remarks for the Ethmosphaeridae and Haliommidae, the lectotype of Cenosphaera has three concentric shells with many radial beams, differing from the widely applied concept of a single cortical shell with an empty space. This structure is exactly the same as the current concept of Thecosphaera and Haliomma in the Atlas. Actinommilla was newly established as a subgenus of Actinomma by Haeckel (1887: 254) and is marked by irregular pores with dissimilar sizes on the cortical shell and spines covering the entire surface of the cortical shell (Campbell 1954: D65-66). The “spines” is an interpretation of by-spines if the illustration of the type species of Actinommilla is referred. Differences in both pores and by-spines on the cortical shell are variable within or between species. Haliomma is the oldest available genus among them.</p> <p>Melittosphaera</p> <p>Melittosphaera is characterized by one medullary shell, one cortical shell whose pores within hexagonal frames are circular or hexagonal in shape and dissimilar in size, radial beams joining two shells, and no radial spines on the shell surface (Campbell 1954 as Melitosphaera [sic]: D48). Conoactinomma is defined by three concentric shells, conical protuberances (“tubercles”) on the cortical shell, and by-spines on each tubercle (Gorbunov in Kozlova &amp; Gorbovetz 1966: 104). The supporting image of Conoactinomma in the Atlas shows a “weak” shadow of the innermost double medullary shell but this type of shell is easily dissolved. In consideration of difference on the resistance on preservation effect, Conoactinomma is separated from Haliomma. As Melittosphaera looks to lose the innermost double medullary shell, this genus is also separated from Haliomma until an exact observation could be carried out for both these genera. Roughness of the cortical shell is different between Melittosphaera and Conoactinomma but this difference is not so significant. It is unnecessary to differentiate them at the genus level. Melittosphaera is an available name older than Conoactinomma.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFB7FE1006ADFF06FDAB4E1D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFB1FE1305C2FE67FD074CA3.text	038DDA73FFB1FE1305C2FE67FD074CA3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Calocyclas sensu emend.	<div><p>Family HELIODISCIDAE Haeckel, 1882 sensu De Wever et al. (2001)Heliodiscida Haeckel, 1882: 457 [as a tribe]; 1887: 421, 444 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 41 [as a subfamily]. Heliodiscinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 38; 1945: 22. — Campbell 1954: D82. — Chediya 1959: 127. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1972: 21 (sensu emend.). — Dumitrica 1984: 97-98 (sensu emend.). Sethodiscinidae Chediya, 1959: 124.Heliodiscidae – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1972: 18-21 (sensu emend.). — Petrushevskaya 1975: 576. — Dumitrica 1979: 22. — De Wever et al. 2001: 124-125. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S275. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 112. — Vishnevskaya 2006: 137; Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 14. TYPE GENUS. — Heliodiscus Haeckel, 1862: 436 [type species by subsequent designation (Strelkov &amp; Lipman 1959: 444): Haliomma phacodiscus Haeckel, 1861a: 815]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Actinommura Haeckel, 1887: 255 (=? Excentrosphaerellan. syn.). — Excentrococcus Dumitrica, 1978: 238. — Excentrodiscus Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960: 125. — Heliodiscus Haeckel, 1862: 436 (= Heliodiscilla with the same type species; Heliocladusn. syn., Heliodiscettan. syn., Heliodrymusn. syn.; Heliodendrum, Heliosestilla synonymized byKozur &amp; Mostler 1972: 19). — Helioferrusa Dumitrica, 2019: 52. — Phaenicosphaera Haeckel, 1887: 75 (= Dreyeropyle n. syn.). INVALID NAME. — Anthomma. NOMINA DUBIA. — Actinommantha, Astrophacetta, Astrophacus, Astrosestilla, Astrosestomma, Cerasosphaera, Distriactis, Heliodiscura. DIAGNOSIS. — Flat to spherical shells with an eccentric microsphere, and a spherical to ellipsoid outer medullary shell. Protoplasm illustrated for Heliodiscus. The endoplasm is situated near the double medullary shell and occupies the cortical shell in fully-grown cells. Tens to hundreds of algal symbionts are always found inside the cortical shell. A transparent endoplasm is located in the medullary shell, and this in turn, is enclosed by a reddish endoplasmic cover except on its apical side. The detailed protoplasmic structure is known in Excentrodiscus. In Excentrodiscus, no axopodial system was identified. The nucleus occupies the outer double medullary shell and its lobate parts sometimes extrude through pores of the outer double medullary shell. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Eocene-Living.REMARKS The Heliodiscidae show some homeomorphy with the Lithocycliidae and Phacodiscidae. Differing from Heliodiscidae, the latter two families do not have an eccentric innermost microsphere. The innermost microsphere appears to be covered by the second outer shell, but the figure shown in van de Paverd (1995: pl. 38, fig. 6) indicates that the heteropolar microsphere extends outwards from the second outer shell. Internal skeletal structure was illustrated for Actinommura (Dumitrica 2019: figs 11.a, 11.b), Excentrococcus (Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 16, fig. 4; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 7, figs 1, 2; Suzuki 1998b: pl. 7, figs 11-12?; Dumitrica 2019: figs 8.a, 8.c), Excentrodiscus (Dumitrica 2019: figs 9.d-9.g, 10.c), Heliodiscus (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 5, figs 1-8; van de Paverd 1995: pl. 38, fig. 6), Helioferrusa (Dumitrica 2019: figs 9.b, 9.c) and Phaenicosphaera (Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 16, fig. 3). A living image was illustrated for Heliodiscus (Takahashi et al. 2003: figs 2, 3; Probert et al. 2014: S1, Vil 219). Protoplasm and algal symbionts were documented by epi-fluorescent observation with DAPI dyeing for Heliodiscus (Zhang et al. 2018: 9, fig. 11, p. 11, figs 12, 13, 23; p. 16, fig. 7). Fine protoplasmic structure was illustrated in Excentrodiscus (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 24, figs 4, 5). Algal symbionts of Heliodiscus were identified as Brandtodinium nutricula by Probert et al. (2014). VALIDITY OF GENERAActinommura Any specimen fitting with Actinomma capillaceum, the type species of Actinommura, possess a microsphere which is eccentrically located in the outer medullary shell (See the supporting image for Actinommura in the Atlas). This character is exactly the same in Excentrosphaerella, but the type-illustration for A. capillaceum (Haeckel 1887: pl. 29, fig. 6) is drawn with a perfect concentric symmetry to the microsphere. We suspect the quality of this illustration but it has no value to questionably synonymize Excentrosphaerella with Actinommura. Actinommura is an available name older than Excentrosphaerella. Heliodiscus The combinations of the following genera have respectively same type species: Heliodiscus and Heliodiscilla, Heliocladus and Heliodrymus, and Heliodendrum and Heliosestilla. The specimens identifiable to Heliodiscus and Heliodendrum (the supporting images for both these genera in the Atlas) have eccentric microspheres, indicating they are members of the Heliodiscidae. Heliocladus is defined by a smooth surface and no spines on the cortical shell, ten to 20 branched equatorial radial spines and a simple medullary shell (Campbell 1954: D82). Heliodendrum differs from Heliocladus by simple or branched robust spines on the cortical shell surface (Campbell 1954: D82). We have never met forked equal radial spines like in the type species of Heliocladus but the variability in the shape of the equatorial radial rings is commonly observed in the same samples. The development status of robust spines on the cortical shell surface also varies from absent to very robust like the supporting image for Heliodendrum in the Atlas in the same samples. These differences between Heliocladus and Heliodendrum are insufficient for a difference at generic level. The innermost shell of Heliodiscus specimens is easily lost by dissolution so as not to be applied as genus criteria. PhaenicosphaeraPhaenicosphaera is defined by round, irregular but dissimilar pores on the spherical cortical shell and one medullary shell (Campbell 1954: D48). The translated definition of Dreyeropyle in Kozur &amp; Mostler (1979: 14) from German is “two concentric spherical lattice shells with numerous short main spines. In the area of the large pylome bordered by spines, there are very large pores which are considerably larger than the remaining pores.” The type-illustrations were based from the sketches included in classic papers (Haeckel 1887 for Phaenicosphaera; Dreyer 1889 for Dreyeropyle). However, the drawings of the type species of Phaenicosphaera and Dreyeropyle do not show the eccentric microsphere; but it was probably overlooked because the existence of any eccentric microsphere had never been recognized until Hollande &amp; Enjumet (1960) who erected Excentrodiscus on the basis of the presence of this structure. The most representative real specimens of Carposphaera nodosa for the type species of Phaenicosphaera and of Sphaeropyle heteropora for type species of Dreyeropyle (supporting image of this genus in the Atlas) possess eccentric microspheres in the periphery of the outer medullary shell and more flattened spherical cortical shells. Any specimens which have very large pores like the specimen type illustrated of Dreyeropyle have never been found and reported so far. This highly presumes of the occurrence of exaggerated drawings. The real specimens show no significant differences which could correspond to different genus criteria. Phaenicosphaera is an available name older than Dreyeropyle. Superfamily LITHELIOIDEA Haeckel, 1862 sensu Matsuzaki et al. (2015)Lithelida Haeckel, 1862: 240, 515-519 [as both family and tribe]; 1882: 464 [as a family]; 1884: 29 [as a family]; 1887: 604, 688- 691 [as a family]. Litheliacea [sic] – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 226 (= Lithelioidea) [as a superfamily]. — Dumitrica 1984: 101 [as a superfamily]. Ommatodiscilae – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 225 [as a subsuperfamily]. Sponguracea [sic] – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 223 (= Sponguroidea). — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1981: 37-38 (sensu emend.). — De Wever et al. 2001: 162. Spongodruppilae – Pessagno 1973: 50, 75 [nomen dubium, as a subsuperfamily];1977c: 73; 1977b: 932-933 [as a subsuperfamily].Lithelioidea – Petrushevskaya 1975: 571-572; 1979: 109; 1986: 130. — Dumitrica 1979: 24. — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 37. Oviformata [pars] Afanasieva &amp; Amon in Afanasieva, Amon, Agarkov &amp; Boltovskoy, 2005: S280-281 [as an order of Class Stauraxonaria] (= Spongolonchidae + Staurodruppidae + Gomberellidae + Archaeospongoprunidae + Phaseliformidae). — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 121 [as an order]. Pyramidata [pars] Afanasieva &amp; Amon in Afanasieva, Amon, Agarkov &amp; Boltovskoy, 2005: S282 [as an order of Class Stauraxonaria] (= Tormentidae + Ruzhencevispongidae + Pyramispongiidae + Cavaspongiidae).— Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 122-123 [as an order]. Spongurata [pars] – Afanasieva et al. 2005: S287 [as an order of Class Stauraxonaria] (= Sponguridae + Litheliidae). — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 130 [as an order]. Sponguroidea – Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 24. DIAGNOSIS. — The central part contains a tiny spherical microsphere and is characterized by distinctive concentric structures, or walls, which are densely and systematically spaced. Many straight radial beams, if present, evenly radiate from the central part and perforate the concentric structure. Shell shape is spherical, oval, elliptical, cylindrical or flat. REMARKS This superfamily includes Conocaryommidae (although questionably), Litheliidae (Clade L1), Phaseliformidae, Pyramispongiidae and Sponguridae. A molecular phylogenetic analysis indicates a significantly long interval between Lithelius and Ommatogramma (originally Spongocore in Ishitani et al. 2012) by Ishitani et al. (2012) but it is likely to be close each other in other spumellarians (Sandin et al. 2021). The superfamily “ Sponguroidea ” sensu De Wever et al. (2001: 162) consists of seven families, and include the Litheliidae. We use Lithelioidea as the valid superfamily because the detailed internal structure of Sponguridae is not well documented yet. Spherical to ellipsoid Lithelioidea were sometimes confounded with Larcospiroidea and Phorticioidea of similar shape under light microscopy. As Lithelioidea lacks the girdle structure, the lithelioid central part does not appear to have a cornered (square) outline under a light microscope. By referring to the diagnosis of Lithelioidea, several Mesozoic families (Gomberellidae Kozur &amp; Mostler 1981; Oertlispongidae Kozur &amp; Mostler in Dumitrica et al. 1980; Pyramispongiidae Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978; Spongotortilispinidae Kozur &amp; Mostler in Moix et al. 2007) could potentially be classed into this superfamily. Afanasieva et al. (2005) established two orders, namely “ Oviformata ” and “ Spongurata ”. The combination of both these orders approximately corresponds to the Sponguroideasensu De Wever et al. (2001), and thus an order-level classification is inappropriate with regard to consistency in the higher taxonomy of Eukaryotes (Cavalier-Smith et al. 2018; Adl et al. 2019). Clade indet.</p> <p>sensu De Wever et al. (2001)</p> <p>Heliodiscida Haeckel, 1882: 457 [as a tribe]; 1887: 421, 444 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 41 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Heliodiscinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 38; 1945: 22. — Campbell 1954: D82. — Chediya 1959: 127. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1972: 21 (sensu emend.). — Dumitrica 1984: 97-98 (sensu emend.).</p> <p>Sethodiscinidae Chediya, 1959: 124.</p> <p>Heliodiscidae – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1972: 18-21 (sensu emend.). — Petrushevskaya 1975: 576. — Dumitrica 1979: 22. — De Wever et al. 2001: 124-125. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S275. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 112. — Vishnevskaya 2006: 137; Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 14.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Heliodiscus Haeckel, 1862: 436 [type species by subsequent designation (Strelkov &amp; Lipman 1959: 444): Haliomma phacodiscus Haeckel, 1861a: 815].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Actinommura Haeckel, 1887: 255 (=? Excentrosphaerella n. syn.). — Excentrococcus Dumitrica, 1978: 238. — Excentrodiscus Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960: 125. — Heliodiscus Haeckel, 1862: 436 (= Heliodiscilla with the same type species; Heliocladus n. syn., Heliodiscetta n. syn., Heliodrymus n. syn.; Heliodendrum, Heliosestilla synonymized byKozur &amp; Mostler 1972: 19). — Helioferrusa Dumitrica, 2019: 52. — Phaenicosphaera Haeckel, 1887: 75 (= Dreyeropyle n. syn.).</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Anthomma.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Actinommantha, Astrophacetta, Astrophacus, Astrosestilla, Astrosestomma, Cerasosphaera, Distriactis, Heliodiscura.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Flat to spherical shells with an eccentric microsphere, and a spherical to ellipsoid outer medullary shell. Protoplasm illustrated for Heliodiscus. The endoplasm is situated near the double medullary shell and occupies the cortical shell in fully-grown cells. Tens to hundreds of algal symbionts are always found inside the cortical shell. A transparent endoplasm is located in the medullary shell, and this in turn, is enclosed by a reddish endoplasmic cover except on its apical side. The detailed protoplasmic structure is known in Excentrodiscus. In Excentrodiscus, no axopodial system was identified. The nucleus occupies the outer double medullary shell and its lobate parts sometimes extrude through pores of the outer double medullary shell.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Eocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Heliodiscidae show some homeomorphy with the Lithocycliidae and Phacodiscidae. Differing from Heliodiscidae, the latter two families do not have an eccentric innermost microsphere. The innermost microsphere appears to be covered by the second outer shell, but the figure shown in van de Paverd (1995: pl. 38, fig. 6) indicates that the heteropolar microsphere extends outwards from the second outer shell. Internal skeletal structure was illustrated for Actinommura (Dumitrica 2019: figs 11.a, 11.b), Excentrococcus (Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 16, fig. 4; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 7, figs 1, 2; Suzuki 1998b: pl. 7, figs 11-12?; Dumitrica 2019: figs 8.a, 8.c), Excentrodiscus (Dumitrica 2019: figs 9.d-9.g, 10.c), Heliodiscus (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 5, figs 1-8; van de Paverd 1995: pl. 38, fig. 6), Helioferrusa (Dumitrica 2019: figs 9.b, 9.c) and Phaenicosphaera (Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 16, fig. 3). A living image was illustrated for Heliodiscus (Takahashi et al. 2003: figs 2, 3; Probert et al. 2014: S1, Vil 219). Protoplasm and algal symbionts were documented by epi-fluorescent observation with DAPI dyeing for Heliodiscus (Zhang et al. 2018: 9, fig. 11, p. 11, figs 12, 13, 23; p. 16, fig. 7). Fine protoplasmic structure was illustrated in Excentrodiscus (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 24, figs 4, 5). Algal symbionts of Heliodiscus were identified as Brandtodinium nutricula by Probert et al. (2014).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Actinommura</p> <p>Any specimen fitting with Actinomma capillaceum, the type species of Actinommura, possess a microsphere which is eccentrically located in the outer medullary shell (See the supporting image for Actinommura in the Atlas). This character is exactly the same in Excentrosphaerella, but the type-illustration for A. capillaceum (Haeckel 1887: pl. 29, fig. 6) is drawn with a perfect concentric symmetry to the microsphere. We suspect the quality of this illustration but it has no value to questionably synonymize Excentrosphaerella with Actinommura. Actinommura is an available name older than Excentrosphaerella.</p> <p>Heliodiscus</p> <p>The combinations of the following genera have respectively same type species: Heliodiscus and Heliodiscilla, Heliocladus and Heliodrymus, and Heliodendrum and Heliosestilla. The specimens identifiable to Heliodiscus and Heliodendrum (the supporting images for both these genera in the Atlas) have eccentric microspheres, indicating they are members of the Heliodiscidae.</p> <p>Heliocladus is defined by a smooth surface and no spines on the cortical shell, ten to 20 branched equatorial radial spines and a simple medullary shell (Campbell 1954: D82). Heliodendrum differs from Heliocladus by simple or branched robust spines on the cortical shell surface (Campbell 1954: D82). We have never met forked equal radial spines like in the type species of Heliocladus but the variability in the shape of the equatorial radial rings is commonly observed in the same samples. The development status of robust spines on the cortical shell surface also varies from absent to very robust like the supporting image for Heliodendrum in the Atlas in the same samples. These differences between Heliocladus and Heliodendrum are insufficient for a difference at generic level. The innermost shell of Heliodiscus specimens is easily lost by dissolution so as not to be applied as genus criteria.</p> <p>Phaenicosphaera</p> <p>Phaenicosphaera is defined by round, irregular but dissimilar pores on the spherical cortical shell and one medullary shell (Campbell 1954: D48). The translated definition of Dreyeropyle in Kozur &amp; Mostler (1979: 14) from German is “two concentric spherical lattice shells with numerous short main spines. In the area of the large pylome bordered by spines, there are very large pores which are considerably larger than the remaining pores.” The type-illustrations were based from the sketches included in classic papers (Haeckel 1887 for Phaenicosphaera; Dreyer 1889 for Dreyeropyle). However, the drawings of the type species of Phaenicosphaera and Dreyeropyle do not show the eccentric microsphere; but it was probably overlooked because the existence of any eccentric microsphere had never been recognized until Hollande &amp; Enjumet (1960) who erected Excentrodiscus on the basis of the presence of this structure. The most representative real specimens of Carposphaera nodosa for the type species of Phaenicosphaera and of Sphaeropyle heteropora for type species of Dreyeropyle (supporting image of this genus in the Atlas) possess eccentric microspheres in the periphery of the outer medullary shell and more flattened spherical cortical shells. Any specimens which have very large pores like the specimen type illustrated of Dreyeropyle have never been found and reported so far. This highly presumes of the occurrence of exaggerated drawings. The real specimens show no significant differences which could correspond to different genus criteria. Phaenicosphaera is an available name older than Dreyeropyle.</p> <p>Superfamily LITHELIOIDEA Haeckel, 1862 sensu Matsuzaki et al. (2015)Lithelida Haeckel, 1862: 240, 515-519 [as both family and tribe]; 1882: 464 [as a family]; 1884: 29 [as a family]; 1887: 604, 688- 691 [as a family]. Litheliacea [sic] – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 226 (= Lithelioidea) [as a superfamily]. — Dumitrica 1984: 101 [as a superfamily]. Ommatodiscilae – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 225 [as a subsuperfamily]. Sponguracea [sic] – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 223 (= Sponguroidea). — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1981: 37-38 (sensu emend.). — De Wever et al. 2001: 162. Spongodruppilae – Pessagno 1973: 50, 75 [nomen dubium, as a subsuperfamily];1977c: 73; 1977b: 932-933 [as a subsuperfamily].Lithelioidea – Petrushevskaya 1975: 571-572; 1979: 109; 1986: 130. — Dumitrica 1979: 24. — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 37. Oviformata [pars] Afanasieva &amp; Amon in Afanasieva, Amon, Agarkov &amp; Boltovskoy, 2005: S280-281 [as an order of Class Stauraxonaria] (= Spongolonchidae + Staurodruppidae + Gomberellidae + Archaeospongoprunidae + Phaseliformidae). — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 121 [as an order]. Pyramidata [pars] Afanasieva &amp; Amon in Afanasieva, Amon, Agarkov &amp; Boltovskoy, 2005: S282 [as an order of Class Stauraxonaria] (= Tormentidae + Ruzhencevispongidae + Pyramispongiidae + Cavaspongiidae).— Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 122-123 [as an order]. Spongurata [pars] – Afanasieva et al. 2005: S287 [as an order of Class Stauraxonaria] (= Sponguridae + Litheliidae). — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 130 [as an order]. Sponguroidea – Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 24. DIAGNOSIS. — The central part contains a tiny spherical microsphere and is characterized by distinctive concentric structures, or walls, which are densely and systematically spaced. Many straight radial beams, if present, evenly radiate from the central part and perforate the concentric structure. Shell shape is spherical, oval, elliptical, cylindrical or flat. REMARKS This superfamily includes Conocaryommidae (although questionably), Litheliidae (Clade L1), Phaseliformidae, Pyramispongiidae and Sponguridae. A molecular phylogenetic analysis indicates a significantly long interval between Lithelius and Ommatogramma (originally Spongocore in Ishitani et al. 2012) by Ishitani et al. (2012) but it is likely to be close each other in other spumellarians (Sandin et al. 2021). The superfamily “ Sponguroidea ” sensu De Wever et al. (2001: 162) consists of seven families, and include the Litheliidae. We use Lithelioidea as the valid superfamily because the detailed internal structure of Sponguridae is not well documented yet. Spherical to ellipsoid Lithelioidea were sometimes confounded with Larcospiroidea and Phorticioidea of similar shape under light microscopy. As Lithelioidea lacks the girdle structure, the lithelioid central part does not appear to have a cornered (square) outline under a light microscope. By referring to the diagnosis of Lithelioidea, several Mesozoic families (Gomberellidae Kozur &amp; Mostler 1981; Oertlispongidae Kozur &amp; Mostler in Dumitrica et al. 1980; Pyramispongiidae Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978; Spongotortilispinidae Kozur &amp; Mostler in Moix et al. 2007) could potentially be classed into this superfamily. Afanasieva et al. (2005) established two orders, namely “ Oviformata ” and “ Spongurata ”. The combination of both these orders approximately corresponds to the Sponguroideasensu De Wever et al. (2001), and thus an order-level classification is inappropriate with regard to consistency in the higher taxonomy of Eukaryotes (Cavalier-Smith et al. 2018; Adl et al. 2019). Clade indet.</p> <p>sensu Matsuzaki et al. (2015)</p> <p>Lithelida Haeckel, 1862: 240, 515-519 [as both family and tribe]; 1882: 464 [as a family]; 1884: 29 [as a family]; 1887: 604, 688- 691 [as a family].</p> <p>Litheliacea [sic] – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 226 (= Lithelioidea) [as a superfamily]. — Dumitrica 1984: 101 [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Ommatodiscilae – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 225 [as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Sponguracea [sic] – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 223 (= Sponguroidea). — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1981: 37-38 (sensu emend.). — De Wever et al. 2001: 162.</p> <p>Spongodruppilae – Pessagno 1973: 50, 75 [nomen dubium, as a subsuperfamily];1977c: 73; 1977b: 932-933 [as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Lithelioidea – Petrushevskaya 1975: 571-572; 1979: 109; 1986: 130. — Dumitrica 1979: 24. — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 37.</p> <p>Oviformata [pars] Afanasieva &amp; Amon in Afanasieva, Amon, Agarkov &amp; Boltovskoy, 2005: S280-281 [as an order of Class Stauraxonaria] (= Spongolonchidae + Staurodruppidae + Gomberellidae + Archaeospongoprunidae + Phaseliformidae). — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 121 [as an order].</p> <p>Pyramidata [pars] Afanasieva &amp; Amon in Afanasieva, Amon, Agarkov &amp; Boltovskoy, 2005: S282 [as an order of Class Stauraxonaria] (= Tormentidae + Ruzhencevispongidae + Pyramispongiidae + Cavaspongiidae).— Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 122-123 [as an order].</p> <p>Spongurata [pars] – Afanasieva et al. 2005: S287 [as an order of Class Stauraxonaria] (= Sponguridae + Litheliidae). — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 130 [as an order].</p> <p>Sponguroidea – Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 24. DIAGNOSIS. — The central part contains a tiny spherical microsphere and is characterized by distinctive concentric structures, or walls, which are densely and systematically spaced. Many straight radial beams, if present, evenly radiate from the central part and perforate the concentric structure. Shell shape is spherical, oval, elliptical, cylindrical or flat.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This superfamily includes Conocaryommidae (although questionably), Litheliidae (Clade L1), Phaseliformidae, Pyramispongiidae and Sponguridae. A molecular phylogenetic analysis indicates a significantly long interval between Lithelius and Ommatogramma (originally Spongocore in Ishitani et al. 2012) by Ishitani et al. (2012) but it is likely to be close each other in other spumellarians (Sandin et al. 2021). The superfamily “ Sponguroidea ” sensu De Wever et al. (2001: 162) consists of seven families, and include the Litheliidae. We use Lithelioidea as the valid superfamily because the detailed internal structure of Sponguridae is not well documented yet. Spherical to ellipsoid Lithelioidea were sometimes confounded with Larcospiroidea and Phorticioidea of similar shape under light microscopy. As Lithelioidea lacks the girdle structure, the lithelioid central part does not appear to have a cornered (square) outline under a light microscope. By referring to the diagnosis of Lithelioidea, several Mesozoic families (Gomberellidae Kozur &amp; Mostler 1981; Oertlispongidae Kozur &amp; Mostler in Dumitrica et al. 1980; Pyramispongiidae Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978; Spongotortilispinidae Kozur &amp; Mostler in Moix et al. 2007) could potentially be classed into this superfamily.</p> <p>Afanasieva et al. (2005) established two orders, namely “ Oviformata ” and “ Spongurata ”. The combination of both these orders approximately corresponds to the Sponguroidea sensu De Wever et al. (2001), and thus an order-level classification is inappropriate with regard to consistency in the higher taxonomy of Eukaryotes (Cavalier-Smith et al. 2018; Adl et al. 2019).</p> <p>Clade indet.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFB1FE1305C2FE67FD074CA3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFB2FE1305D1FBC7FC254A23.text	038DDA73FFB2FE1305D1FBC7FC254A23.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lithelioidea	<div><p>Superfamily LITHELIOIDEA Haeckel, 1862 sensu Matsuzaki et al. (2015)Lithelida Haeckel, 1862: 240, 515-519 [as both family and tribe]; 1882: 464 [as a family]; 1884: 29 [as a family]; 1887: 604, 688- 691 [as a family]. Litheliacea [sic] – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 226 (= Lithelioidea) [as a superfamily]. — Dumitrica 1984: 101 [as a superfamily]. Ommatodiscilae – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 225 [as a subsuperfamily]. Sponguracea [sic] – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 223 (= Sponguroidea). — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1981: 37-38 (sensu emend.). — De Wever et al. 2001: 162. Spongodruppilae – Pessagno 1973: 50, 75 [nomen dubium, as a subsuperfamily];1977c: 73; 1977b: 932-933 [as a subsuperfamily].Lithelioidea – Petrushevskaya 1975: 571-572; 1979: 109; 1986: 130. — Dumitrica 1979: 24. — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 37. Oviformata [pars] Afanasieva &amp; Amon in Afanasieva, Amon, Agarkov &amp; Boltovskoy, 2005: S280-281 [as an order of Class Stauraxonaria] (= Spongolonchidae + Staurodruppidae + Gomberellidae + Archaeospongoprunidae + Phaseliformidae). — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 121 [as an order]. Pyramidata [pars] Afanasieva &amp; Amon in Afanasieva, Amon, Agarkov &amp; Boltovskoy, 2005: S282 [as an order of Class Stauraxonaria] (= Tormentidae + Ruzhencevispongidae + Pyramispongiidae + Cavaspongiidae).— Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 122-123 [as an order]. Spongurata [pars] – Afanasieva et al. 2005: S287 [as an order of Class Stauraxonaria] (= Sponguridae + Litheliidae). — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 130 [as an order]. Sponguroidea – Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 24. DIAGNOSIS. — The central part contains a tiny spherical microsphere and is characterized by distinctive concentric structures, or walls, which are densely and systematically spaced. Many straight radial beams, if present, evenly radiate from the central part and perforate the concentric structure. Shell shape is spherical, oval, elliptical, cylindrical or flat. REMARKS This superfamily includes Conocaryommidae (although questionably), Litheliidae (Clade L1), Phaseliformidae, Pyramispongiidae and Sponguridae. A molecular phylogenetic analysis indicates a significantly long interval between Lithelius and Ommatogramma (originally Spongocore in Ishitani et al. 2012) by Ishitani et al. (2012) but it is likely to be close each other in other spumellarians (Sandin et al. 2021). The superfamily “ Sponguroidea ” sensu De Wever et al. (2001: 162) consists of seven families, and include the Litheliidae. We use Lithelioidea as the valid superfamily because the detailed internal structure of Sponguridae is not well documented yet. Spherical to ellipsoid Lithelioidea were sometimes confounded with Larcospiroidea and Phorticioidea of similar shape under light microscopy. As Lithelioidea lacks the girdle structure, the lithelioid central part does not appear to have a cornered (square) outline under a light microscope. By referring to the diagnosis of Lithelioidea, several Mesozoic families (Gomberellidae Kozur &amp; Mostler 1981; Oertlispongidae Kozur &amp; Mostler in Dumitrica et al. 1980; Pyramispongiidae Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978; Spongotortilispinidae Kozur &amp; Mostler in Moix et al. 2007) could potentially be classed into this superfamily. Afanasieva et al. (2005) established two orders, namely “ Oviformata ” and “ Spongurata ”. The combination of both these orders approximately corresponds to the Sponguroideasensu De Wever et al. (2001), and thus an order-level classification is inappropriate with regard to consistency in the higher taxonomy of Eukaryotes (Cavalier-Smith et al. 2018; Adl et al. 2019). Clade indet.</p> <p>sensu Matsuzaki et al. (2015)</p> <p>Lithelida Haeckel, 1862: 240, 515-519 [as both family and tribe]; 1882: 464 [as a family]; 1884: 29 [as a family]; 1887: 604, 688- 691 [as a family].</p> <p>Litheliacea [sic] – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 226 (= Lithelioidea) [as a superfamily]. — Dumitrica 1984: 101 [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Ommatodiscilae – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 225 [as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Sponguracea [sic] – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 223 (= Sponguroidea). — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1981: 37-38 (sensu emend.). — De Wever et al. 2001: 162.</p> <p>Spongodruppilae – Pessagno 1973: 50, 75 [nomen dubium, as a subsuperfamily];1977c: 73; 1977b: 932-933 [as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Lithelioidea – Petrushevskaya 1975: 571-572; 1979: 109; 1986: 130. — Dumitrica 1979: 24. — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 37.</p> <p>Oviformata [pars] Afanasieva &amp; Amon in Afanasieva, Amon, Agarkov &amp; Boltovskoy, 2005: S280-281 [as an order of Class Stauraxonaria] (= Spongolonchidae + Staurodruppidae + Gomberellidae + Archaeospongoprunidae + Phaseliformidae). — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 121 [as an order].</p> <p>Pyramidata [pars] Afanasieva &amp; Amon in Afanasieva, Amon, Agarkov &amp; Boltovskoy, 2005: S282 [as an order of Class Stauraxonaria] (= Tormentidae + Ruzhencevispongidae + Pyramispongiidae + Cavaspongiidae).— Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 122-123 [as an order].</p> <p>Spongurata [pars] – Afanasieva et al. 2005: S287 [as an order of Class Stauraxonaria] (= Sponguridae + Litheliidae). — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 130 [as an order].</p> <p>Sponguroidea – Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 24. DIAGNOSIS. — The central part contains a tiny spherical microsphere and is characterized by distinctive concentric structures, or walls, which are densely and systematically spaced. Many straight radial beams, if present, evenly radiate from the central part and perforate the concentric structure. Shell shape is spherical, oval, elliptical, cylindrical or flat.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This superfamily includes Conocaryommidae (although questionably), Litheliidae (Clade L1), Phaseliformidae, Pyramispongiidae and Sponguridae. A molecular phylogenetic analysis indicates a significantly long interval between Lithelius and Ommatogramma (originally Spongocore in Ishitani et al. 2012) by Ishitani et al. (2012) but it is likely to be close each other in other spumellarians (Sandin et al. 2021). The superfamily “ Sponguroidea ” sensu De Wever et al. (2001: 162) consists of seven families, and include the Litheliidae. We use Lithelioidea as the valid superfamily because the detailed internal structure of Sponguridae is not well documented yet. Spherical to ellipsoid Lithelioidea were sometimes confounded with Larcospiroidea and Phorticioidea of similar shape under light microscopy. As Lithelioidea lacks the girdle structure, the lithelioid central part does not appear to have a cornered (square) outline under a light microscope. By referring to the diagnosis of Lithelioidea, several Mesozoic families (Gomberellidae Kozur &amp; Mostler 1981; Oertlispongidae Kozur &amp; Mostler in Dumitrica et al. 1980; Pyramispongiidae Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978; Spongotortilispinidae Kozur &amp; Mostler in Moix et al. 2007) could potentially be classed into this superfamily.</p> <p>Afanasieva et al. (2005) established two orders, namely “ Oviformata ” and “ Spongurata ”. The combination of both these orders approximately corresponds to the Sponguroidea sensu De Wever et al. (2001), and thus an order-level classification is inappropriate with regard to consistency in the higher taxonomy of Eukaryotes (Cavalier-Smith et al. 2018; Adl et al. 2019).</p> <p>Clade indet.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFB2FE1305D1FBC7FC254A23	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFB2FE12064EFA04FCF14C3D.text	038DDA73FFB2FE12064EFA04FCF14C3D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Conocaryommidae Lipman 1969	<div><p>? Family CONOCARYOMMIDAE Lipman, 1969</p> <p>Conocaryomminae Lipman, 1969: 481.</p> <p>Conocaryommidae – Empson-Morin 1981: 260. — Amon 2000: 29. — De Wever et al. 2001: 126-127 (sensu emend.). — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S277-278. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 116.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Conocaryomma Lipman, 1969: 184 [type species by original designation: Conocaryomma aralensis Lipman, 1969: 186].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENUS. — Conocaryomma Lipman, 1969:184 (=? Conocromyomma n. syn.).</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Conocaryommidae are characterized by a spherical cortical latticed shell with many tubercles and a central spherical part. The central part consists of three to five tight spherical concentric shells. A large space is present between the cortical shell and the innermost spherical part.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Eocene-Late Eocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>According to one of us (PD), Conocaryomma differs from Praeconocaryomma Pessagno 1976 due to the presence of a phorticiid-type-type central structure. However, no support photos have been published. Conocaryomma tuberculata (Lipman, 1949) illustrated in text-fig. 7 of Lipman (1949) is different from Praeconocaryomma (Schmidt-Effing 1980: fig. 5). The latter possesses a central spherical part with a double medullary shell and a relatively larger third spherical shell. The exact same structure to Praeconocaryomma was drawn in the type series of the type species for Conocaryomma by Lipman (1969: pl. 1, fig. 4; pl. 2, fig. 1) but this drawing is imprecise according to the personal observation (PD).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Conocaryomma</p> <p>The internal structure is characteristics in Conocromyomma but is unable to be really evaluated due to the lack of illustrations of real specimens except the type specimen. We simply synonymize Conocromyomma with Conocaryomma in a future study.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFB2FE12064EFA04FCF14C3D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFBDFE1C05D0FC67FE7A4874.text	038DDA73FFBDFE1C05D0FC67FE7A4874.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Phaseliformidae Pessagno 1972	<div><p>Family PHASELIFORMIDAE Pessagno, 1972</p> <p>Phaseliformidae Pessagno, 1972: 273; 1976: 26. — Dumitrica 1995: 26-27. — Hollis 1997: 48. — De Wever et al. 2001: 165. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S281 [in Order Oviformata]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 121.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Phaseliforma Pessagno, 1972: 274 [type species by original designation: Phaseliforma carinata Pessagno, 1972: 274, pl. 22, fig. 1].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENUS (CENOZOIC ONLY). — Phaseliforma Pessagno, 1972: 274.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — According to De Wever et al. (2001: 165), the family Phaseliformidae is characterized by “ test subellipsoidal, thicker at anterior end than at posterior end. Internal meshwork more or less concentric ”.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Hauterivian-Early Paleocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The practical internal structure of Phaseliformidae has not been illustrated as of yet. Thus, their taxonomic position tentatively follows that of De Wever et al. (2001: 165). As for Phaseliforma, they appear to belong to the Spongodiscidae, Spongobrachiidae, Spongopylidae or Litheliidae due to the observed presence of spongy structures. However, the molecular phylogenetic study indicates that a spongy structure, in and of itself, should not be a determining factor in defining a single group.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFBDFE1C05D0FC67FE7A4874	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFBDFE1C0586F88FFAEE4B3D.text	038DDA73FFBDFE1C0586F88FFAEE4B3D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pyramispongiidae Kozur & Mostler 1978	<div><p>Family PYRAMISPONGIIDAE Kozur &amp; Mostler, 1978 sensu O’Dogherty (1994)Pyramispongiidae Kozur &amp; Mostler, 1978: 168. — O’Dogherty 1994: 304. — De Wever et al. 2001: 165-166 (sensu emend.). — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S283 [in Order Pyramidata]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 124. TYPE GENUS. — Pyramispongia Pessagno, 1973: 78 [type species by original designation: Pyramispongia magnifica Pessagno, 1973: 80]. INCLUDED GENUS (CENOZOIC ONLY). — Pyramispongia Pessagno, 1973: 78 (= Nodotetraedra synonymized by Baumgartner et al. 1995: 464). DIAGNOSIS. — According to O’Dogherty (1994: 304), the family includes tetrahedral spumellarians with very spongy meshwork, having only a tetrahedral cortical shell.STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Tithonian-Late Paleocene.REMARKS The Pyramispongiidae were once placed in the superfamily Sponguroidea by De Wever et al. (2001: 166). The exact taxonomic position of the family Pyramispongiidae needs to be reexamined in the future as the paratype of Pyramispongia magnifica Pessagno, 1973, the type species of the representative genus (Pessagno 1973: pl. 20, fig. 1), possesses an obvious rigid cortical shell with an empty space between the rigid cortical shell and the outer spongy shell. The family Intermediellidae Lahm, 1984 was questionably synonymized with the Pyramispongiidae in De Wever et al. (2001). Later the “ Intermediellidae ” were transferred to the family Tritrabidae Baumgartner, 1980 as a subfamily (Dumitrica et al. 2013: 353-354). To exclude the Intermediellidae, we follow the definition of O’Dogherty et al. (2009b: 304).</p> <p>sensu O’Dogherty (1994)</p> <p>Pyramispongiidae Kozur &amp; Mostler, 1978: 168. — O’Dogherty 1994: 304. — De Wever et al. 2001: 165-166 (sensu emend.). —</p> <p>Afanasieva et al. 2005: S283 [in Order Pyramidata]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 124.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Pyramispongia Pessagno, 1973: 78 [type species by original designation: Pyramispongia magnifica Pessagno, 1973: 80].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENUS (CENOZOIC ONLY). — Pyramispongia Pessagno, 1973: 78 (= Nodotetraedra synonymized by Baumgartner et al. 1995: 464).</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — According to O’Dogherty (1994: 304), the family includes tetrahedral spumellarians with very spongy meshwork, having only a tetrahedral cortical shell.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Tithonian-Late Paleocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Pyramispongiidae were once placed in the superfamily Sponguroidea by De Wever et al. (2001: 166). The exact taxonomic position of the family Pyramispongiidae needs to be reexamined in the future as the paratype of Pyramispongia magnifica Pessagno, 1973, the type species of the representative genus (Pessagno 1973: pl. 20, fig. 1), possesses an obvious rigid cortical shell with an empty space between the rigid cortical shell and the outer spongy shell. The family Intermediellidae Lahm, 1984 was questionably synonymized with the Pyramispongiidae in De Wever et al. (2001). Later the “ Intermediellidae ” were transferred to the family Tritrabidae Baumgartner, 1980 as a subfamily (Dumitrica et al. 2013: 353-354). To exclude the Intermediellidae, we follow the definition of O’Dogherty et al. (2009b: 304).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFBDFE1C0586F88FFAEE4B3D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFBDFE1F0692FB46FC964CC3.text	038DDA73FFBDFE1F0692FB46FC964CC3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sponguridae Haeckel 1862	<div><p>Family SPONGURIDAE Haeckel, 1862</p> <p>Spongurida Haeckel, 1862: 239, 447-452 [as a family]; 1887: 288, 339-341 [as a family]. — Zittel 1876-1880: 124 [as a group]. — Stöhr 1880: 86 [as an order]. — Bütschli 1889: 1956 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 158. — nec Cayeux 1894: 206. — Schröder 1909: 3 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 23.</p> <p>Sponguridae – Claus 1876: 160. — Popofsky 1912: 115. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 36; 1945: 20. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 21; 1944b: 13. — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 22. — Campbell 1954: D73. — Orlev 1959: 441. — Chediya 1959: 112. — Pessagno 1973: 56; 1977b: 931. — Petrushevskaya 1975: 576-577 (sensu emend.); 1979: 114 (sensu emend.). — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 122. — Dumitrica 1979: 26; 1984: 100. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1981: 38-39 (sensu emend.). — De Wever 1982b: 181. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 150. — nec Noble 1994: 27-28. — Dumitrica 1995: 26. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 151. — Hollis 1997: 46. — Cordey 1998: 75. — Tan 1998: 196. — Kozlova 1999: 101. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 201. — Amon 2000: 51. — De Wever et al. 2001: 166. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S287-288 [in Order Spongurata]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 130. — Bragin 2007: 999. — Chen et al. 2017: 136.</p> <p>Spongida [sic] – Mivart 1878: 176 [as a subsection].</p> <p>Spongellipsida Haeckel, 1887: 341 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Spongodruppida Haeckel, 1887: 341, 348 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Spongellipsinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 36 [nomen dubium]; 1945: 20. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 21; 1944b: 13. — Chediya 1959: 112.</p> <p>Spongodruppinae – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 22 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D74. — Chediya 1959: 114.</p> <p>Spongurinae – Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 22. — Campbell 1954: D73. — Pessagno 1973: 57.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Spongurus Haeckel, 1861b: 844 [type species by monotypy: Spongurus cylindricus Haeckel, 1861b: 845].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENUS. — Ommatogramma Ehrenberg 1861b: 832 (= Spongurus n. syn., Spongocorisca synonymized by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 528;? Spongurantha n. syn., Spongurella n. syn.).</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Spongellipsarium, Spongellipsidium, Spongellipsis, Spongocore, Spongocorina, Spongodruppa, Spongodruppula, Spongolena, Sponguromma, Stypolarcus.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Shell is cylindrical to ellipsoidal in shape without bi-polar radial spines.Test filled with a structureless spongious tissue with a microsphere. Pylome may exist. No radial beams penetrating though the spongious meshwork were recognized.</p> <p>The gray endoplasm is embedded in the spongy shell. No endoplasm is present outside of the shell. The protoplasm, emitting in an autofluorescent red with DAPI dyeing, occupies the spongy shell, with the exception of both inflated ends of the shell. Granular organisms of an unknown origin are distributed throughout the internal periphery of the spongy shell. Gelatinous matter covers the whole area around the shell to include a part of the spines.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Campanian-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Many genera (Amphicarydiscus, Ommatogramma, Spongocore, Spongocorisca) were once synonymized with Ommatogramma (Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 528; Suzuki et al. 2009d: 247; Matsuzaki et al. 2015; 24), but the synonymy of Ommatogramma has been updated herein. As noted in Matsuzaki et al. (2015: 24), Spongocore cannot be used as a valid genus name due the absence of an illustrated type species. The genus Ommathymenium is often confused with Ommatogramma as a result of the ambiguous type drawings of these genera. Specimens classifiable into Ommathymenium have a phorticiid-type internal structure and consequently both genera must be separated at family or higher level. It is noted that Bragina (2003: 249) established a new species “ Spongurus cylindricus ” from the Cenomanian of Sakhalin, Far East, but it is a primary junior homonym of “ Spongurus cylindricus ” from the seawater in Messina, Haeckel (1861b: 845).</p> <p>Living images (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: figs 8.8.15, 8.10.1) of protoplasm and algal symbionts by epi-fluorescent observation with DAPI dyeing (Zhang et al. 2018: 14, figs 27, 28) were documented.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Ommatogramma</p> <p>Spongurus has the same type species as Spongurella. Previous studies classified Ommatogramma into the Euchitonidae (Campbell 1954: D86), but its lectotype (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 63, figs 4a-c) obviously does not fit with the classical definition of the Euchitonidae that are defined as “ flat disc-shaped shell [...] concentric rings [...]” written in Campbell (1954: D86). The four available genera synonymized here are defined by the followings characters: two opposite similar arms with distal terminal spines and a complete lattice-mantle for Ommatogramma (Campbell 1954: D88); spongy shell without polar spines or latticemantle, tiny spinules throughout test, homogenous spongy framework everywhere for Spongurus (Campbell 1954: D74); absence of tiny spinules throughout surface as a subgenus of Spongurus for Spongurantha (Campbell 1954: D74); and solid shell with lattice-mantle but without terminal spines, shell distinctly three-joined for Spongocorisca (Campbell 154: D74 as Spongocorissa [sic]). The development of a lattice-mantle, tiny spinules through the test and terminal spines from two opposite ends of the test is variable within a species or among species. Spongocorisca is distinguished from the other genera by its three-jointed appearance but the type specimens of Ommatogramma and Spongurus also show a similar appearance. The name Spongurus has been widely used as a valid genus name but Ommatogramma was selected as the valid genus by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova (1972: 528). In addition, Ommatogramma is dated on 13 December 1860 and Spongurus is dated on 20 December 1860.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFBDFE1F0692FB46FC964CC3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFBEFE1F067EFBE5FBB64887.text	038DDA73FFBEFE1F067EFBE5FBB64887.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Spongopyloidea Dreyer 1889	<div><p>Superfamily SPONGOPYLOIDEA Dreyer, 1889 n. stat.</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Spongopylida Dreyer, 1889: 42 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Test flat-disk shaped, ovoidal and spherical. Funnel-like pylome, aperture (large opening) or relevant structure is present. Very thick cortical shell develops in spherical to ovoid pattern. Flat-disc type, shows a concave central part, a peripheral inflation, and a circular depression zone between the central and peripheral zone. A margarita defined by Ogane &amp; Suzuki (2006) is positioned in the center (Spongopylidae) or somewhere (Cristallosphaeridae). The outer around the margarita looks spongy, formed by highly dense concentric structure; however, it does not form a perfect concentrically wall (like occurs in Trematodiscidae). Endemic form might be reported in Calcaromma due to the loss of all siliceous skeletal parts except the margarita. The presence of a thick axoflagellum might be linked to a funnel-like pylome.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This superfamily includes, Spongopylidae, Cristallosphaeridae and? Prunopylidae. This superfamily corresponds to Clade L2 of Sandin et al. (2021) based on molecular data obtained for Schizodiscus and Spongobrachiopyle (= Spongopyle in Sandin et al., 2021; Spongopylidae) and Calcaromma (Cristallosphaeridae). The family Prunopylidae is questionably assigned in this superfamily considering the presence of a Spongopylidae-like pylome, an aperture and a very thick outermost cortical shell, similar to that observed in Enalomelon. The diagnosis of the superfamily is based only on Spongopylidae and Cristallosphaeridae only, because little is known about the internal structure of the genera assigned in Prunopylidae.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFBEFE1F067EFBE5FBB64887	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFBFFE1E05CEFF06FAF449E2.text	038DDA73FFBFFE1E05CEFF06FAF449E2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Spongopylidae Dreyer 1889	<div><p>Family SPONGOPYLIDAE Dreyer, 1889 sensu Suzuki emend. hereinSpongopylida Dreyer, 1889: 42 [as a subfamily].Spongopylinae – Campbell 1954: D94.Spongopylidae – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 159. TYPE GENUS. — Spongopyle Dreyer, 1889: 42 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D94): Spongopyle setosa Dreyer, 1889: 43]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Schizodiscus Dogiel in Dogiel &amp; Reshetnyak, 1952: 8. — Spongobrachiopyle Kozur &amp; Mostler, 1978: 160. — Spongopyle Dreyer, 1889: 42 (= Spongopylarium with the same type species). — Spongospira Stöhr, 1880: 120. NOMEN DUBIUM. — Spiropyle. DIAGNOSIS. — The central part consists of a pit-like small microsphere directly connected to a tunnel-like pylome. The shell has a flat to simple, convex-lens shape (e. g. Spongopyle and Spongobrachiopyle). Another type is characterized by the lateral profile of the disk showing: 1) a simple convex-lens shape; or 2) an inflated convex-lens shape in the center, thinner zone or a groove outside the central part, as well as a thick peripheral spongy zone (Schizodiscus). A single, walled tunnel-like pylome is extended from, or near, the microsphere. The general spongy structure shows many discontinuous rings having very short radial beams or other fine columnar beams connected between adjacent discontinuous rings. These discontinuous rings and radial beams resemble a “structureless” sponge. This “structureless sponge” is highly dense near the central part and becomes looser away from the center Protoplasm was reported for Schizodiscus, Spongobrachiopyle and Spongospira, but these characters will be described in the remarks as there are concerns about whether or not they truly belong to the same family. No algal symbionts were found. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Eocene-Living.REMARKS The independency of the Spongopylidae from the Spongodiscidae was recognized by molecular phylogenic studies (Ishitani et al. 2012). After updating the taxonomic name of Ishitani et al. (2012), Schizodiscus was transferred to Trematodiscidae (originally Stylodictyidae in Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 25). New molecular phylogenetic analysis on more genera and species resulted in the grouping of Schizodiscus and Spongobrachiopyle (originally Spongopyle) into a cluster (Cluster L) independent from the Trematodiscidae (Cluster J). Subsequently, we divided the “Stylodictyidae” of Matsuzaki et al. (2015) into two families: Spongopylidae and Trematodiscidae here. A typical image of the walled tunnel-like pylome is given in pl. 39, fig. 3b of Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982. Under good conditions, the walled-pylome is distinctive under a light microscope (Kruglikova 1969: fig. 4.29). In identifying the genera of this family, the important points are: (a) the actual density of the “spongious part” with regard to the “thickness effect” under a light microscope, (b) the presence of primary radial beams, (c) the “wall type ” of the pylome, and (d) the zonal structure of the disk from the center to the peripheral zone in relation with the “thickness effect”. The radial spines disconnected from radial beams should be ignored at the genus level. The key differences between the Spongopylidae and the Trematodiscidae are that: (a) the pylome space is directly connected to the microsphere, (b) a porous but discrete wall surrounds the pylome, and (c) the area outside of the microsphere is structure-less, of non-hoop type so it might appear as fine bubbles in certain cases. Typical Spongopylidae have a structureless spongious disk so that Spongospira may not belong to this family. Many genera are in open nomenclature due to the difficulty of recognition about the detailed “spongy” and central structures. Many genera remain undescribed (e.g., Ogane &amp; Suzuki 2006: pl. 1, figs 3-4). The internal skeletal structure of Spongobrachiopyle was illustrated (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 39, figs 1-3; pl. 40, figs 5, 6). Illustration of living forms was documented for Spongobrachiopyle (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.10.10) and Schizodiscus (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.10.3). Protoplasm was analyzed with epi-fluorescent DAPI dyeing techniques in Schizodiscus (Zhang et al. 2018: 14, fig. 16), Spongobrachiopyle (Zhang et al. 2018: 19, fig. 10) and Spongospira (Zhang et al. 2018: 13, fig. 19). Following epi-fluorescent DAPI dyeing analyses, the protoplasm of aforementioned genera are defined below. VALIDITY OF GENERASchizodiscusThe endoplasm is white in the center, opaque red in major thinner disk parts, with white zones in the thicker peripheral disk parts and reddish granule zones on the periphery of the disk. The DAPI autofluorescent red endoplasm is distributed in a U-letter shape. Most of these peripherical parts overlap in the disk’s thin opaque red zone. This difference is marked in this genus.SpongobrachiopyleThe dark grey endoplasm fills the inner shell. The protoplasm emits an autofluorescent-whitish light blue with DAPI in the spongy shell and does not include the peripheral area beneath the gown. A thick, strong axoflagellum is affixed to the walled pylome and extends outward. Pseudopodia radiate throughout the shell. This difference is marked in this genus.SpongospiraThe protoplasm fills the center, the area around the pylome from the center to the periphery, and the thick peripheral area. This difference is marked in this genus.</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Spongopylida Dreyer, 1889: 42 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Spongopylinae – Campbell 1954: D94.</p> <p>Spongopylidae – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 159.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Spongopyle Dreyer, 1889: 42 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D94): Spongopyle setosa Dreyer, 1889: 43].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Schizodiscus Dogiel in Dogiel &amp; Reshetnyak, 1952: 8. — Spongobrachiopyle Kozur &amp; Mostler, 1978: 160. — Spongopyle Dreyer, 1889: 42 (= Spongopylarium with the same type species). — Spongospira Stöhr, 1880: 120.</p> <p>NOMEN DUBIUM. — Spiropyle.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — The central part consists of a pit-like small microsphere directly connected to a tunnel-like pylome. The shell has a flat to simple, convex-lens shape (e. g. Spongopyle and Spongobrachiopyle). Another type is characterized by the lateral profile of the disk showing: 1) a simple convex-lens shape; or 2) an inflated convex-lens shape in the center, thinner zone or a groove outside the central part, as well as a thick peripheral spongy zone (Schizodiscus). A single, walled tunnel-like pylome is extended from, or near, the microsphere. The general spongy structure shows many discontinuous rings having very short radial beams or other fine columnar beams connected between adjacent discontinuous rings. These discontinuous rings and radial beams resemble a “structureless” sponge. This “structureless sponge” is highly dense near the central part and becomes looser away from the center</p> <p>Protoplasm was reported for Schizodiscus, Spongobrachiopyle and Spongospira, but these characters will be described in the remarks as there are concerns about whether or not they truly belong to the same family. No algal symbionts were found.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Eocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The independency of the Spongopylidae from the Spongodiscidae was recognized by molecular phylogenic studies (Ishitani et al. 2012). After updating the taxonomic name of Ishitani et al. (2012), Schizodiscus was transferred to Trematodiscidae (originally Stylodictyidae in Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 25). New molecular phylogenetic analysis on more genera and species resulted in the grouping of Schizodiscus and Spongobrachiopyle (originally Spongopyle) into a cluster (Cluster L) independent from the Trematodiscidae (Cluster J). Subsequently, we divided the “Stylodictyidae” of Matsuzaki et al. (2015) into two families: Spongopylidae and Trematodiscidae here.</p> <p>A typical image of the walled tunnel-like pylome is given in pl. 39, fig. 3b of Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982. Under good conditions, the walled-pylome is distinctive under a light microscope (Kruglikova 1969: fig. 4.29). In identifying the genera of this family, the important points are: (a) the actual density of the “spongious part” with regard to the “thickness effect” under a light microscope, (b) the presence of primary radial beams, (c) the “wall type ” of the pylome, and (d) the zonal structure of the disk from the center to the peripheral zone in relation with the “thickness effect”. The radial spines disconnected from radial beams should be ignored at the genus level. The key differences between the Spongopylidae and the Trematodiscidae are that: (a) the pylome space is directly connected to the microsphere, (b) a porous but discrete wall surrounds the pylome, and (c) the area outside of the microsphere is structure-less, of non-hoop type so it might appear as fine bubbles in certain cases. Typical Spongopylidae have a structureless spongious disk so that Spongospira may not belong to this family. Many genera are in open nomenclature due to the difficulty of recognition about the detailed “spongy” and central structures. Many genera remain undescribed (e.g., Ogane &amp; Suzuki 2006: pl. 1, figs 3-4).</p> <p>The internal skeletal structure of Spongobrachiopyle was illustrated (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 39, figs 1-3; pl. 40, figs 5, 6). Illustration of living forms was documented for Spongobrachiopyle (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.10.10) and Schizodiscus (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.10.3). Protoplasm was analyzed with epi-fluorescent DAPI dyeing techniques in Schizodiscus (Zhang et al. 2018: 14, fig. 16), Spongobrachiopyle (Zhang et al. 2018: 19, fig. 10) and Spongospira (Zhang et al. 2018: 13, fig. 19). Following epi-fluorescent DAPI dyeing analyses, the protoplasm of aforementioned genera are defined below.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Schizodiscus</p> <p>The endoplasm is white in the center, opaque red in major thinner disk parts, with white zones in the thicker peripheral disk parts and reddish granule zones on the periphery of the disk. The DAPI autofluorescent red endoplasm is distributed in a U-letter shape. Most of these peripherical parts overlap in the disk’s thin opaque red zone. This difference is marked in this genus.</p> <p>Spongobrachiopyle</p> <p>The dark grey endoplasm fills the inner shell. The protoplasm emits an autofluorescent-whitish light blue with DAPI in the spongy shell and does not include the peripheral area beneath the gown. A thick, strong axoflagellum is affixed to the walled pylome and extends outward. Pseudopodia radiate throughout the shell. This difference is marked in this genus.</p> <p>Spongospira</p> <p>The protoplasm fills the center, the area around the pylome from the center to the periphery, and the thick peripheral area. This difference is marked in this genus.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFBFFE1E05CEFF06FAF449E2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFBFFE190640F902FDB2495D.text	038DDA73FFBFFE190640F902FDB2495D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cristallosphaeridae Popofsky 1912	<div><p>Family CRISTALLOSPHAERIDAE Popofsky, 1912</p> <p>Cristallosphaeridae Popofsky, 1912: 155 — Campbell 1954: D44 [in Collodaria] — Chediya 1959: 67 [in Collodaria].</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Cristallosphaera Popofsky, 1912: 155 [type species by monotypy: Cristallosphaera cristalloides Popofsky, 1912: 155] = junior subjective synonym of Calcaromma Thomson, 1877: 99 [type species by monotypy: Calcaromma calcarea Thomson, 1877: fig. 51 and its associated explanation].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Calcaromma Thomson, 1877: fig. 51 and its associated explanation (page number is variable in editions of the book) (= Cristallosphaera n. syn.). — Enalomelon Sugiyama, 1992b: 195.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — The protoplasm or outermost shell (if existent) is spherical. Very small, convex lens-shaped spongodiscid siliceous skeleton lies in in the center of the endoplasm or is located somewhere within a large spongy siliceous meshwork. Algal symbionts are found surrounding the endoplasm. In Calcaromma, several starlike materials characterized by an optical anisotropy are scattered in the extracapsular zone of the ectoplasm. These star-like materials are dissolved by acid.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Calcaromma is believed to lack siliceous skeletons and was subsequently considered as belonging to Collodaria (Haeckel 1862; Popofsky 1913; Campbell 1954; Chediya 1959). Hollande &amp; Enjumet (1960) carefully examined cytological and skeletal characters of Calcaromma (originally Cristallosphaera), and discovered a very small, encrypted, convex lens-shaped spongodiscid siliceous skeleton with a cytological structure similar to that of the flat-shaped spongy skeleton of spumellarians (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 15, fig. 10). They concluded that this genus belongs to the classical Spongodiscidae. The presence of the siliceous convex lens-shaped skeleton and the taxonomic position was confirmed by molecular phylogenetic analysis (Sandin et al. 2021). According to Sugiyama (1992b), Enalomelon is a member of some flat-shaped spongy spumellarian family due to the presence of a very small convex lens-shaped spongodiscid siliceous skeleton within the outermost spherical shell as well as the development of a spongy meshwork. The internal skeletal structure of Enalomelon is illustrated (Chen 1974: pl. 1, figs 3-6; 1975: pl. 10, figs 1-3; Sugiyama 1992b: pl. 11, figs 1-5). Images of living specimens (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.8.7; Matsuoka et al. 2017: appendix A), of the fine cytological structure (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 15, fig. 10; pl. 35, figs 1-3) and of algal symbionts (Zhang et al. 2018: 11, fig. 2) were published for Calcaromma.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>The type specimen of Cristallosphaera is a shrinking Calcaromma specimen in the fixative medium. Calcaromma is an older available name than Cristallosphaera.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFBFFE190640F902FDB2495D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFB8FE18066FFD47FEC04EDC.text	038DDA73FFB8FE18066FFD47FEC04EDC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Phorticioidea Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Superfamily PHORTICIOIDEA Haeckel, 1882 n. stat.</p> <p>Phorticida Haeckel, 1882: 464 [as a subfamily]; 1887: 604, 708 [as a family].</p> <p>Larnacillilae – De Wever et al. 2001: 153 [as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Larnacillioidea [sic] – Afanasieva et al. 2005: S287 (= Larnacilloidea). — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 129.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Spumellarians with a heteropolar and ring-shaped (or ringed-ribbon shaped). Microsphere having two pairs of opposite gates growing in younger, or all stages, by formation of systems of three successively larges elliptical latticed girdles, which are disposed in three mutually perpendicular planes.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The superfamily name “Larnacillilae” is herein replaced by Phorticioidea.The type genus of the former is a nomen dubium as the type species is unillustrated. The Phorticioidea consist of the Amphitholidae (Clade M1), Circodiscidae, Cryptolarnaciidae (Clade M2), Histiastridae and Phorticiidae.The Phorticioidea genera with girdles (e.g., Phorticium, Qiuripylolena, Sphaerolarnacillium) are differentiated from the Larcospiroidea genera with girdles (e.g., Pylospira, Tholospira, Sphaeropylolena, Pylozonium, Tetrapyle). Identifying Phorticioidea members is quite difficult as they appear to change appearance in different orientations, even when observing the same specimen (Tan &amp; Chen 1990: pls 1, 2; Itaki 2009: pl. 10, figs 1-5, 10, 12, 13; Ogane &amp; Suzuki 2009: figs 2-4; et al. 2013: figs 3, 4). By using three-dimension resin models, the different orientations at different growth stages were illustrated by Zhang &amp; Suzuki (2017: 8, fig. 3). To understand the organization of the skeleton is essential to gather: the absolute and relative geometrical cartesian coordinates, their mathematical expression, and the difference between anatomical recognition and visual perception under light microscopy (Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: 5-8, 9-13). A failure to understand these points will surely lead to a series of fruitless debates. Phorticioidea are only distinguishable from Larcospiroidea in the absence of an S1a-girdle in the sense of Zhang &amp; Suzuki (2017). The appearance of the triangle itself has no value in determining taxonomy. Instead of an S1a-girdle, a G1a girdle is directly attached to the microsphere (S1a) (see fig. 5.5 in Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017). This structure can be observed in several cases under a light microscope with the Plan or S-Plan level objec- tive lens, and with a correction ring to adjust the optical spherical abbreviation (Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: 4). The view from the overlapped orientation of the microsphere (S1a) and S1a-girdle in the Phorticioidea resembles the central part of Larcospiroidea (compare figs 5.2 with fig. 5.5 in Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017). In this view, the central part appears spherical in Phorticioidea.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFB8FE18066FFD47FEC04EDC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFB8FE190433F969FAA94D3C.text	038DDA73FFB8FE190433F969FAA94D3C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Prunopylidae Poche 1913	<div><p>Family PRUNOPYLIDAE Poche, 1913</p> <p>Prunopylidae Poche, 1913: 207-209.</p> <p>Prunopyle [sic] – Tochilina 1985: 96 (= Prunopylidae).</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Prunopyle Dreyer, 1889: 18 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D72): Prunopyle pyriformis Dreyer, 1889: 18].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Prunopyle Dreyer, 1889: 18. — Spongopylidium Dreyer, 1889: 46.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Ovulopyle, Spirotunica.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — One robust, thick-walled oval to oblong shell with a large opening. Internal structure invisible or ambiguous with a thick-walled shell.Taxa without internal structure are also included.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Eocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This family is an artificial group for the members that are defined above. Anatomical study should be carried out for the taxa of this group by sectioned specimens. The position of this family into the superfamily is also tentative.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFB8FE190433F969FAA94D3C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFB9FE1B05FCFDE9FDA8497D.text	038DDA73FFB9FE1B05FCFDE9FDA8497D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Amphitholidae Haeckel 1887	<div><p>Family AMPHITHOLIDAE Haeckel, 1887 n. stat.</p> <p>sensu De Wever et al. (2001)</p> <p>Amphitholida Haeckel, 1887: 663 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Archidiscaria Haeckel, 1887: 484 [nomen dubium, as a section between subfamily and family].</p> <p>Archidiscida Haeckel, 1887: 484-485 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 42. — Chen et al. 2017: 138 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Tholonida Haeckel, 1887: 604, 660-663 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1967 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 141. — Schröder 1909: 4 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 24 [as a family].</p> <p>Staurotholida Haeckel, 1887: 663, 670 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Cubotholida Haeckel, 1887: 663, 677 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Tholoniidae – Poche 1913: 210 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D98. — Riedel 1967b: 295; 1971: 655. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 171. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 126. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 867. — Petrushevskaya 1979: 110. — Anderson 1983: 39. — Dumitrica 1984: 101. — Takahashi 1991: 89. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 152. — Boltovskoy 1998: 32. — Tan 1998: 270-271. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1003. — De Wever et al. 2001: 157-158. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S287. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 130. — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 35-36.</p> <p>Archidiscinae – Campbell 1954: D88 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 132.</p> <p>Amphitholinae – Campbell 1954: D98. — Chediya 1959: 156.</p> <p>Staurotholinae – Campbell 1954: D98 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 157.</p> <p>Tholoniinae – Campbell 1954: D98 [nomen dubium]. — Dumitrica 1989: 234, 237.</p> <p>Tholonidae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 156 [nomen dubium] (= Tholoniidae). — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 160. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 257. — Chen et al. 2017: 156.</p> <p>Cubotholinae – Chediya 1959: 157.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Amphitholus Haeckel, 1887: 666 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D98): Amphitholus artiscus Haeckel, 1887: 666] = junior subjective synonym of Tholomura Haeckel, 1887: 672 [type species by monotypy: Tholoma metallasson Haeckel, 1887: 672].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Tholomura Haeckel, 1887: 672 (= Amphitholonium, Cubotholonium, Staurotholoma synonymized by Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 36; Amphitholissa n. syn., Amphitholura n. syn., Amphitholus n. syn., Cubotholissa n. syn., Cubotholus n. syn., Staurotholura</p> <p>n. syn., Tholartella n. syn., Tholartus n. syn., Tholocubitus n. syn., Tholodes n. syn., Tholocubulus n. syn., Tholocubus n. syn., Tholoma n. syn., Tholomantha n. syn., Tholonilla synonymized by Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: 59).</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Tholothauma.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Archidiscus, Axodiscus, Circoniscus, Cubotholura, Dioniscus, Hexoniscus, Pentoniscus, Staurotholissa, Staurotholodes, Staurotholonium, Staurotholus, Tetroniscus, Tholartissa, Tholonetta, Tholonium, Tholostaurantha, Tholostauroma, Tholostaurus, Trioniscus.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Phorticioidea with gates of the girdles closed by pillars in earlier ontogenetic stages, which become completely closed with growing. In latest ontogenetic stages, the cupolas becoming opposite latticed domes successively disposed on each of the three cartesian axes. Protoplasm occupies the inner space of the cortical shell. No algal symbionts are detected. A gelatinous sheath wraps the entirety of shell, including the lower part of the radial spines.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Holocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The reason of the synonymy with Tholomura was explained in detail by Matsuzaki et al. (2015). This family was called Tholoniidae but its type genus is a nomen dubium. We selected the family name Amphitholidae due to the illustration of the Amphitholonium type species displaying a clearer internal structure than that of Cubotholonium. The internal skeletal structure for Tholomura has been already illustrated (Dumitrica 1989: pl. 15, figs 7-10; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 11, fig. 6-9). Protoplasm and algal symbionts were documented by epi-fluorescent techniques using DAPI methods (Zhang et al. 2018: 14, fig. 30, p. 17, fig. 12).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Tholomura</p> <p>The morphological terminology followed both an anatomical terminology (Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: tables 1-4, figs 3-5) and a morphology under a transmitted microscope (Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: fig. 2).</p> <p>It is helpful to understand the validity of the genera using the knowledge of the formation of the shell in Tholomura. The ideal Tholomura has the following structures: the “central combination” of S1a (= microsphere) and S1a-girdle in the center, the six cupolas with the settings of two opposite cupolas aligned along the three perpendicular axes outside of the “central combination”. The word “cupola” is also called “dome-shaped test”, and is defined as a large vaulted dome (Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: table 1). These six cupolas form the 2nd pseudo-concentric shell. The term pseudo-concentric shell is defined for an easy recognition of the concentric patterns for Tholomura in transmitted light microscopy and the 2 nd pseudo-concentric shell corresponds to the anatomical term “S2-girdles”. The three sets of two opposite cupolas in the case of S2-girdels are anatomically called “G1 of S2-girdle”, “G2 of S2-girdle” and “G3 of S2-girdle from the inner one to the outer one within the S2-girdle. Outside of the 2nd pseudoconcentric shell (=S2-girdle), the next three sets of two opposite cupolas are developed as the 3rd pseudo-concentric shell (=S3-girdle). The Tholoniidae sensu Campbell (1954: D94) are subdivided into three subfamilies based on the development patterns of cupolas: A set of two opposite cupolas are aligned along three perpendicular axes in the “Tholoniinae”, along to two perpendicular axes in the “Staurotholoninae”, and along a single axis in the “Amphitholinae”. They correspond to the presence of G3, G2 and G1 of a certain girdle, respectively. This means that the different ontogenetic stages of the same pseudo-concentric shell were separated at the subfamily level. The subfamily in the sense of Campbell (1954) was systematically divided into genera with “how many cupolas pile up?” and the existence of a medullary shell. The former reflects the number of pseudo-concentric shells and the latter is related with preservation conditions. Genera in the sense of Campbell (1954) are subdivided into subgenera with the occurrence of radial spines or thorns. Radial spines may or may not be different at species level.</p> <p>The Atlas illustrated 14 available genera after exclusion of nomina dubia, junior objective synonyms and invalid names. In consideration of the definition of Campbell (1954), of the type-illustrations cited from Haeckel (1887) and our supporting image, these 14 available genera can be arranged as follows: 1) Three pseudo-concentric shells: Amphitholura, Tholartus (presumably) and Tholodes (presumably)(G1 mode); Cubotholus, Staurotholura, Tholocubitus (probably), Tholonilla (probably) (G2 mode); and 2) Four pseudo-concentric shells: Amphitholonium, Amphitholus (presumably) and Staurotholoma (G1 mode); Tholoma (presumably), Tholocubus (probably) and Tholomura (probably) (G2 mode); and Cubotholonium (G3 mode). Genera “probably” assigned here are based on supporting images of this Atlas and those “presumably” assigned here are classified on the basis of a probable existence of more internal shells from other specimens. These genera were compared under the same mode and the same number of pseudo-concentric shells and there are no significant differences within these groups. As the difference between G1, G2 and G3 is related with different ontogenetic modes under the same number of pseudo-concentric shells, this is not a criterion for genus. There are no differences among different numbers of pseudo-concentric shells so that all these 14 available genera are included in the same genus. In respect to the first formal discussion by Matsuzaki et al. (2015), Tholomura is validated among these genera that were simultaneous published in Haeckel (1887).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFB9FE1B05FCFDE9FDA8497D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFBAFE1B05F7F98BFC264D58.text	038DDA73FFBAFE1B05F7F98BFC264D58.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Circodiscidae Dumitrica 1989	<div><p>Family CIRCODISCIDAE Dumitrica, 1989 n. stat.</p> <p>Circodiscinae Dumitrica, 1989: 237-238. — De Wever et al. 2001: 156. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S287. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 130. — Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: 54.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Circodiscus Kozlova in Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova, 1972: 526 [type species by monotypy: Trematodiscus microporus Stöhr, 1880: 108].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Annulatospira Clark &amp; Campbell, 1945: 26. — Circodiscullus Dumitrica, 2020: 30. — Circodiscus Kozlova in Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova, 1972: 526 (= Plectodiscus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 575). — Sanfiriedelus Dumitrica, 2020: 18. — Stylotrochellus Dumitrica, 2020: 33.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Phorticioidea with a discoid shell having as medullary shell the first or first two systems of girdles and the outer shell formed of rings, spirals or more or less spongy meshwork.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This family is raised herein from the subfamily Circodiscinae (originally included in the family “ Larnacillidae ”) in consideration of rank consistency. Internal skeletal structure is illustrated for Circodiscus (Dumitrica 1989: pl. 9, figs 7-10; pl. 14, figs 7, 8).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFBAFE1B05F7F98BFC264D58	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFBAFE1B067BFDABFB1C4977.text	038DDA73FFBAFE1B067BFDABFB1C4977.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cryptolarnaciidae Dumitrica 1989	<div><p>Family CRYPTOLARNACIIDAE Dumitrica, 1989 n. stat.</p> <p>Cryptolarnaciinae Dumitrica, 1989: 241-242. — De Wever et al. 2001: 156. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S287. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 130.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Cryptolarnacium Dumitrica, 1989: 246 [type species by monotypy: Cryptolarnacium hexastylus Dumitrica, 1989: 246].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Coccolarnacium Dumitrica, 1989: 242. — Cryptolarnacium Dumitrica, 1989: 246. — Globolarnacium Dumitrica, 2020: 13. — Phacolarnacium Dumitrica, 2020: 7. — Pylolarnacium Dumitrica, 2020: 16.</p> <p>NOMEN DUBIUM. — Staurosphaerantha.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — The shell of the phorticiid-type structure is completely hidden within a cortical shell, that strikingly resembles the cortical shell of some co-occurring spumellarians. However, in Cryptolarnaciidae this layout is separated by an empty space or a loose spongy framework.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Paleocene-Late Eocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This group is raised herein from the subfamily Cryptolarnaciinae (originally included in family Larnacillidae) to the family level in order to maintain rank consistency. Internal skeletal structure for Coccolarnacium (Dumitrica 1989: pl. 10, figs 1-4; pl. 14, figs 2-4, 9) and Cryptolarnacium (Dumitrica 1989: pl. 10, figs 5, 6, 10; pl. 14, figs 5, 6) was illustrated. This family member is found in plankton samples from the Pacific Ocean, South China Sea and Eastern Indian Ocean (e.g., Onodera et al. 2011: pl. 4, fig. 13).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFBAFE1B067BFDABFB1C4977	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFBAFE1A065BF9B0FE984887.text	038DDA73FFBAFE1A065BF9B0FE984887.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Histiastridae Dumitrica 1989	<div><p>Family HISTIASTRIDAE Dumitrica, 1989 n. stat.</p> <p>Histiastrinae Dumitrica, 1989: 238, 241. — De Wever et al. 2001: 157. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S287. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 130.</p> <p>? Prunobrachidae [sic] Pessagno, 1975: 1014 (= Prunobrachiidae). — Vishnevskaya 2011: 372; 2015: 12.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Histiastrum Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [type species by subsequent designation (Haeckel 1887: 544): Histiastrum quaternarium Ehrenberg, 1874: 237].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Amphicraspedula Haeckel, 1887: 523 (= Amphicarydiscus n. syn., Prunobrachium n. syn.). — Histiastrum Ehrenberg,</p> <p>1846: 385 (= Histiastromma with the same type species). — Ommathymenium Haeckel, 1887: 520. — Stephanastrum Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Stephanastromma with the same type species; Hagiastrella n. syn.; Stauralastromma synonymized by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 527; Stephanastrella synonymized by Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 136).</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Stauralastrella, Stauralastrum.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — This family is characterized by a spongy shell or chambered cylindrical shell, or in certain cases, a flat shell with two or four arms originating from a phorticiid-type medullary shell.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Campanian-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Herein, this group is raised from the subfamily Histiastrinae (originally included in family Larnacillidae) to the family level in order to maintain rank consistency. Internal skeletal structure for both Histiastrum (Dumitrica 1989: pl. 10, fig. 9) and Ommathymenium (Dumitrica 1989: pl. 10, figs.10-15) was documented. The morphological variation of the Prunobrachium -form of Amphicraspedula was repeatedly examined (Zagorodnyuk 1975: 50; Blueford &amp; Amon 1993: pl. 1, figs 8-10; pl. 2, figs 1-9; pl. 3, figs 1-5, 7; Suzuki et al. 2009d: pl. 5, figs 11-16, 18; pl. 6, figs 1-8; Vishnevskaya 2015: pl. 2), but no clear solution was proposed for Ommatogramma, Amphicarydiscus - and Prunobrachium (Sponguridae) due to their strong similarity in external shape (Zaynutdinov 1978: pl. 1, fig. 5, 6; pl. 2, figs 2, 6; Vishnevskaya 2011: figs 1a-1d). The genus Ommathymenium has generally been misidentified with Ommatogramma (Sponguridae) but the internal structure is evidently quite different (see supporting image for Ommathymenium).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Amphicraspedula</p> <p>Specimens identifiable as the type species of Amphicraspedula (the supporting image of Amphicraspedula in the Atlas) have the identical internal structure of the type species of Amphicarydiscus (Lipman 1972: pl. 10, figs 1, 2) and Prunobrachium (Kozlova &amp; Gorbovetz 1966: pl. 1, figs 5, 6). Differing from Amphicraspedula, the type species of Amphicarydiscus lacks robust radial spines whereas the type species of Prunobrachium shows a cylindrical appearance. These differences are, however, interpreted as intraspecies variations. The oldest available name is Amphicraspedula among them.</p> <p>Stephanastrum</p> <p>Stephanastrum has the same type species as Stephanastromma. Stauralastromma is characterized by spiny arms and no patagium (Campbell 1954: D88), but these differences are related to intraspecies and intraspecies variations or preservation effect. Hagiastrella is defined by similar longitudinal arms with patagium (Campbell 1954: D86), the length symmetry of the arms is different among species but not genera. Stephanastrum is characterized by a patagium with four large interbrachial openings (patagial girdle) (Campbell 1954: D88), but a difference in the patagium is not considered as a generic difference.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFBAFE1A065BF9B0FE984887	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFBBFE050693FF06FDFF4C1C.text	038DDA73FFBBFE050693FF06FDFF4C1C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Larnacidae	<div><p>Family PHORTICIIDAE Haeckel, 1882 sensu Dumitrica (1989)Phorticida Haeckel, 1882: 464 [as a subfamily]; 1887: 604, 708 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 175 [as a family]. — Schröder 1909: 4, 62 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 25 [as a family].Larnacida Haeckel, 1887: 604, 614-616 [nomen nudum, as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1965-1966 [as a family]. — Schröder 1909: 4 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 24 [as a family].Larnacillida – Haeckel 1887: 616, 617 [as a subfamily].Larnacalpida Haeckel, 1887: 616, 619 [as a subfamily].Larnacidae [sic] – Popofsky 1908: 229-230 [nomen nudum] (= Larnacillidae). — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 30. — Chediya 1959: 152. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 258. — Tan 1998: 249. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 240. Phorticidae [sic] – Popofsky 1912: 153-154 (= Phorticiidae). — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 31. — Campbell 1954: D100. — Chediya 1959: 161. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 266. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 152. — Chen et al. 2017: 163. Phorticiidae – Poche 1913: 210. Larnacillidae – Poche 1913: 210. — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 27. — Campbell 1954: D96. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 126. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 47. — Dumitrica 1989: 233; 1995: 25. — Takahashi 1991: 88. — De Wever et al. 2001: 153, 156. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S287. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 129-130. Larnacalpinae [sic] – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 30 (= Larnacalpidinae). — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 27. — Chediya 1959: 153.Larnacillinae – Campbell 1954: D96. — Chediya 1959: 153. — Dumitrica 1989: 233-234. — De Wever et al. 2001: 156. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S287. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 130. Larnacalpidinae – Campbell 1954: D96.</p> <p>sensu Dumitrica (1989)</p> <p>Phorticida Haeckel, 1882: 464 [as a subfamily]; 1887: 604, 708 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 175 [as a family]. — Schröder 1909: 4, 62 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 25 [as a family].</p> <p>Larnacida Haeckel, 1887: 604, 614-616 [nomen nudum, as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1965-1966 [as a family]. — Schröder 1909: 4 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 24 [as a family].</p> <p>Larnacillida – Haeckel 1887: 616, 617 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Larnacalpida Haeckel, 1887: 616, 619 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Larnacidae [sic] – Popofsky 1908: 229-230 [nomen nudum] (= Larnacillidae). — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 30. — Chediya 1959: 152. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 258. — Tan 1998: 249. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 240.</p> <p>Phorticidae [sic] – Popofsky 1912: 153-154 (= Phorticiidae). — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 31. — Campbell 1954: D100. — Chediya 1959: 161. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 266. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 152. — Chen et al. 2017: 163.</p> <p>Phorticiidae – Poche 1913: 210.</p> <p>Larnacillidae – Poche 1913: 210. — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 27. — Campbell 1954: D96. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 126. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 47. — Dumitrica 1989: 233; 1995: 25. — Takahashi 1991: 88. — De Wever et al. 2001: 153, 156. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S287. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 129-130.</p> <p>Larnacalpinae [sic] – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 30 (= Larnacalpidinae). — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 27. — Chediya 1959: 153.</p> <p>Larnacillinae – Campbell 1954: D96. — Chediya 1959: 153. — Dumitrica 1989: 233-234. — De Wever et al. 2001: 156. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S287. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 130.</p> <p>Larnacalpidinae – Campbell 1954: D96.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Phorticium Haeckel, 1882: 464 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D100): Phorticium pylonium Haeckel, 1887: 709].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Larnacilla Haeckel, 1887: 617 (= Larnacalpis n. syn.). — Phorticium Haeckel, 1882: 464 (= Phortopyle with the same type species). — Qiuripylolena Zhang &amp; Suzuki, 2017: 52. — Sphaerolarnacillium Zhang &amp; Suzuki, 2017: 47.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Amphibrachella, Amphibrachidium, Amphibrachoma, Amphibrachura, Druppulissa, Larnacospongus, Larnacidium, Larnacoma, Larnacostupa, Phortolarcus.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — The skeleton consists of several systems of phorticiidtype structures. Protoplasm was only reported for Sphaeropylolena. A red endoplasm occupies the inner part of the shell, which is enclosed by a reddish-brown endoplasm. The outermost part of the skeleton outcrops from the endoplasm. Pseudopodia radiate throughout the endoplasm and an axoflagellum is sometimes observable. Isolated skeleton fragments are scattered throughout the endoplasm in bundles of pseudopodia. The pseudopodia seem to be immobile and are strongly cohesive. No algal symbionts are observed.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — late Middle Eocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This family was previously called Larnacillidae. However, Phorticiidae is the oldest senior synonym of Larnacillidae. Phorticiidae has been employed as family name in several Chinese monographs (see synonymy), hence the unfeasible use of Larnacillidae as a valid name.Internal skeletal structures for Larnacilla (Dumitrica 1989: pl. 11, figs 1-7), Qiuripylolena (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 10, figs 1-5), Phorticium (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 10, figs 8, 9; van de Paverd 1995: pl. 58, fig. 2) and Sphaerolarnacillium (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 27, fig. 5; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 11, figs 2-8) were illustrated. Illustrations of living specimens and protoplasm images were published for Sphaeropylolena (KrabberØd et al., 2011: figs 1.N; Suzuki N. et al. 2013: figs 3.1-3.9, 4.1-4.9, 7.1; Matsuoka et al. 2017: appendix A).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Larnacilla</p> <p>Difference between Larnacilla and Larnacalpis is a single medullary shell in the former and a double medullary shell in the latter (Campbell 1954: D96). This difference is considered to be caused by preservation effects. As both these genera were simultaneously published, the available genus in the earlier page Larnacilla is validated herein (Haeckel 1887: 617 for Larnacilla and 620 for Larnacalpis).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFBBFE050693FF06FDFF4C1C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFA4FE05064DFE66FA814B1E.text	038DDA73FFA4FE05064DFE66FA814B1E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dipylissidae Dumitrica 1988	<div><p>Family DIPYLISSIDAE Dumitrica, 1988 n. stat.</p> <p>Dipylissinae Dumitrica, 1988: 188-190; 1989: 261. — De Wever et al. 2001: 151. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S286. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 129.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Dipylissa Dumitrica, 1988: 190 [type species by monotypy: Dipylissa bensoni Dumitrica, 1988: 190].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENUS. — Dipylissa Dumitrica, 1988: 190.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — A Larcospiroidea with systems of two single-capped latticed girdles that are arranged face to face along the polar axis and rotated at 90° of each another. The first system includes a microsphere and a wide apically-opened antapical cap.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — late Late Miocene-Holocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>As the hierarchical consistency in the family level is improved to concord with the ranking of other spumellarian, this subfamily is raised to the family level. The internal skeletal structure of Dipylissa was illustrated (Dumitrica 1988: pl. 6, figs 1-15; 1989: pl. 12, figs 18-24). Undescribed Dipylissa morphospecies are found in plankton samples (study in progress).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFA4FE05064DFE66FA814B1E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFA4FE050599FC64FA564E1D.text	038DDA73FFA4FE050599FC64FA564E1D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Larcospiroidea Haeckel 1887	<div><p>Superfamily LARCOSPIROIDEA Haeckel, 1887 n. stat.</p> <p>sensu Dumitrica (1989)</p> <p>Larcospirida Haeckel, 1887: 691, 695 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Pyloniacea [sic] – Dumitrica 1989: 228-229 [nomen dubium] (= Pylonioidea) (sensu emend.) [as a superfamily]. — De Wever et al. 2001: 127-128 [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Pyloniaceae [sic] – O’Dogherty 1994: 306 [nomen dubium] (= Pylonioidea) [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Pyloniilae – De Wever et al. 2001: 148 [nomen dubium, as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Pylonioidea – Afanasieva et al. 2005: S286 [nomen dubium]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 129. — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 29. — Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: 8-9.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — A Spumellaria with a Tetrapyle -mode of growth and a first system consisting of a microsphere, a simple or forked antapical sagittal cap, and two lateral caps developed between the apical part of the microsphere and the top of the sagittal cap.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Since the well-known name “pyloniids” is not any longer applicable to this group on account of its nomen dubium status, Larcospiroidea, a superfamily name, is used herein. The Larcospiroidea consist of the Dipylissidae, Larcospiridae, Palaeotetrapylidae, Pylodiscidae (Clade M3) and Zonariidae (Clade M4). As explained in the remarks for Phorticioidea, the presence of S1a-girdle in the sense of Zhang &amp; Suzuki (2017) is the key distinguishing trait of the Larcospiroidea (see figs 5.1-5.4 in Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017). Differing from the G1 of Phorticioidea, the G1 of the Larcospiroidea is conjoined by both the microsphere (S1a) and the S1a-girlde. The appearance of the overlapped orientation of the microsphere (S1a) and S1a-girdle appears the same in Phorticioidea and Larcospiroidea (compare figs 5.2 with fig. 5.5 in Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017). Differing from its spherical outline in the Phorticioidea, the central part of the Larcospiroidea is elliptical, with two transparent apertures and an S1a-girdle shadow is present (the middle figure in fig. 5.2 in Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFA4FE050599FC64FA564E1D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFA4FE04064CFB66FA494BA2.text	038DDA73FFA4FE04064CFB66FA494BA2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Larcospiridae Haeckel 1887	<div><p>Family LARCOSPIRIDAE Haeckel, 1887 n. stat.</p> <p>Larcospirida Haeckel, 1887: 691, 695 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 57 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Soreumida Haeckel, 1882: 464 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]; 1887: 604, 712 [as a family]. — Schröder 1909: 4, 62 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 25 [as a family].</p> <p>Streblacanthida Haeckel, 1887: 704 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 60 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Streblopylida Haeckel, 1887: 704 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 60 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Larcopylida Dreyer, 1889: 48 [as a family].</p> <p>Soreumatidae – Poche 1913: 210 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D100. — Blueford 1988: 254.</p> <p>Larcopylidae – Poche 1913: 210. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 152. — Tan 1998: 247. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 239. — Chen et al. 2017: 149.</p> <p>Soreumidae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 51 [nomen dubium] (= Soreumatidae); 1945: 28. — Chediya 1959: 161. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 267.</p> <p>Larcopylinae – Campbell 1954: D96.</p> <p>Larcospirinae – Campbell 1954: D100. — Chediya 1959: 159. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 264. — Tan 1998: 280. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 265. Streblopylinae – Campbell 1954: D100.</p> <p>Tholospira [sic] – Tochilina 1985: 98 (= Tholospiridae).</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Larcospira Haeckel, 1887: 695 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D100): Larcospira quadrangula Haeckel, 1887: 696].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Larcospira Haeckel, 1887: 695 (= Larcospirema with the same type species). — Pylospira Haeckel, 1887: 697 (= Pylospirema with the same type species). — Streblacantha Haeckel, 1887: 706 (= Spironetta n. syn., Spironium n. syn., Streblopyle n. syn.). — Tholospira Haeckel, 1887: 699 (= Tholospirema with the same type species; Larcopyle synonymized by Tochilina 1985: 99; Stomatodiscus n. syn.; Tholospironium synonymized by Popofsky 1912: 152).</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Drymospira, Larcospironium, Pylospironium, Soreuma, Soreumidium, Soreumium, Sorolarcidium, Sorolarcium, Sorolarcus, Spironilla.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — A Spirally growing skeleton with a medullary shell of Zonariidae type (Tetrapyle) consisting of a microsphere, an antapical sagittal arch and two lateral symmetrical arches originating from the apical part of the microsphere and the top of the sagittal arch. Protoplasm is observed in the Larcopyle -form of Tholospira and Larcospira. Protoplasm fills the shell except but not the outermost peripheral region. Algal symbionts in Larcopyle -form of Tholospira are scattered inside the cortical shell.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — late Middle Eocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The internal skeletal structure for Larcopyle -form of Tholospira was already documented (Dumitrica 1989: pl. 15, figs 2, 3; Yamauchi 1986: pl. 1, fig. 18) and Larcospira (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 9, fig. 1-5). A “pylome” was detected in the Larcopyle - and Stomatodiscus -forms of Tholospira, but it consists of a simple aperture without discrete margins (Barwicz-Piskorz 1999: figs 3.H-3J). There is often misidentification of the “ Spireuma ” form of Lithelius (Litheliidae) and Tholospira (Larcospiridae) due to their similar spiral appearance, but the Litheliidae are fundamentally different from the Larcospiridae as the former bear a spherical microsphere and do not have S1a-girdle, G1 and G2, girdle structures. Protoplasm and algal symbionts were documented in the Larcopyle -form of Tholospira (Zhang et al. 2018: 14, fig.11, p. 19, fig. 7) and Larcospira (Zhang et al. 2018: 11, fig. 20) using DAPI dyeing epi-fluorescent techniques.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Streblacantha</p> <p>Spironium has the same type species as Spironetta. The spiral appearance of Spironium has already been proved as an “artificial torsional” appearance of Larcospira by computer simulation (Ogane &amp; Suzuki 2009: figs 3 and 4), but this doubtless geometric principle did not apply to the Atlas in time. This is the reason why Spironium is synonymized with Streblacantha. The supporting image of Streblopyle for the Atlas is conspecific with that of Pylospira, but this also failed to be fixed in the Atlas due to time limitation.</p> <p>Tholospira</p> <p>Identification of “larcopylids” and “lithelids” has been discussed from the anatomical point of views (Tochilina 1985: 95-101), practical usages (Lazarus et al. 2005 97-106; Suzuki et al. 2009d: 248-251; Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 29) and intraspecies variations and evolution (Tochilina &amp; Vasilenko 2018a: fig. 6, pls 10-13). Lazarus et al. (2005) artificially put any larcopylids and lithelids into a single genus Larcopyle and Suzuki et al. (2009d) as the single genus Lithelius. These artificial treatments are not needed any longer because Larcopyle and Lithelius are completely different in their molecular phylogenetic positions (Ishitani et al. 2012; Sandin et al. 2021) as well as their evolutionary changes (Tochilina &amp; Vasilenko 2018a). Our Atlas first visualized the detailed internal structure of Tholospira in Nomarski microscopy with the help of OKU Osamu, a professional of optical microscopy (supporting image for Stomatodiscus in the Atlas). These images are sufficient to recognize the same internal structures among Larcopyle, Stomatodiscus, Tholospira and Tholospironium. Tholospira was defined by simple spiral turns and Tholospironium by double spiral turns (Campbell 1954: D100), but the real specimen for Tholospira (the supporting image in the Atlas) looks to have double spiral turns and the topotypical specimen of Tholospironium from the H.M.S. Challenger Station 271 (Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: figs 17.1, 17.2) looks as a simple spiral turn. Appearance of spiral turns depends on the orientation of the specimens. Stomatodiscus is defined by a disc shape with two openings (Campbell 1954: D92), but both sides of the shell are open in the young growing stages of them (Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: figs 18.1-18.22). Zhang &amp; Suzuki (2017) published the first paper to practically synonymize “ Stomatodiscus ” with Tholospira (Larcopyle in original). Tholospira is the oldest available name among them.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFA4FE04064CFB66FA494BA2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFA5FE04067FFA82FAD94880.text	038DDA73FFA5FE04067FFA82FAD94880.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Palaeotetrapylidae Dumitrica 1989	<div><p>Family PALAEOTETRAPYLIDAE Dumitrica, 1989 n. stat.</p> <p>Palaeotetrapylinae Dumitrica, 1988: 184-186; 1989: 258. — De Wever et al. 2001: 149. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S286. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 129.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Palaeotetrapyle Dumitrica, 1988: 186 [type species by monotypy: Palaeotetrapyle muelleri Dumitrica, 1988: 186].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENUS. — Palaeotetrapyle Dumitrica, 1988: 186.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — A Larcospiroidea with sets of three elliptical girdles distributed in 3 successively perpendicular planes. The microsphere is heteropolar and consists of 12 pores, without an antapical sagittal beam but with 2 primary lateral beams.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Paleocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The internal skeletal structure was documented for Palaeotetrapyle (Dumitrica 1988: pl. 5, figs 1-17;1989: pl. 12, figs 14, 16, 17). As quoted by Dumitrica (1988: 186), Palaeotetrapyle is distinguished from Tetrapyle by the lack of an antapical beam and the former’s Paleocene stratigraphic range.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFA5FE04067FFA82FAD94880	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFA6FE0705CAFEC6FB0B4A9C.text	038DDA73FFA6FE0705CAFEC6FB0B4A9C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pylodiscidae sensu Campbell 1954	<div><p>Family PYLODISCIDAE Haeckel, 1887 sensu Dumitrica (1989)Pylodiscida Haeckel, 1887: 409, 561-563 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1963 [as a family]. — Schröder 1909: 3 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: [as a family].Triopylida Haeckel, 1887:563 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].Hexapylida Haeckel, 1887: 563, 567 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].Discopylida Haeckel, 1887: 563, 571 [as a subfamily]. — Dreyer 1889: 38 [as a subfamily].Pylodiscidae – Popofsky 1908: 225; Popofsky 1912: 142-143. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 24. — Campbell 1954: D92. — Chediya 1959: 144. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 156. — Dumitrica 1984: 102. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 151. — Tan 1998: 232. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 226-227. — Chen et al. 2017: 143. Discopylinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 25. — Campbell 1954: D93. — Chediya 1959: 145.Pylodiscinae – Campbell 1954: D92. — Dumitrica 1989: 261. — De Wever et al. 2001: 152-153. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S286. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 129. Triopylinae – Campbell 1954: D92 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 144.Hexapylinae – Chediya 1959: 145 [nomen dubium]. TYPE GENUS. — Pylodiscus Haeckel, 1887: 570 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D92): Pylodiscus triangularis Haeckel, 1887: 570]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Pylodiscus Haeckel, 1887: 570 (= Pylolena synonymized by Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: 25; Discopylen. syn., Discozoniumn. syn., Triodiscusn. syn., Triolenan. syn.,? Trilobatumn. syn.). — Sphaeropylolena Zhang &amp; Suzuki, 2017: 38. NOMINA DUBIA. — Hexapyle, Triopyle. DIAGNOSIS. — Larcospiroidea with a three-ray first system (medullary shell) derived from the bifurcation of the antapical Tetrapyle - type sagittal arch. The following systems repeat the aforementioned or change the growth mode. The protoplasm is well documented in Sphaeropylolena. The endoplasm fills the shell but not its outer part. An ectoplasmic membrane wraps the entirety of the skeleton, including the spines. No algal symbionts were detected.STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Miocene-Living.REMARKS Recognition of the pylodiscid-type triangular center is key differentiating this family from the Larcospiridae. In the Pylodiscidae, the triangular center forms an isosceles triangle (De Wever et al. 2001: 153, fig. 90.2). The isosceles triangle is determined by the presence of three gates (the apertures formed by the lateral views of three girdles) and the surface view of other three girdles (that have an arm-like appearance). Some genera in the Larcospiridae (e.g., the Larcopyle -form of Tholospira) also show an isosceles triangle center in some illustrations (Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: 12, figs 5.4). The noticeable visible difference between the Pylodiscidae and Larcospiridae is the position of the microsphere (S1a). The microsphere is always located on the base line of the isosceles triangle in the Pylodiscidae whereas it is always situated in the center of the isosceles triangle in the Larcospiridae. The internal skeletal structure of Pylodiscus (Dumitrica 1989: pl. 15, figs 1, 4-6; Takahashi 1991: pl. 23, fig. 7) and Sphaeropylolena (van de Paverd 1995: pl. 59, fig. 2) was illustrated. Protoplasm and algal symbionts have been already documented by epi-fluorescent observation with DAPI dyeing in Sphaeropylolena (Zhang et al. 2018: 17, fig. 11). In certain cases, Sphaeropylolena was found to be infected with the Marine Alveolata Group I (Ikenoue et al. 2016). VALIDITY OF GENERAPylodiscus The same morphological terminology used for the Amphitholidae is also applicable for the Pylodiscidae with a few modifications. The G1-mode girdle turns vertically to the equatorial plane (the Fr-plane in Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: fig. 4), the G2-mode girdle turns sideways to the Fr-plane so as to connect the adjacent G1-mode girdles, and the G3-mode girdle developed in a parallel to the Fr-plane in order to cover the gate formed by the G2-mode girdle. The Pylodiscidae sensu Campbell (1954) are divided into the Triopylinae (Triodiscus and Triolena as available name) with two pseudo-concentric shells, the Pylodiscinae with three pseudo-concentric shells (Pylodiscus and Pylolena), and the Discopylinae (Discopyle and Discozonium) with four pseudo-concentric shells (Campbell 1954: D92-93). Each subfamily is subdivided into three geometric genera by the G1-mode form (Pylolena, Triolena), the G2-mode form (Triodiscus, Discozonium), and the G3-mode form (Pylodiscus, Discopyle). The visualized ontogenetic growth of Pylodiscus indicates that all these six genera are named for different ontogenetic modes (Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: fig. 15). Trilobatum is defined by a triparted-lobular central chamber and solid radial spines on the shell margin (Campbell 1954: D92). This triparted-lobular central chamber looks similar to the G1-mode with the two pseudo-concentric shells but exact anatomical studies have not been carried out for this genus. All the available genera except Trilobatum were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1887). In respect to Zhang &amp; Suzuki (2017), Pylolena is validated among them.</p> <p>sensu Dumitrica (1989)</p> <p>Pylodiscida Haeckel, 1887: 409, 561-563 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1963 [as a family]. — Schröder 1909: 3 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: [as a family].</p> <p>Triopylida Haeckel, 1887:563 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Hexapylida Haeckel, 1887: 563, 567 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Discopylida Haeckel, 1887: 563, 571 [as a subfamily]. — Dreyer 1889: 38 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Pylodiscidae – Popofsky 1908: 225; Popofsky 1912: 142-143. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 24. — Campbell 1954: D92. — Chediya 1959: 144. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 156. — Dumitrica 1984: 102. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 151. — Tan 1998: 232. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 226-227. — Chen et al. 2017: 143.</p> <p>Discopylinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 25. — Campbell 1954: D93. — Chediya 1959: 145.</p> <p>Pylodiscinae – Campbell 1954: D92. — Dumitrica 1989: 261. — De Wever et al. 2001: 152-153. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S286. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 129.</p> <p>Triopylinae – Campbell 1954: D92 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 144.</p> <p>Hexapylinae – Chediya 1959: 145 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Pylodiscus Haeckel, 1887: 570 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D92): Pylodiscus triangularis Haeckel, 1887: 570].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Pylodiscus Haeckel, 1887: 570 (= Pylolena synonymized by Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: 25; Discopyle n. syn., Discozonium n. syn., Triodiscus n. syn., Triolena n. syn.,? Trilobatum n. syn.). — Sphaeropylolena Zhang &amp; Suzuki, 2017: 38.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Hexapyle, Triopyle.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Larcospiroidea with a three-ray first system (medullary shell) derived from the bifurcation of the antapical Tetrapyle - type sagittal arch. The following systems repeat the aforementioned or change the growth mode.</p> <p>The protoplasm is well documented in Sphaeropylolena. The endoplasm fills the shell but not its outer part. An ectoplasmic membrane wraps the entirety of the skeleton, including the spines. No algal symbionts were detected.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Miocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Recognition of the pylodiscid-type triangular center is key differentiating this family from the Larcospiridae. In the Pylodiscidae, the triangular center forms an isosceles triangle (De Wever et al. 2001: 153, fig. 90.2). The isosceles triangle is determined by the presence of three gates (the apertures formed by the lateral views of three girdles) and the surface view of other three girdles (that have an arm-like appearance). Some genera in the Larcospiridae (e.g., the Larcopyle -form of Tholospira) also show an isosceles triangle center in some illustrations (Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: 12, figs 5.4). The noticeable visible difference between the Pylodiscidae and Larcospiridae is the position of the microsphere (S1a). The microsphere is always located on the base line of the isosceles triangle in the Pylodiscidae whereas it is always situated in the center of the isosceles triangle in the Larcospiridae. The internal skeletal structure of Pylodiscus (Dumitrica 1989: pl. 15, figs 1, 4-6; Takahashi 1991: pl. 23, fig. 7) and Sphaeropylolena (van de Paverd 1995: pl. 59, fig. 2) was illustrated. Protoplasm and algal symbionts have been already documented by epi-fluorescent observation with DAPI dyeing in Sphaeropylolena (Zhang et al. 2018: 17, fig. 11). In certain cases, Sphaeropylolena was found to be infected with the Marine Alveolata Group I (Ikenoue et al. 2016).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Pylodiscus</p> <p>The same morphological terminology used for the Amphitholidae is also applicable for the Pylodiscidae with a few modifications. The G1-mode girdle turns vertically to the equatorial plane (the Fr-plane in Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: fig. 4), the G2-mode girdle turns sideways to the Fr-plane so as to connect the adjacent G1-mode girdles, and the G3-mode girdle developed in a parallel to the Fr-plane in order to cover the gate formed by the G2-mode girdle. The Pylodiscidae sensu Campbell (1954) are divided into the Triopylinae (Triodiscus and Triolena as available name) with two pseudo-concentric shells, the Pylodiscinae with three pseudo-concentric shells (Pylodiscus and Pylolena), and the Discopylinae (Discopyle and Discozonium) with four pseudo-concentric shells (Campbell 1954: D92-93). Each subfamily is subdivided into three geometric genera by the G1-mode form (Pylolena, Triolena), the G2-mode form (Triodiscus, Discozonium), and the G3-mode form (Pylodiscus, Discopyle). The visualized ontogenetic growth of Pylodiscus indicates that all these six genera are named for different ontogenetic modes (Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: fig. 15). Trilobatum is defined by a triparted-lobular central chamber and solid radial spines on the shell margin (Campbell 1954: D92). This triparted-lobular central chamber looks similar to the G1-mode with the two pseudo-concentric shells but exact anatomical studies have not been carried out for this genus. All the available genera except Trilobatum were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1887). In respect to Zhang &amp; Suzuki (2017), Pylolena is validated among them.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFA6FE0705CAFEC6FB0B4A9C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFA6FE010684F9A9FD8E4AF8.text	038DDA73FFA6FE010684F9A9FD8E4AF8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Zonariidae Haeckel 1887	<div><p>Family ZONARIIDAE Haeckel, 1887 sensu Dumitrica (1989)Zonarida Haeckel, 1887: 604, 682-684 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1968 [as a family]. — Schröder 1909: 4 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 24 [as a family].Pylonida Haeckel, 1882: 463 [as a family, nomen dubium]; 1884: 29 [as a family]; 1887: 604, 628-632 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1966 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 174. — Schröder 1909: 4 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 24 [as a family].Streblemida [sic] Haeckel, 1887: 604 [nomen nudum] (= Streblonida) [as a family].Streblonida Haeckel, 1887: 702-704 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1969 [as a family]. — Schröder 1909: 4 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 25 [as a family]. Zonartidae [sic] – Popofsky 1912: 124 (= Zonariidae). Pylonidae [sic] – Popofsky 1912: 145-146 [nomen dubium] (= Pyloniidae). — Chediya 1959: 154. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 259. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 159. — van de Paverd 1995: 184. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 152. — Tan 1998: 249-252. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 241-243. Monozoniinae Campbell, 1954: D96 [nomen dubium].Zonariidae – Poche 1913: 210. — Campbell 1954: D98. Pyloniidae – Poche 1913: 210 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D96. — Riedel 1967b: 295; 1971: 655. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 171. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 126. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 867. — Dumitrica 1979: 24; 1984: 101; Dumitrica 1989: 253, 258. — Petrushevskaya 1979: 110. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 45-46. — Anderson 1983: 39. — Takahashi 1991: 90. — Hollis 1997: 43. — Boltovskoy 1998: 32. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1002- 1003. — De Wever et al. 2001: 148. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S286. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 129. — Chen et al. 2017: 150. Strebloniidae – Poche 1913: 210 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D100. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 163. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 152. — Tan 1998: 283. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 267. — Chen et al. 2017: 162. Pyloniinae – Campbell 1954: D96 [nomen dubium]. — De Wever et al. 2001: 150-151. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S286. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 129. Tetrapyloniinae Campbell, 1954: D97 [nomen dubium].Strebloniinae – Campbell 1954: D100 [nomen dubium]. Zonaridae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 158 (= Zonariidae). Streblonidae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 160 [nomen dubium] (= Strebloniidae). TYPE GENUS. — Zonarium Haeckel, 1887: 684 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D98): Zonarium octangulum Haeckel, 1887: 685] = junior subjective synonym of Tetrapyle Müller, 1859a: 154 [type species by monotypy: Tetrapyle octacantha Müller, 1859b: 33]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Larcidium Haeckel, 1887: 611. — Pylozonium Haeckel, 1887: 659. — Tetrapyle Müller, 1859a: 154 (= Tetrapylura with the same type species; Echinosphaera, Trizonium, Trizonaris, synonymized by Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 34;? Amphiaspisn. syn., Amphipyluran. syn., Dizonitisn. syn., Larnacanthan. syn., Octopyluran. syn., Pylonuran. syn., Schizomma, Tetrapylissa synonymized by Itaki 2009: 47, Zonariumn. syn., Zonidiumn. syn., Zoniscusn. syn.). NOMINA DUBIA. — Amphipylissa, Amphipyle, Amphipylonium, Dizonaris, Dizonium, Monozonaris, Monozonitis, Monozonium, Octopylissa, Octopyle, Pylonissa, Pylonium, Spongophorticium, Spongophortis, Streblonia, Stypophorticium, Tetrapylonium, Trizonitis. INVALID NAME. — Stylophorticium.NOMEN NUDUM. — Caryolithis. DIAGNOSIS. — Larcospiroidea with systems of three elliptical girdles in 3 successive, perpendicular planes. First system (medullary shell) consists of a heteropolar microsphere with 12 pores, an antapical sagittal ring and two lateral arches. The following system repeats the first system previously described several times. A Protoplasm is documented for Tetrapyle. The endoplasm occupies the shell and occasionally the external most girdle, depending on its growth stage. The central part of the endoplasm tends to be reddish in color and is surrounded by a light brown endoplasm. The nucleus is located inside the second pseudo-concentric shell in the sense of Suzuki &amp; Zhang (2016). Several dozens of algal symbionts surround the endoplasm. Hundreds of pseudopodia radiate from the entire protoplasm. One axoflagellum, rarely two, extend on the side of the external most girdle’s polar region. Gelatinous material covers all skeletons. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — late Late Miocene-Living.REMARKS The family name “ Pyloniidae ” has been widely used, but it is impossible to retain this common family name as the “ Pyloniidae ” is based on an unillustrated type species. The oldest available name, “Zonarida”, was automatically selected as a valid family name. Tetrapyle is often confused with Phorticium (Phorticiidae) in practical work regardless of their fundamental differences at the superfamily level. According to Zhang &amp; Suzuki (2017: 42), Phorticium tends to possess numerous pillar beams between the pseudo-concentric shells. Otherwise, the presence or absence of the S1a-girdle is the only way to differentiate these two genera. Internal skeletal structure was illustrated for Tetrapyle (Dumitrica 1989: pl. 15, figs 12, 13; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 11, figs 1-4). Algal symbionts of Tetrapyle were identified as Brandtodinium nutricula (Probert et al. 2014). Living and protoplasmic images were captured for Tetrapyle (Matsuoka et al. 2001: pl. 1, fig. 2; Suzuki &amp; Aita 2011: fig. 4Q; Probert et al. 2014: S1, Vil 231; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.8.25; Matsuoka et al. 2017: appendix A; Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: figs 7.1-7.8). Fine protoplasmic structure for Tetrapyle was illustrated (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 24, fig. 3). VALIDITY OF GENERATetrapyle These synonymized genera with Tetrapyle are considered to be erected for different ontogenetic growth stages and different appearances differently oriented as such as the Amphitholidae and Pylodiscidae (Ogane &amp; Suzuki 2009: fig. 3; Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: fig. 3). The morphological terminology follows Zhang &amp; Suzuki (2017) as briefly explained in the “Validity of genera” for the Amphitholidae. First it is necessary to determine the number of pseudo-concentric shells referred to the type-illustration in Haeckel (1887), the size of the specimens and supporting images for these available names. Amphiaspis looks to have two pseudo-concentric shells. Schizomma looks similar to Amphiapis; but the shell size is twice in Schizomma than in Amphiaspis, having three pseudo-concentric shells. The genera with three pseudo-concentric shells are Amphipylura, Larnacantha, Octopylura, Pylonura, Tetrapyle, Tetrapylissa, Trizonaris, Zonarium, Zonidium and Zoniscus. The typeillustration of Dizonites is very ambiguous but it presumably possess three pseudo-concentric shell in consideration of its size. Echinosphaera is the largest among the synonymized genera here but it is difficult to specify the number of its pseudo-concentric shells. According to Zhang &amp; Suzuki (2017: fig. 3), the morphotype with three pseudo-concentric shells has nine possibilities by the outermost girdle (G1, G2 or G3) and the anatomical orientation under the absolute Cartesian coordinates (Lt-, Pl- and Sg-views). From the Lt-view, the opening (gate) encircled by the first girdle (S1a-girdle) directly attached on the microsphere (S1a) is visible; from the Pl-view, the microsphere and the first girdle look to be overlapped; and from the Sg-view, the body of the first girdle (girdle itself) is visible. Referred to Zhang &amp; Suzuki (2017), Amphiaspis is the Lt-view of the two pseudo-concentric shells with G3-girdle and Zonarium is the Sg-view of the four concentric shells with the G2-girdle. The remaining genera have three pseudo-concentric shells but the different view under the absolute Cartesian coordinates. Amphipylura, Trizonium, Octopylura and Tetrapylissa are the Pl-views. The former two genera have an incomplete G2-girdle whereas the latter two genera develop the complete G2-girdle. Pylonura, Larnacantha, Zoniscus and Zonidium (Haeckel 1887: pl. 50, fig. 12) have also the Pl-view. The first one has an incomplete G3-girdle and the remaining three genera have the complete G3-girdle. Tetrapyle, Dizonitis and Schizomma are the Sg-view. The first two genera have the complete G1-girdle and the last genus has an incomplete G2-girdle. In consideration of the specimen’s orientations and their growth stages, the type-illustrations of these genera are derived from several limited species within the same genus. The oldest available name among them is Tetrapyle. Amphiaspis is possible to be regarded as a collective name for the Zonariidae for practical usage. Phylogenetic Molecular Lineage indet.REMARKSIn contrast to the clear results for the subdivision of Lineages in Sandin et al. (2021), it was nearly impossible to clearly define the morphological “commonalities” in each Lineage. This is due to the fact that the superfamilies and families categorized here cannot be classified into known Lineages. Superfamily PSEUDOAULOPHACOIDEA Riedel, 1967 sensu De Wever et al. (2001)Pseudoaulophacidae Riedel, 1967a: 148; 1967b: 295;1971: 654-655. Pseudoaulophacilae – Pessagno 1971a: 19 [as a subsuperfamily]; 1972: 273, 296 [as a subsuperfamily]; 1973: 50, 56 [as a subsuperfamily]; 1976: 26 [as a subsuperfamily]; 1977b: 930-931 [as a subsuperfamily]. — Blome 1984: 349, 352 [as a subsuperfamily]. Patulibracchiilae – De Wever et al. 2001: 138-139 (sensu emend.) [as a subsuperfamily]. Lobatiradiata [pars] Afanasieva &amp; Amon in Afanasieva, Amon, Agarkov &amp; Boltovskoy, 2005: S283 [as an order of Class Stauraxonaria]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 125. DIAGNOSIS. — Pseudoaulophacoidea characterized by a flat, lenticular, disc-shaped shell or by 3 primary arms or spines originating in the prismatic microsphere. REMARKS The known families in this superfamily are the Patulibracchiidae, Pseudoaulophacidae and Suttoniidae, from the Mesozoic to the Cenozoic as well as the Angulobracchiidae Baumgartner 1980 and Tritrabidae Baumgartner 1980 in the Mesozoic (Dumitrica et al. 2013). Afanasieva et al. (2005) established a new order, Lobatiradiata, for the flat-shaped polycystines with three or more arms. These include the Angulobracchiidae, Patulibracchiidae, Hexaporobrachiidae, Hagiastridae, Suttoniidae and Myelastridae. However, a strong homeomorphy among them was repeatedly observed since 1980s. Family PATULIBRACCHIIDAE Pessagno, 1971sensu De Wever et al. (2001)Patulibracchiinae Pessagno, 1971a: 22; 1976: 29. — Feary &amp; Hill 1978: 366. — Baumgartner 1980: 300. — De Wever 1982b: 243. — Yang 1993: 38. — Cordey 1998: 86. Patulibrachiinae [sic] – nec Ormiston &amp; Lane 1976: 168-169 (= Patulibracchiinae). Patulibracchiidae – Baumgartner 1980: 297, 300 (sensu emend.). — De Wever 1982b: 241-242. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1985: 592- 593. — Carter et al. 1988: 39. — Yang 1993: 38. — Dumitrica 1995: 26. — Hollis 1997: 49. — De Wever et al. 2001: 142-143 (sensu emend.). — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S284. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 126. — Bragin 2007: 1001; 2011: 760. Patulibracchidae [sic] – Dumitrica 1984: 100-101 (= Patulibracchiidae). Patulibracchinae [sic] – Blome 1984: 354 (= Patulibracchiinae). Patulibrachiidae [sic] – Cordey 1998: 86 (= Patulibracchiidae). TYPE GENUS. — Patulibracchium Pessagno, 1971a: 26 [type species by objective designation: Patulibracchium davisi Pessagno, 1971a: 30] INCLUDED GENERA (Cenozoic only). — Cryptomanicula Dumitrica, 2019: 48. —? Heterosestrum Clark &amp; Campbell, 1945: 21 (= Hexacyclia synonymized by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1979: 103). — Trimanicula Dumitrica, 1991: 46. DIAGNOSIS. — Skeleton consists of a three-armed shell with an eccentric heptagonal microsphere. The arms unequal with 3-4 canals and one arm having a bracchiopyle.STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Paleocene-Early Pliocene.REMARKS The internal skeletal structure for Cryptomanicula (Dumitrica 2019: figs 3.f, 3.h, 5.a-5.e, 7.e-7.e) and Trimanicula was already documented (Dumitrica 1991: pl. 8, figs 9-11; pl. 9, figs 1-13; Dumitrica 2019: figs 7.a, 7.b, 7.f). Cryptomanicula closely resembles Homunculodiscus (Suttoniidae). The former genus can be distinguished by the presence of three rods emanating from the central structure, whereas the central part of the latter genus resembles a snowman and consists of two to three large “snowballs” of different sizes or a treefoil chamber without three rods around this central structure. Heterosestrum is commonly found in the Middle to Upper Eocene and is commonly used as a zonal marker species in the high-latitude northern hemisphere (Dzinoridze et al. 1976; Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1979; Kozlova 1999; Popova et al. 2002; Suzuki et al. 2009d). The exact taxonomic position of this genus is uncertain due to the poor knowledge of its internal structure. This genus is well documented with many illustrations that include the equatorial and lateral views (Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1979: figs 441-449, 451-457). According to Gorbunov (1979: pl. 13, figs 1a- 1g), this genus may belong to the Heliodiscidae (based on observations of Heterosestrum tschujenko, which shows an eccentrically placed microsphere). However, H. tschujenkio illustrated in Dzinoridze et al. (1976: pl. 24, figs 1-4) resembles a Circodiscidae while Heterosestrum rotundum in Hull (1996: pl. 1, figs 10, 11) resembles Amphitholidae (originally Tholoniidae). The lateral view of this genus is similar to Phorticiidae (originally Larnacillidae in Dzinoridze et al. 1976: pl. 24, fig. 5; Popova et al. 2002: figs 10.I, 12.O). Suzuki et al. (2009d: pl. 3, fig. 12) interpreted Heterosestrum rotundum as a Lithocycliidae (originally Phacodiscidae). VALIDITY OF GENERAHeterosestrum The whole appearance of Heterosestrum is nearly the same as that of Hexacyclia, although their internal structures have been so far poorly illustrated. Both these genera are synonymized here until the difference of their internal structures are clear. Heterosestrum is an available name older than Hexacyclia.</p> <p>sensu Dumitrica (1989)</p> <p>Zonarida Haeckel, 1887: 604, 682-684 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1968 [as a family]. — Schröder 1909: 4 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 24 [as a family].</p> <p>Pylonida Haeckel, 1882: 463 [as a family, nomen dubium]; 1884: 29 [as a family]; 1887: 604, 628-632 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1966 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 174. — Schröder 1909: 4 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 24 [as a family].</p> <p>Streblemida [sic] Haeckel, 1887: 604 [nomen nudum] (= Streblonida) [as a family].</p> <p>Streblonida Haeckel, 1887: 702-704 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1969 [as a family]. — Schröder 1909: 4 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 25 [as a family].</p> <p>Zonartidae [sic] – Popofsky 1912: 124 (= Zonariidae).</p> <p>Pylonidae [sic] – Popofsky 1912: 145-146 [nomen dubium] (= Pyloniidae). — Chediya 1959: 154. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 259. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 159. — van de Paverd 1995: 184. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 152. — Tan 1998: 249-252. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 241-243.</p> <p>Monozoniinae Campbell, 1954: D96 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Zonariidae – Poche 1913: 210. — Campbell 1954: D98.</p> <p>Pyloniidae – Poche 1913: 210 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D96. — Riedel 1967b: 295; 1971: 655. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 171. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 126. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 867. — Dumitrica 1979: 24; 1984: 101; Dumitrica 1989: 253, 258. — Petrushevskaya 1979: 110. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 45-46. — Anderson 1983: 39. — Takahashi 1991: 90. — Hollis 1997: 43. — Boltovskoy 1998: 32. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1002- 1003. — De Wever et al. 2001: 148. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S286. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 129. — Chen et al. 2017: 150.</p> <p>Strebloniidae – Poche 1913: 210 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D100. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 163. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 152. — Tan 1998: 283. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 267. — Chen et al. 2017: 162.</p> <p>Pyloniinae – Campbell 1954: D96 [nomen dubium]. — De Wever et al. 2001: 150-151. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S286. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 129.</p> <p>Tetrapyloniinae Campbell, 1954: D97 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Strebloniinae – Campbell 1954: D100 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Zonaridae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 158 (= Zonariidae).</p> <p>Streblonidae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 160 [nomen dubium] (= Strebloniidae).</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Zonarium Haeckel, 1887: 684 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D98): Zonarium octangulum Haeckel, 1887: 685] = junior subjective synonym of Tetrapyle Müller, 1859a: 154 [type species by monotypy: Tetrapyle octacantha Müller, 1859b: 33].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Larcidium Haeckel, 1887: 611. — Pylozonium Haeckel, 1887: 659. — Tetrapyle Müller, 1859a: 154 (= Tetrapylura with the same type species; Echinosphaera, Trizonium, Trizonaris, synonymized by Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 34;? Amphiaspis n. syn., Amphipylura n. syn., Dizonitis n. syn., Larnacantha n. syn., Octopylura n. syn., Pylonura n. syn., Schizomma, Tetrapylissa synonymized by Itaki 2009: 47, Zonarium n. syn., Zonidium n. syn., Zoniscus n. syn.).</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Amphipylissa, Amphipyle, Amphipylonium, Dizonaris, Dizonium, Monozonaris, Monozonitis, Monozonium, Octopylissa, Octopyle, Pylonissa, Pylonium, Spongophorticium, Spongophortis, Streblonia, Stypophorticium, Tetrapylonium, Trizonitis.</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Stylophorticium.</p> <p>NOMEN NUDUM. — Caryolithis.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Larcospiroidea with systems of three elliptical girdles in 3 successive, perpendicular planes. First system (medullary shell) consists of a heteropolar microsphere with 12 pores, an antapical sagittal ring and two lateral arches. The following system repeats the first system previously described several times.</p> <p>A Protoplasm is documented for Tetrapyle. The endoplasm occupies the shell and occasionally the external most girdle, depending on its growth stage. The central part of the endoplasm tends to be reddish in color and is surrounded by a light brown endoplasm. The nucleus is located inside the second pseudo-concentric shell in the sense of Suzuki &amp; Zhang (2016). Several dozens of algal symbionts surround the endoplasm. Hundreds of pseudopodia radiate from the entire protoplasm. One axoflagellum, rarely two, extend on the side of the external most girdle’s polar region. Gelatinous material covers all skeletons.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — late Late Miocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The family name “ Pyloniidae ” has been widely used, but it is impossible to retain this common family name as the “ Pyloniidae ” is based on an unillustrated type species. The oldest available name, “Zonarida”, was automatically selected as a valid family name. Tetrapyle is often confused with Phorticium (Phorticiidae) in practical work regardless of their fundamental differences at the superfamily level. According to Zhang &amp; Suzuki (2017: 42), Phorticium tends to possess numerous pillar beams between the pseudo-concentric shells. Otherwise, the presence or absence of the S1a-girdle is the only way to differentiate these two genera. Internal skeletal structure was illustrated for Tetrapyle (Dumitrica 1989: pl. 15, figs 12, 13; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 11, figs 1-4). Algal symbionts of Tetrapyle were identified as Brandtodinium nutricula (Probert et al. 2014). Living and protoplasmic images were captured for Tetrapyle (Matsuoka et al. 2001: pl. 1, fig. 2; Suzuki &amp; Aita 2011: fig. 4Q; Probert et al. 2014: S1, Vil 231; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.8.25; Matsuoka et al. 2017: appendix A; Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: figs 7.1-7.8). Fine protoplasmic structure for Tetrapyle was illustrated (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 24, fig. 3).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Tetrapyle</p> <p>These synonymized genera with Tetrapyle are considered to be erected for different ontogenetic growth stages and different appearances differently oriented as such as the Amphitholidae and Pylodiscidae (Ogane &amp; Suzuki 2009: fig. 3; Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: fig. 3). The morphological terminology follows Zhang &amp; Suzuki (2017) as briefly explained in the “Validity of genera” for the Amphitholidae. First it is necessary to determine the number of pseudo-concentric shells referred to the type-illustration in Haeckel (1887), the size of the specimens and supporting images for these available names. Amphiaspis looks to have two pseudo-concentric shells. Schizomma looks similar to Amphiapis; but the shell size is twice in Schizomma than in Amphiaspis, having three pseudo-concentric shells. The genera with three pseudo-concentric shells are Amphipylura, Larnacantha, Octopylura, Pylonura, Tetrapyle, Tetrapylissa, Trizonaris, Zonarium, Zonidium and Zoniscus. The typeillustration of Dizonites is very ambiguous but it presumably possess three pseudo-concentric shell in consideration of its size. Echinosphaera is the largest among the synonymized genera here but it is difficult to specify the number of its pseudo-concentric shells. According to Zhang &amp; Suzuki (2017: fig. 3), the morphotype with three pseudo-concentric shells has nine possibilities by the outermost girdle (G1, G2 or G3) and the anatomical orientation under the absolute Cartesian coordinates (Lt-, Pl- and Sg-views). From the Lt-view, the opening (gate) encircled by the first girdle (S1a-girdle) directly attached on the microsphere (S1a) is visible; from the Pl-view, the microsphere and the first girdle look to be overlapped; and from the Sg-view, the body of the first girdle (girdle itself) is visible. Referred to Zhang &amp; Suzuki (2017), Amphiaspis is the Lt-view of the two pseudo-concentric shells with G3-girdle and Zonarium is the Sg-view of the four concentric shells with the G2-girdle. The remaining genera have three pseudo-concentric shells but the different view under the absolute Cartesian coordinates. Amphipylura, Trizonium, Octopylura and Tetrapylissa are the Pl-views. The former two genera have an incomplete G2-girdle whereas the latter two genera develop the complete G2-girdle. Pylonura, Larnacantha, Zoniscus and Zonidium (Haeckel 1887: pl. 50, fig. 12) have also the Pl-view. The first one has an incomplete G3-girdle and the remaining three genera have the complete G3-girdle. Tetrapyle, Dizonitis and Schizomma are the Sg-view. The first two genera have the complete G1-girdle and the last genus has an incomplete G2-girdle. In consideration of the specimen’s orientations and their growth stages, the type-illustrations of these genera are derived from several limited species within the same genus. The oldest available name among them is Tetrapyle. Amphiaspis is possible to be regarded as a collective name for the Zonariidae for practical usage.</p> <p>Phylogenetic Molecular Lineage indet.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>In contrast to the clear results for the subdivision of Lineages in Sandin et al. (2021), it was nearly impossible to clearly define the morphological “commonalities” in each Lineage. This is due to the fact that the superfamilies and families categorized here cannot be classified into known Lineages.</p> <p>Superfamily PSEUDOAULOPHACOIDEA Riedel, 1967 sensu De Wever et al. (2001)</p> <p>Pseudoaulophacidae Riedel, 1967a: 148; 1967b: 295;1971: 654-655.</p> <p>Pseudoaulophacilae – Pessagno 1971a: 19 [as a subsuperfamily]; 1972: 273, 296 [as a subsuperfamily]; 1973: 50, 56 [as a subsuperfamily]; 1976: 26 [as a subsuperfamily]; 1977b: 930-931 [as a subsuperfamily]. — Blome 1984: 349, 352 [as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Patulibracchiilae – De Wever et al. 2001: 138-139 (sensu emend.) [as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Lobatiradiata [pars] Afanasieva &amp; Amon in Afanasieva, Amon, Agarkov &amp; Boltovskoy, 2005: S283 [as an order of Class Stauraxonaria]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 125.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Pseudoaulophacoidea characterized by a flat, lenticular, disc-shaped shell or by 3 primary arms or spines originating in the prismatic microsphere.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The known families in this superfamily are the Patulibracchiidae, Pseudoaulophacidae and Suttoniidae, from the Mesozoic to the Cenozoic as well as the Angulobracchiidae Baumgartner 1980 and Tritrabidae Baumgartner 1980 in the Mesozoic (Dumitrica et al. 2013). Afanasieva et al. (2005) established a new order, Lobatiradiata, for the flat-shaped polycystines with three or more arms. These include the Angulobracchiidae, Patulibracchiidae, Hexaporobrachiidae, Hagiastridae, Suttoniidae and Myelastridae. However, a strong homeomorphy among them was repeatedly observed since 1980s.</p> <p>Family PATULIBRACCHIIDAE Pessagno, 1971</p> <p>sensu De Wever et al. (2001)</p> <p>Patulibracchiinae Pessagno, 1971a: 22; 1976: 29. — Feary &amp; Hill 1978: 366. — Baumgartner 1980: 300. — De Wever 1982b: 243. — Yang 1993: 38. — Cordey 1998: 86.</p> <p>Patulibrachiinae [sic] – nec Ormiston &amp; Lane 1976: 168-169 (= Patulibracchiinae).</p> <p>Patulibracchiidae – Baumgartner 1980: 297, 300 (sensu emend.). — De Wever 1982b: 241-242. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1985: 592- 593. — Carter et al. 1988: 39. — Yang 1993: 38. — Dumitrica 1995: 26. — Hollis 1997: 49. — De Wever et al. 2001: 142-143 (sensu emend.). — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S284. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 126. — Bragin 2007: 1001; 2011: 760.</p> <p>Patulibracchidae [sic] – Dumitrica 1984: 100-101 (= Patulibracchiidae).</p> <p>Patulibracchinae [sic] – Blome 1984: 354 (= Patulibracchiinae).</p> <p>Patulibrachiidae [sic] – Cordey 1998: 86 (= Patulibracchiidae).</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Patulibracchium Pessagno, 1971a: 26 [type species by objective designation: Patulibracchium davisi Pessagno, 1971a: 30]</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA (Cenozoic only). — Cryptomanicula Dumitrica, 2019: 48. —? Heterosestrum Clark &amp; Campbell, 1945: 21 (= Hexacyclia synonymized by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1979: 103). — Trimanicula Dumitrica, 1991: 46.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Skeleton consists of a three-armed shell with an eccentric heptagonal microsphere. The arms unequal with 3-4 canals and one arm having a bracchiopyle.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Paleocene-Early Pliocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The internal skeletal structure for Cryptomanicula (Dumitrica 2019: figs 3.f, 3.h, 5.a-5.e, 7.e-7.e) and Trimanicula was already documented (Dumitrica 1991: pl. 8, figs 9-11; pl. 9, figs 1-13; Dumitrica 2019: figs 7.a, 7.b, 7.f). Cryptomanicula closely resembles Homunculodiscus (Suttoniidae). The former genus can be distinguished by the presence of three rods emanating from the central structure, whereas the central part of the latter genus resembles a snowman and consists of two to three large “snowballs” of different sizes or a treefoil chamber without three rods around this central structure.</p> <p>Heterosestrum is commonly found in the Middle to Upper Eocene and is commonly used as a zonal marker species in the high-latitude northern hemisphere (Dzinoridze et al. 1976; Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1979; Kozlova 1999; Popova et al. 2002; Suzuki et al. 2009d). The exact taxonomic position of this genus is uncertain due to the poor knowledge of its internal structure. This genus is well documented with many illustrations that include the equatorial and lateral views (Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1979: figs 441-449, 451-457). According to Gorbunov (1979: pl. 13, figs 1a- 1g), this genus may belong to the Heliodiscidae (based on observations of Heterosestrum tschujenko, which shows an eccentrically placed microsphere). However, H. tschujenkio illustrated in Dzinoridze et al. (1976: pl. 24, figs 1-4) resembles a Circodiscidae while Heterosestrum rotundum in Hull (1996: pl. 1, figs 10, 11) resembles Amphitholidae (originally Tholoniidae). The lateral view of this genus is similar to Phorticiidae (originally Larnacillidae in Dzinoridze et al. 1976: pl. 24, fig. 5; Popova et al. 2002: figs 10.I, 12.O). Suzuki et al. (2009d: pl. 3, fig. 12) interpreted Heterosestrum rotundum as a Lithocycliidae (originally Phacodiscidae).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Heterosestrum</p> <p>The whole appearance of Heterosestrum is nearly the same as that of Hexacyclia, although their internal structures have been so far poorly illustrated. Both these genera are synonymized here until the difference of their internal structures are clear. Heterosestrum is an available name older than Hexacyclia.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFA6FE010684F9A9FD8E4AF8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFA0FE010581FA0DFAB54D5C.text	038DDA73FFA0FE010581FA0DFAB54D5C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudoaulophacoidea De Wever 2001	<div><p>Superfamily PSEUDOAULOPHACOIDEA Riedel, 1967 sensu De Wever et al. (2001)</p> <p>Pseudoaulophacidae Riedel, 1967a: 148; 1967b: 295;1971: 654-655.</p> <p>Pseudoaulophacilae – Pessagno 1971a: 19 [as a subsuperfamily]; 1972: 273, 296 [as a subsuperfamily]; 1973: 50, 56 [as a subsuperfamily]; 1976: 26 [as a subsuperfamily]; 1977b: 930-931 [as a subsuperfamily]. — Blome 1984: 349, 352 [as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Patulibracchiilae – De Wever et al. 2001: 138-139 (sensu emend.) [as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Lobatiradiata [pars] Afanasieva &amp; Amon in Afanasieva, Amon, Agarkov &amp; Boltovskoy, 2005: S283 [as an order of Class Stauraxonaria]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 125.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Pseudoaulophacoidea characterized by a flat, lenticular, disc-shaped shell or by 3 primary arms or spines originating in the prismatic microsphere.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The known families in this superfamily are the Patulibracchiidae, Pseudoaulophacidae and Suttoniidae, from the Mesozoic to the Cenozoic as well as the Angulobracchiidae Baumgartner 1980 and Tritrabidae Baumgartner 1980 in the Mesozoic (Dumitrica et al. 2013). Afanasieva et al. (2005) established a new order, Lobatiradiata, for the flat-shaped polycystines with three or more arms. These include the Angulobracchiidae, Patulibracchiidae, Hexaporobrachiidae, Hagiastridae, Suttoniidae and Myelastridae. However, a strong homeomorphy among them was repeatedly observed since 1980s.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFA0FE010581FA0DFAB54D5C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFA0FE0006B6FDA7FEC14B3D.text	038DDA73FFA0FE0006B6FDA7FEC14B3D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Patulibracchiidae Pessagno 1971	<div><p>Family PATULIBRACCHIIDAE Pessagno, 1971</p> <p>sensu De Wever et al. (2001)</p> <p>Patulibracchiinae Pessagno, 1971a: 22; 1976: 29. — Feary &amp; Hill 1978: 366. — Baumgartner 1980: 300. — De Wever 1982b: 243. — Yang 1993: 38. — Cordey 1998: 86.</p> <p>Patulibrachiinae [sic] – nec Ormiston &amp; Lane 1976: 168-169 (= Patulibracchiinae).</p> <p>Patulibracchiidae – Baumgartner 1980: 297, 300 (sensu emend.). — De Wever 1982b: 241-242. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1985: 592- 593. — Carter et al. 1988: 39. — Yang 1993: 38. — Dumitrica 1995: 26. — Hollis 1997: 49. — De Wever et al. 2001: 142-143 (sensu emend.). — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S284. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 126. — Bragin 2007: 1001; 2011: 760.</p> <p>Patulibracchidae [sic] – Dumitrica 1984: 100-101 (= Patulibracchiidae).</p> <p>Patulibracchinae [sic] – Blome 1984: 354 (= Patulibracchiinae).</p> <p>Patulibrachiidae [sic] – Cordey 1998: 86 (= Patulibracchiidae).</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Patulibracchium Pessagno, 1971a: 26 [type species by objective designation: Patulibracchium davisi Pessagno, 1971a: 30]</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA (Cenozoic only). — Cryptomanicula Dumitrica, 2019: 48. —? Heterosestrum Clark &amp; Campbell, 1945: 21 (= Hexacyclia synonymized by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1979: 103). — Trimanicula Dumitrica, 1991: 46.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Skeleton consists of a three-armed shell with an eccentric heptagonal microsphere. The arms unequal with 3-4 canals and one arm having a bracchiopyle.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Paleocene-Early Pliocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The internal skeletal structure for Cryptomanicula (Dumitrica 2019: figs 3.f, 3.h, 5.a-5.e, 7.e-7.e) and Trimanicula was already documented (Dumitrica 1991: pl. 8, figs 9-11; pl. 9, figs 1-13; Dumitrica 2019: figs 7.a, 7.b, 7.f). Cryptomanicula closely resembles Homunculodiscus (Suttoniidae). The former genus can be distinguished by the presence of three rods emanating from the central structure, whereas the central part of the latter genus resembles a snowman and consists of two to three large “snowballs” of different sizes or a treefoil chamber without three rods around this central structure.</p> <p>Heterosestrum is commonly found in the Middle to Upper Eocene and is commonly used as a zonal marker species in the high-latitude northern hemisphere (Dzinoridze et al. 1976; Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1979; Kozlova 1999; Popova et al. 2002; Suzuki et al. 2009d). The exact taxonomic position of this genus is uncertain due to the poor knowledge of its internal structure. This genus is well documented with many illustrations that include the equatorial and lateral views (Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1979: figs 441-449, 451-457). According to Gorbunov (1979: pl. 13, figs 1a- 1g), this genus may belong to the Heliodiscidae (based on observations of Heterosestrum tschujenko, which shows an eccentrically placed microsphere). However, H. tschujenkio illustrated in Dzinoridze et al. (1976: pl. 24, figs 1-4) resembles a Circodiscidae while Heterosestrum rotundum in Hull (1996: pl. 1, figs 10, 11) resembles Amphitholidae (originally Tholoniidae). The lateral view of this genus is similar to Phorticiidae (originally Larnacillidae in Dzinoridze et al. 1976: pl. 24, fig. 5; Popova et al. 2002: figs 10.I, 12.O). Suzuki et al. (2009d: pl. 3, fig. 12) interpreted Heterosestrum rotundum as a Lithocycliidae (originally Phacodiscidae).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Heterosestrum</p> <p>The whole appearance of Heterosestrum is nearly the same as that of Hexacyclia, although their internal structures have been so far poorly illustrated. Both these genera are synonymized here until the difference of their internal structures are clear. Heterosestrum is an available name older than Hexacyclia.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFA0FE0006B6FDA7FEC14B3D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFA1FE0005EDFB47FAA84D7C.text	038DDA73FFA1FE0005EDFB47FAA84D7C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudoaulophacidae Riedel 1967	<div><p>Family PSEUDOAULOPHACIDAE Riedel, 1967</p> <p>sensu De Wever et al. (2001)</p> <p>Pseudoaulophacidae Riedel, 1967a: 148; 1967b: 295; 1971: 654- 655. — Pessagno 1972: 296-297 (sensu emend.); 1977b: 932. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 169. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 126. — Foreman 1978: 744. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1978: 155. — Dumitrica 1979: 25; 1997: 212-214. — Schaaf 1984: 49. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1985: 593-594. — Carter et al. 1988: 43. — O’Dogherty 1994: 315. — Dumitrica 1995: 26. — Kiessling 1999: 39. — Amon 2000: 45. — De Wever et al. 2001: 143-144. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S286. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 128.</p> <p>Pentapyloniinae Dumitrica in De Wever, Dumitrica, Caulet, Nigrini &amp; Caridroit, 2001: 146. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S286. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 128.</p> <p>Pseudoaulophacinae – De Wever et al. 2001: 144, 146 (sensu emend.).— Afanasieva et al. 2005: S286. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 128.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Pseudoaulophacus Pessagno, 1963: 200 [type species by objective designation: Pseudoaulophacus floresensis Pessagno, 1963: 200].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA (CENOZOIC ONLY). — Pentapylonium Dumitrica, 1991: 37.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Spongy discoidal spumellarians with surface completely or partially covered by a meshwork of equilateral triangular frames. The microsphere is shaped like triangular prism with 3 primary rays originating from its lateral edges.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. —early Early Miocene-Early Pliocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The internal skeletal structure of Pentapylonium was already illustrated (Dumitrica 1991: pl. 5, figs 1-9; pl. 6, figs 1-9; pl. 7, figs 1-7). As reporting of Pentapylonium implicatum is limited to the upwelling regions off Peru, Oman and Somali (Nigrini &amp; Caulet 1992), this family can rarely be observed in other regions. The overall appearance of Sphaeropylolena (Pylodiscidae) is similar to that of Pentapylonium, but the former fundamentally differs from the latter by the presence of a pylodiscid center (Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: 38).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFA1FE0005EDFB47FAA84D7C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFA1FE000686FD87FBEB4941.text	038DDA73FFA1FE000686FD87FBEB4941.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Suttonidae Geobios 2021	<div><p>Family SUTTONIIDAE Schaaf, 1976 sensu Dumitrica (2019)Suttonidae [sic] Schaaf, 1976: 790 (= Suttoniidae) [in Nassellaria]. — Dumitrica 1983b: 41 (sensu emend.) [in Spumellaria]. Suttoniidae – De Wever et al. 2001: 125-126 [in Spumellaria]. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S284 [in Order Lobatiradiata]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 126. — Dumitrica 2019: 40-41 (sensu emend.) TYPE GENUS. — Suttonium Schaaf, 1976: 790 [type species by monotypy: Suttonium praedicator Schaaf, 1976: 790]. INCLUDED GENERA (Cenozoic only). — Homunculodiscus Dumitrica, 2019: 41. — Parasuttonium Dumitrica, 2019: 47. — Suttonium Schaaf, 1976: 790. DIAGNOSIS. — Bilaterally symmetrical spumellarians with initial skeleton consisting of an eccentric microsphere with or without primary rays and a crescent shaped deuteroconcha. Skeleton thin made usually of two parallel lattice plates interconnected by short bars. Rays, when present, surrounded by a cortical shell forming three arms in the most evolved members (Dumitrica 2019: 40).STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Paleocene-Holocene.REMARKS The internal skeletal structure of Homunculodiscus was already documented (Dumitrica 2019: figs 1.a-1.g, 2.a-2.h, 3a.-3.d, 4.a-4.d), Parasuttonium (Dumitrica 2019: figs 6.a, 6.b) and Suttonium (Dumitrica 2019: figs 6.c, 6.d). The taxonomic position of the Suttoniidae has been changed among Nassellaria, Spumellaria and Lobatiradiata. The history and the definition of the current taxonomic position was documented in Dumitrica (2019). Superfamily STYLOSPHAEROIDEA Haeckel, 1887 sensu Dumitrica (1984)Stylosphaerida Haeckel, 1887: 121 [as a family], 133 [as a subfamily].Stylosphaerilae – Dumitrica 1984: 98 [as a sub-superfamily].DIAGNOSIS. — Spumellarian consists of one to three shells with bipolar, bladed spines. The innermost shell is pyriform shape.REMARKS This superfamily consists of the Entapiidae, Stylatractidae, Stylosphaeridae, and Tubosphaeridae Suzuki, n. fam. However, both Stylatractidae and Tubosphaeridae Suzuki, n. fam. were excluded from the diagnosis above.The appropriate superfamily distribu - tions of the Tubosphaeridae Suzuki, n.fam. and Stylatractidae are uncertain because of the absence of a pear-shaped internal shell. Family ENTAPIIDAE Dumitrica in De Wever, Dumitrica, Caulet, Nigrini &amp; Caridroit, 2001Entapiidae Dumitrica in De Wever, Dumitrica, Caulet, Nigrini &amp; Caridroit, 2001: 118-119. Entapiinae – Afanasieva et al. 2005: 273. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon, 2006: 110. TYPE GENUS. — Entapium Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel, 1973: 491 [type species by original designation: Entapium regulare Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel, 1973: 492] INCLUDED GENUS. — Entapium Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel, 1973: 491. DIAGNOSIS. — Skeleton consists of two shells. The innermost shell has a pyriform shape and the outer shell is latticed and spherical. Three to six radial bladed beams penetrate the outer shell to form bladed radial spines. No fine radial beams were observed.STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-early Middle Eocene.REMARKS The internal skeletal structure for Entapium was illustrated (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 22, fig. 6?; Nishimura 2001; pl. 1, fig. 13; Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1973: pls 23, 24). However, Entapium showed an outward migration of the medullary shell towards the cortical shell which ultimately tends to disappear. O’Connor (1999) coined the new genus name Zealithapium but this latter genus is not an Entapiidae. The numerous radial spines similar to those of Stylosphaeridae morphotypes were observed, but the characteristics of these radial spines are different between the two families. Family STYLATRACTIDAE Schröder, 1909 n. stat. sensu Matsuzaki et al. (2015) Stylatractida [sic] Schröder, 1909: 37 (= Stylatractidae) [as a subfamily]. Sphaerostylida Haeckel, 1882: 451 [nomen dubium, as a tribe];1887: 122, 133 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 7 [as a subfamily].Amphistylida Haeckel, 1882: 452 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 142 [as a subfamily].Cromyostylida Haeckel, 1882: 453 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 146 [as a subfamily].Caryostylida Haeckel, 1882: 454 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 148 [as a subfamily].Ellipsida Haeckel, 1887: 289 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Rüst 1892: 150 [as a family]. — Carter 1893: 227 [as a family]. — Wisniowski 1889: 684 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 23 [as a family].Sphaerostylinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 24 [nomen dubium]; 1945: 11. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 10; 1944b: 4. — Chediya 1959: 80.Amphistylinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 13 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D54. — Chediya 1959: 82. Lithapinae Deflandre, 1953: 418 [as a new Nassellaria subfamily]. Cromyostylinae – Campbell 1954: D54 [nomen dubium].Ellipsidiicae – Campbell 1954: D68 [nomen dubium, as a superfamily].Ellipsidiidae – Campbell 1954: D68 [nomen dubium]. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 38-39 (sensu emend.). Caryostilinae – Chediya 1959: 82 [nomen dubium].Stylatractidae – Nishimura 1990: 156 [as a new Nassellaria family]. Amphisphaeridae Suzuki in Matsuzaki, Suzuki &amp; Nishi, 2015: 10 [nomen dubium]. TYPE GENUS. — Stylatractus Haeckel, 1887: 328 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D73): Stylatractus neptunus Haeckel 1887: 328] = junior subjective synonym of Druppatractylis Haeckel, 1887: 325 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D71): Druppatractus ostracion Haeckel, 1887: 326]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Druppatractylis Haeckel, 1887: 325 (= Stylatractylisn. syn.; Lithatractara, Lithatractus synonymized by Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 40; Stylatractara, Stylatractus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975:570). — Ellipsostylus Haeckel, 1887: 299 (= Ellipsostyletta with the same type species; Ellipsostylissan. syn., Sphaerostylomman. syn.). — Lithapium Haeckel, 1887: 303 (= Xiphatractara, Xiphatractus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 570; Xiphatractiumn. syn.). — Lithomespilus Haeckel, 1882: 450. — Stylatractona Haeckel, 1887: 330 (= Amphisphaerissa synonymized byPetrushevskaya 1975: 570). — Stylosphaerantha Haeckel, 1887: 133 (= Praestylosphaera synonymized by O’Dogherty et al. 2009a: 283;? Xiphosphaeranthan. syn.). — Xiphatractylis Haeckel, 1887: 332 (= Cromydruppocarpusn. syn., Heliosestarium n. syn.,? Xiphosphaeromman. syn.). — Xiphostylantha Haeckel, 1887: 127 (= Druppatractus, Druppatractara, Sphaerostylantha, synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 570). — Xiphostylissa Haeckel, 1887: 129 (= Xiphostylettan. syn.). INVALID NAMES. — Ellipsis, Spongostylidium. NOMINA DUBIA. — Amphisphaera, Amphisphaerantha, Amphisphaerella, Amphisphaeromma, Amphistylus, Axellipsis, Caryostylus, Cenellipsis, Cenellipsium, Cenellipsula, Cromyostaurolonche, Cromyostylus, Druppatractium, Echinocapsa, Ellipsidium, Ellipsoxiphetta, Sphaerostyletta, Sphaerostylissa, Spongolonchis, Spongostylium, Stylatractium, Stylocromyum, Xiphatractona, Xiphosphaerissa. JUNIOR HOMONYM. — Spongolonche Haeckel, 1882: 455 (= Spongolonchis) nec Haeckel, 1882: 461; Sphaerostylus Haeckel, 1882 nec Chaudoir, 1854. DIAGNOSIS. —The shell consists of one to three concentric shells with bi-polar spines (rarely one). The innermost shell, if present, contains a spherical microsphere with many radial beams. The second inner shell is also a spherical macrosphere and this shell is connected to the outermost shell by many radial beams. The outermost shell is a cortical shell, occasionally found with by-spines or a fragile coverage. Most radial beams are disconnected between the concentric shells. A dark gray endoplasm occupies the cortical shell in Stylatractona. REMARKS Since the Cenozoic Genera Working Group (CGW) decided to exclude any genera based on unfigured type species, the genus Amphisphaera is regarded as a “ nomen dubium.” Its type species, Amphisphaera neptunus Haeckel, 1887, has been interpreted as a probable junior synonym of Stylatractus neptunus (Petrushevskaya 1975; Hollis 1997). However, CGW postponed this decision. Therefore, the name Amphisphaeridae by Matsuzaki et al. (2015) should also be regarded as “ nomen dubium ”. The subfamily/family rank commonly used for this group has been “Lithapiinae”, originally pertained to the Nassellaria by Deflandre (1953) and Nishimura (1990) respectively; however, many authors have overlooked the name Stylatractidae proposed earlier by Schröder (1909). Stylatractidae is easily distinguishable from both Stylosphaeridae and Entapiidae due to the presence of an innermost pyriform shell. The genera Druppatractylis, Lithapium and Stylatractona are maintained as valid for future discussions although their basic differences only depend upon the position of the spines. Internal skeletal structure was illustrated for Stylatractona in fossils (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 17, fig. 4; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 3, fig. 8) and a living form (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.10.13). VALIDITY OF GENERADruppatractylis The combination of Lithatractus and Lithatractara, and that of Stylatractus and Stylatractara have respectively the same type species. As the definitions written for Lithatractus and Stylatractus are the same even in Campbell (1954: D72 for Lithatractus and D73 for Stylatractus), both these genera are mostly conspecific. Stylatractylis is marked by a thorny or papillate surface (Campbell 1954: D73) but the type-illustration does not match with this description. Based on the principle of the name-bearing specimen, the type species for these three genera has a common structure as written in the Atlas. EllipsostylusEllipsostyletta has the same type species as Ellipsostylus. Both Ellipsostylus and Ellipsostylissa have a single elliptical shell and two opposite dissimilar polar spines, but the former has a regular network whereas the latter has an irregular network (Campbell 1954: D68-69 for Ellipsostylus and D69 for Ellipsostylissa). The difference in the network is insufficient as a genus criterion. Sphaerostylomma is marked by two concentric lattice shells, irregular pores with dissimilar sizes and presence of by-spines or thorns on the cortical shell (Campbell 1954: D54). Any specimens identical to the type species of these three genera are very rare so it is not possible to examine their descriptions in detail and these genera are tentatively synonymized here. All these genera are simultaneously established by Haeckel (1887: 299 for Ellipsostylus, 299 for Ellipsostyletta, 301 for Ellipsostylissa, and 140 for Sphaerostylomma). As a real specimen identifiable of Ellipsostylus psittacus, the type species of Ellipsostylus, has been found in the topotypic material of the H.M.S. Challenger Station 265, this genus is selected as a valid genus among the other ones. LithapiumXiphatractus has the same type species as Xiphatractara. Specimens with no internal structure whose characteristics fit with the type-illustration in Haeckel (1887: pl. 14, fig. 9) are always associate with specimens having three concentric shells in the topotypic material from the H.M.S. Challenger Station 266. Based on this observation, the definition of Lithapium has changed in the Atlas. As Lithapium, the lectotype of Xiphatractium also has three concentric shells (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 12, figs 3a-d). Xiphatractus has three concentric shells based on its type-illustration (Haeckel 1887: pl. 17, fig. 11). Distinguishing characters are an elliptical or pear-shaped cortical shell with a single spine on one pole for Lithapium (Campbell 1954: D69); a cortical shell with a smooth surface and a regular network, and two opposite dissimilar polar spines for Xiphatractus (Campbell 1954: D73); and a cortical shell with a thorny or papillate surface and an irregular network, and also two dissimilar spines for Xiphatractium (Campbell 1954: D73). As indicated by the type-illustration of Lithapium (Haeckel 1887: pl. 14, fig. 9), Lithapium pyriforme has two opposite dissimilar polar spines and this character can be confirmed with topotypic specimens from the H.M.S. Challenger samples (the supporting image for Lithapium). The lectotype of Xiphatractium does not match with the description by Campbell (1954: D73). Rather, pore arrangement and size patterns are the same in the type species of both Xiphatractus and Xiphatractium. Although the exact internal structure is not well known for Xiphatractus and Xiphatractium, it is unnecessary to keep these three genera valid. All genera were simultaneously described in Haeckel (1887: 303 for Lithapium, 332 for Xiphatractus, 331 for Xiphatractara, and 334 for Xiphatractium). Lithapium is validated among them because many representative specimens are found in the topotypic material. Stylatractona The concept of this genus corresponds to the current usage of Amphisphaera. The difference between Stylatractona and Amphisphaerissa at “genus” level is the presence of an irregular network in the former (Campbell 1954: D73) or in the presence of irregular pores with dissimilar sizes in the latter (Campbell 1954: D54). This difference cannot be recognized from type-illustrations (Haeckel 1887: pl. 17, fig. 2 for Stylatractona and pl. 17, fig. 5 for Amphisphaerissa). No other differences are observed in the type species of both these genera. These two genera were simultaneously established in Haeckel (1887: 330 for Stylatractona and 144 for Amphisphaerissa). Stylatractona is validated because of a better illustrated type specimen in Haeckel (1887: pl. 17, fig. 2). The differences between Lithapium and Stylatractona need a more precise study. StylosphaeranthaXiphosphaerantha is questionably synonymized with Stylosphaerantha herein, in consideration of the same number of shells and the bladed polar spines. This synonymy needs to evaluate by trace of evolutionary continuity between the type species of Stylosphaerantha and that of Xiphosphaerantha. Xiphatractylis Differing from the other genera of the Stylatractidae, Xiphatractylis has several radial spines which are directly connected by radial beams and these radial spines tend to appear in the equatorial zone of the shell. Xiphosphaera was defined by a double medullary shell, two opposite dissimilar polar spines, a regular network, and a spiny or thorny surface (Campbell 1954: D73), but this definition does not match with the lectotype which has only two lattice shells (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 3, figs 6a, 6b). Any well-preserved specimens identifiable as Heliosestarium cretaceum, the type species of Cromydruppocarpus, are not so far formally illustrated, so the total number of shells cannot be confirmed. However, the taxa belonging to the Stylatractidae are rarely associated with robust radial spines in the equatorial zone of the shell. Xiphosphaeromma is defined by the presence of irregular pores with dissimilar sizes, a spiny or thorny surface, two similar polar spines and a single latticed shell (Campbell 1954: D54). The specimen most similar to the type image for Xiphosphaeromma was found from an upper Eocene Barbados sample (supporting image for Xiphosphaeromma). If this specimen is the true Xiphosphaeromma vestum, this genus has three concentric shells and robust radial spines which are not connected by radial beams. This internal structure is similar to that of some Actinommidae. Until the internal structures could be well described, Xiphatractylis, Praestylosphaera, Heliosestarium and Xiphosphaerantha are synonymized herein. The oldest available names are Xiphatractylis and Xiphosphaeromma which were simultaneously published by Haeckel (1887: 322 for Xiphatractylis and 126 for Xiphosphaeromma). As the real type specimen of Xiphatractylis is in the Ehrenberg collection, Xiphatractylis is selected as a valid name. XiphostylanthaDruppatractus hippocampus is the type species of three genera Druppatractus, Druppatractara and Sphaerostylantha. Xiphostylantha was defined by a single lattice shell, two dissimilar polar spines, regular pores with similar sizes, and no by-spines or thorns on the surface (Campbell 1954: D54). The shorter polar spine of Xiphostylus phasianus, the type species of Xiphostylantha, is so characteristic of the Stylatractidae that this species is a synonym of “ Stylosphaera coronata ” (the supporting image for Xiphostylantha). The lectotype of the latter species (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 12, figs 1a-d) has two shells so Xiphostylantha should be regarded as a genus with two shells. Druppatractus is defined by an elliptical shell, a simple medullary shell and two dissimilar polar spines (Campbell 1954: D71). The sphericity of the outer shell in both Xiphostylantha and Druppatractus is a little bit different but it is explained by a difference at the species level. These two genera were simultaneously published by Haeckel (1887: 127 for Xiphostylantha and 324 for Druppatractus). The first genus in Haeckel (1887) is validated. Xiphostylissa Following Campbell (1954: D54), Xiphostylissa and Xiphostyletta have a common structure with a single lattice shell and dissimilar polar spines. The difference is the absence of by-spines and thorns in Xiphostylissa and the presence of byspines and thorns in Xiphostyletta. These characters, however, are helpless to precisely determine the real specimen referable to their type species, Xiphostylus trogon for Xiphostylissa (Haeckel 1887: pl. 14, fig. 12) and Xiphostylus picus for Xiphostyletta (Haeckel 1887: pl. 14, fig.13). Based on the type-illustrations, Xiphostylissa lacks a prominent polar spine whereas Xiphostyletta has a prominent polar spine. The difference in its length can be explained by an intraspecies variation. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Campanian-Holocene.</p> <p>sensu Dumitrica (2019)</p> <p>Suttonidae [sic] Schaaf, 1976: 790 (= Suttoniidae) [in Nassellaria]. — Dumitrica 1983b: 41 (sensu emend.) [in Spumellaria].</p> <p>Suttoniidae – De Wever et al. 2001: 125-126 [in Spumellaria]. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S284 [in Order Lobatiradiata]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 126. — Dumitrica 2019: 40-41 (sensu emend.)</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Suttonium Schaaf, 1976: 790 [type species by monotypy: Suttonium praedicator Schaaf, 1976: 790].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA (Cenozoic only). — Homunculodiscus Dumitrica, 2019: 41. — Parasuttonium Dumitrica, 2019: 47. — Suttonium Schaaf, 1976: 790.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Bilaterally symmetrical spumellarians with initial skeleton consisting of an eccentric microsphere with or without primary rays and a crescent shaped deuteroconcha. Skeleton thin made usually of two parallel lattice plates interconnected by short bars. Rays, when present, surrounded by a cortical shell forming three arms in the most evolved members (Dumitrica 2019: 40).</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Paleocene-Holocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The internal skeletal structure of Homunculodiscus was already documented (Dumitrica 2019: figs 1.a-1.g, 2.a-2.h, 3a.-3.d, 4.a-4.d), Parasuttonium (Dumitrica 2019: figs 6.a, 6.b) and Suttonium (Dumitrica 2019: figs 6.c, 6.d). The taxonomic position of the Suttoniidae has been changed among Nassellaria, Spumellaria and Lobatiradiata. The history and the definition of the current taxonomic position was documented in Dumitrica (2019).</p> <p>Superfamily STYLOSPHAEROIDEA Haeckel, 1887 sensu Dumitrica (1984)Stylosphaerida Haeckel, 1887: 121 [as a family], 133 [as a subfamily].Stylosphaerilae – Dumitrica 1984: 98 [as a sub-superfamily].DIAGNOSIS. — Spumellarian consists of one to three shells with bipolar, bladed spines. The innermost shell is pyriform shape.REMARKS This superfamily consists of the Entapiidae, Stylatractidae, Stylosphaeridae, and Tubosphaeridae Suzuki, n. fam. However, both Stylatractidae and Tubosphaeridae Suzuki, n. fam. were excluded from the diagnosis above.The appropriate superfamily distribu - tions of the Tubosphaeridae Suzuki, n.fam. and Stylatractidae are uncertain because of the absence of a pear-shaped internal shell. Family ENTAPIIDAE Dumitrica in De Wever, Dumitrica, Caulet, Nigrini &amp; Caridroit, 2001Entapiidae Dumitrica in De Wever, Dumitrica, Caulet, Nigrini &amp; Caridroit, 2001: 118-119. Entapiinae – Afanasieva et al. 2005: 273. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon, 2006: 110. TYPE GENUS. — Entapium Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel, 1973: 491 [type species by original designation: Entapium regulare Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel, 1973: 492] INCLUDED GENUS. — Entapium Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel, 1973: 491. DIAGNOSIS. — Skeleton consists of two shells. The innermost shell has a pyriform shape and the outer shell is latticed and spherical. Three to six radial bladed beams penetrate the outer shell to form bladed radial spines. No fine radial beams were observed.STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-early Middle Eocene.REMARKS The internal skeletal structure for Entapium was illustrated (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 22, fig. 6?; Nishimura 2001; pl. 1, fig. 13; Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1973: pls 23, 24). However, Entapium showed an outward migration of the medullary shell towards the cortical shell which ultimately tends to disappear. O’Connor (1999) coined the new genus name Zealithapium but this latter genus is not an Entapiidae. The numerous radial spines similar to those of Stylosphaeridae morphotypes were observed, but the characteristics of these radial spines are different between the two families. Family STYLATRACTIDAE Schröder, 1909 n. stat. sensu Matsuzaki et al. (2015) Stylatractida [sic] Schröder, 1909: 37 (= Stylatractidae) [as a subfamily]. Sphaerostylida Haeckel, 1882: 451 [nomen dubium, as a tribe];1887: 122, 133 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 7 [as a subfamily].Amphistylida Haeckel, 1882: 452 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 142 [as a subfamily].Cromyostylida Haeckel, 1882: 453 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 146 [as a subfamily].Caryostylida Haeckel, 1882: 454 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 148 [as a subfamily].Ellipsida Haeckel, 1887: 289 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Rüst 1892: 150 [as a family]. — Carter 1893: 227 [as a family]. — Wisniowski 1889: 684 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 23 [as a family].Sphaerostylinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 24 [nomen dubium]; 1945: 11. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 10; 1944b: 4. — Chediya 1959: 80.Amphistylinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 13 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D54. — Chediya 1959: 82. Lithapinae Deflandre, 1953: 418 [as a new Nassellaria subfamily]. Cromyostylinae – Campbell 1954: D54 [nomen dubium].Ellipsidiicae – Campbell 1954: D68 [nomen dubium, as a superfamily].Ellipsidiidae – Campbell 1954: D68 [nomen dubium]. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 38-39 (sensu emend.). Caryostilinae – Chediya 1959: 82 [nomen dubium].Stylatractidae – Nishimura 1990: 156 [as a new Nassellaria family]. Amphisphaeridae Suzuki in Matsuzaki, Suzuki &amp; Nishi, 2015: 10 [nomen dubium]. TYPE GENUS. — Stylatractus Haeckel, 1887: 328 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D73): Stylatractus neptunus Haeckel 1887: 328] = junior subjective synonym of Druppatractylis Haeckel, 1887: 325 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D71): Druppatractus ostracion Haeckel, 1887: 326]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Druppatractylis Haeckel, 1887: 325 (= Stylatractylisn. syn.; Lithatractara, Lithatractus synonymized by Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 40; Stylatractara, Stylatractus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975:570). — Ellipsostylus Haeckel, 1887: 299 (= Ellipsostyletta with the same type species; Ellipsostylissan. syn., Sphaerostylomman. syn.). — Lithapium Haeckel, 1887: 303 (= Xiphatractara, Xiphatractus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 570; Xiphatractiumn. syn.). — Lithomespilus Haeckel, 1882: 450. — Stylatractona Haeckel, 1887: 330 (= Amphisphaerissa synonymized byPetrushevskaya 1975: 570). — Stylosphaerantha Haeckel, 1887: 133 (= Praestylosphaera synonymized by O’Dogherty et al. 2009a: 283;? Xiphosphaeranthan. syn.). — Xiphatractylis Haeckel, 1887: 332 (= Cromydruppocarpusn. syn., Heliosestarium n. syn.,? Xiphosphaeromman. syn.). — Xiphostylantha Haeckel, 1887: 127 (= Druppatractus, Druppatractara, Sphaerostylantha, synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 570). — Xiphostylissa Haeckel, 1887: 129 (= Xiphostylettan. syn.). INVALID NAMES. — Ellipsis, Spongostylidium. NOMINA DUBIA. — Amphisphaera, Amphisphaerantha, Amphisphaerella, Amphisphaeromma, Amphistylus, Axellipsis, Caryostylus, Cenellipsis, Cenellipsium, Cenellipsula, Cromyostaurolonche, Cromyostylus, Druppatractium, Echinocapsa, Ellipsidium, Ellipsoxiphetta, Sphaerostyletta, Sphaerostylissa, Spongolonchis, Spongostylium, Stylatractium, Stylocromyum, Xiphatractona, Xiphosphaerissa. JUNIOR HOMONYM. — Spongolonche Haeckel, 1882: 455 (= Spongolonchis) nec Haeckel, 1882: 461; Sphaerostylus Haeckel, 1882 nec Chaudoir, 1854. DIAGNOSIS. —The shell consists of one to three concentric shells with bi-polar spines (rarely one). The innermost shell, if present, contains a spherical microsphere with many radial beams. The second inner shell is also a spherical macrosphere and this shell is connected to the outermost shell by many radial beams. The outermost shell is a cortical shell, occasionally found with by-spines or a fragile coverage. Most radial beams are disconnected between the concentric shells. A dark gray endoplasm occupies the cortical shell in Stylatractona. REMARKS Since the Cenozoic Genera Working Group (CGW) decided to exclude any genera based on unfigured type species, the genus Amphisphaera is regarded as a “ nomen dubium.” Its type species, Amphisphaera neptunus Haeckel, 1887, has been interpreted as a probable junior synonym of Stylatractus neptunus (Petrushevskaya 1975; Hollis 1997). However, CGW postponed this decision. Therefore, the name Amphisphaeridae by Matsuzaki et al. (2015) should also be regarded as “ nomen dubium ”. The subfamily/family rank commonly used for this group has been “Lithapiinae”, originally pertained to the Nassellaria by Deflandre (1953) and Nishimura (1990) respectively; however, many authors have overlooked the name Stylatractidae proposed earlier by Schröder (1909). Stylatractidae is easily distinguishable from both Stylosphaeridae and Entapiidae due to the presence of an innermost pyriform shell. The genera Druppatractylis, Lithapium and Stylatractona are maintained as valid for future discussions although their basic differences only depend upon the position of the spines. Internal skeletal structure was illustrated for Stylatractona in fossils (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 17, fig. 4; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 3, fig. 8) and a living form (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.10.13). VALIDITY OF GENERADruppatractylis The combination of Lithatractus and Lithatractara, and that of Stylatractus and Stylatractara have respectively the same type species. As the definitions written for Lithatractus and Stylatractus are the same even in Campbell (1954: D72 for Lithatractus and D73 for Stylatractus), both these genera are mostly conspecific. Stylatractylis is marked by a thorny or papillate surface (Campbell 1954: D73) but the type-illustration does not match with this description. Based on the principle of the name-bearing specimen, the type species for these three genera has a common structure as written in the Atlas. EllipsostylusEllipsostyletta has the same type species as Ellipsostylus. Both Ellipsostylus and Ellipsostylissa have a single elliptical shell and two opposite dissimilar polar spines, but the former has a regular network whereas the latter has an irregular network (Campbell 1954: D68-69 for Ellipsostylus and D69 for Ellipsostylissa). The difference in the network is insufficient as a genus criterion. Sphaerostylomma is marked by two concentric lattice shells, irregular pores with dissimilar sizes and presence of by-spines or thorns on the cortical shell (Campbell 1954: D54). Any specimens identical to the type species of these three genera are very rare so it is not possible to examine their descriptions in detail and these genera are tentatively synonymized here. All these genera are simultaneously established by Haeckel (1887: 299 for Ellipsostylus, 299 for Ellipsostyletta, 301 for Ellipsostylissa, and 140 for Sphaerostylomma). As a real specimen identifiable of Ellipsostylus psittacus, the type species of Ellipsostylus, has been found in the topotypic material of the H.M.S. Challenger Station 265, this genus is selected as a valid genus among the other ones. LithapiumXiphatractus has the same type species as Xiphatractara. Specimens with no internal structure whose characteristics fit with the type-illustration in Haeckel (1887: pl. 14, fig. 9) are always associate with specimens having three concentric shells in the topotypic material from the H.M.S. Challenger Station 266. Based on this observation, the definition of Lithapium has changed in the Atlas. As Lithapium, the lectotype of Xiphatractium also has three concentric shells (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 12, figs 3a-d). Xiphatractus has three concentric shells based on its type-illustration (Haeckel 1887: pl. 17, fig. 11). Distinguishing characters are an elliptical or pear-shaped cortical shell with a single spine on one pole for Lithapium (Campbell 1954: D69); a cortical shell with a smooth surface and a regular network, and two opposite dissimilar polar spines for Xiphatractus (Campbell 1954: D73); and a cortical shell with a thorny or papillate surface and an irregular network, and also two dissimilar spines for Xiphatractium (Campbell 1954: D73). As indicated by the type-illustration of Lithapium (Haeckel 1887: pl. 14, fig. 9), Lithapium pyriforme has two opposite dissimilar polar spines and this character can be confirmed with topotypic specimens from the H.M.S. Challenger samples (the supporting image for Lithapium). The lectotype of Xiphatractium does not match with the description by Campbell (1954: D73). Rather, pore arrangement and size patterns are the same in the type species of both Xiphatractus and Xiphatractium. Although the exact internal structure is not well known for Xiphatractus and Xiphatractium, it is unnecessary to keep these three genera valid. All genera were simultaneously described in Haeckel (1887: 303 for Lithapium, 332 for Xiphatractus, 331 for Xiphatractara, and 334 for Xiphatractium). Lithapium is validated among them because many representative specimens are found in the topotypic material. Stylatractona The concept of this genus corresponds to the current usage of Amphisphaera. The difference between Stylatractona and Amphisphaerissa at “genus” level is the presence of an irregular network in the former (Campbell 1954: D73) or in the presence of irregular pores with dissimilar sizes in the latter (Campbell 1954: D54). This difference cannot be recognized from type-illustrations (Haeckel 1887: pl. 17, fig. 2 for Stylatractona and pl. 17, fig. 5 for Amphisphaerissa). No other differences are observed in the type species of both these genera. These two genera were simultaneously established in Haeckel (1887: 330 for Stylatractona and 144 for Amphisphaerissa). Stylatractona is validated because of a better illustrated type specimen in Haeckel (1887: pl. 17, fig. 2). The differences between Lithapium and Stylatractona need a more precise study. StylosphaeranthaXiphosphaerantha is questionably synonymized with Stylosphaerantha herein, in consideration of the same number of shells and the bladed polar spines. This synonymy needs to evaluate by trace of evolutionary continuity between the type species of Stylosphaerantha and that of Xiphosphaerantha. Xiphatractylis Differing from the other genera of the Stylatractidae, Xiphatractylis has several radial spines which are directly connected by radial beams and these radial spines tend to appear in the equatorial zone of the shell. Xiphosphaera was defined by a double medullary shell, two opposite dissimilar polar spines, a regular network, and a spiny or thorny surface (Campbell 1954: D73), but this definition does not match with the lectotype which has only two lattice shells (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 3, figs 6a, 6b). Any well-preserved specimens identifiable as Heliosestarium cretaceum, the type species of Cromydruppocarpus, are not so far formally illustrated, so the total number of shells cannot be confirmed. However, the taxa belonging to the Stylatractidae are rarely associated with robust radial spines in the equatorial zone of the shell. Xiphosphaeromma is defined by the presence of irregular pores with dissimilar sizes, a spiny or thorny surface, two similar polar spines and a single latticed shell (Campbell 1954: D54). The specimen most similar to the type image for Xiphosphaeromma was found from an upper Eocene Barbados sample (supporting image for Xiphosphaeromma). If this specimen is the true Xiphosphaeromma vestum, this genus has three concentric shells and robust radial spines which are not connected by radial beams. This internal structure is similar to that of some Actinommidae. Until the internal structures could be well described, Xiphatractylis, Praestylosphaera, Heliosestarium and Xiphosphaerantha are synonymized herein. The oldest available names are Xiphatractylis and Xiphosphaeromma which were simultaneously published by Haeckel (1887: 322 for Xiphatractylis and 126 for Xiphosphaeromma). As the real type specimen of Xiphatractylis is in the Ehrenberg collection, Xiphatractylis is selected as a valid name. XiphostylanthaDruppatractus hippocampus is the type species of three genera Druppatractus, Druppatractara and Sphaerostylantha. Xiphostylantha was defined by a single lattice shell, two dissimilar polar spines, regular pores with similar sizes, and no by-spines or thorns on the surface (Campbell 1954: D54). The shorter polar spine of Xiphostylus phasianus, the type species of Xiphostylantha, is so characteristic of the Stylatractidae that this species is a synonym of “ Stylosphaera coronata ” (the supporting image for Xiphostylantha). The lectotype of the latter species (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 12, figs 1a-d) has two shells so Xiphostylantha should be regarded as a genus with two shells. Druppatractus is defined by an elliptical shell, a simple medullary shell and two dissimilar polar spines (Campbell 1954: D71). The sphericity of the outer shell in both Xiphostylantha and Druppatractus is a little bit different but it is explained by a difference at the species level. These two genera were simultaneously published by Haeckel (1887: 127 for Xiphostylantha and 324 for Druppatractus). The first genus in Haeckel (1887) is validated. Xiphostylissa Following Campbell (1954: D54), Xiphostylissa and Xiphostyletta have a common structure with a single lattice shell and dissimilar polar spines. The difference is the absence of by-spines and thorns in Xiphostylissa and the presence of byspines and thorns in Xiphostyletta. These characters, however, are helpless to precisely determine the real specimen referable to their type species, Xiphostylus trogon for Xiphostylissa (Haeckel 1887: pl. 14, fig. 12) and Xiphostylus picus for Xiphostyletta (Haeckel 1887: pl. 14, fig.13). Based on the type-illustrations, Xiphostylissa lacks a prominent polar spine whereas Xiphostyletta has a prominent polar spine. The difference in its length can be explained by an intraspecies variation. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Campanian-Holocene.</p> <p>sensu Dumitrica (1984)</p> <p>Stylosphaerida Haeckel, 1887: 121 [as a family], 133 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Stylosphaerilae – Dumitrica 1984: 98 [as a sub-superfamily].</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Spumellarian consists of one to three shells with bipolar, bladed spines. The innermost shell is pyriform shape.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This superfamily consists of the Entapiidae, Stylatractidae, Stylosphaeridae, and Tubosphaeridae Suzuki, n. fam. However, both Stylatractidae and Tubosphaeridae Suzuki, n. fam. were excluded from the diagnosis above.The appropriate superfamily distribu - tions of the Tubosphaeridae Suzuki, n.fam. and Stylatractidae are uncertain because of the absence of a pear-shaped internal shell.</p> <p>Family ENTAPIIDAE Dumitrica in De Wever, Dumitrica, Caulet, Nigrini &amp; Caridroit, 2001</p> <p>Entapiidae Dumitrica in De Wever, Dumitrica, Caulet, Nigrini &amp; Caridroit, 2001: 118-119.</p> <p>Entapiinae – Afanasieva et al. 2005: 273. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon, 2006: 110.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Entapium Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel, 1973: 491 [type species by original designation: Entapium regulare Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel, 1973: 492]</p> <p>INCLUDED GENUS. — Entapium Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel, 1973: 491.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Skeleton consists of two shells. The innermost shell has a pyriform shape and the outer shell is latticed and spherical. Three to six radial bladed beams penetrate the outer shell to form bladed radial spines. No fine radial beams were observed.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-early Middle Eocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The internal skeletal structure for Entapium was illustrated (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 22, fig. 6?; Nishimura 2001; pl. 1, fig. 13; Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1973: pls 23, 24). However, Entapium showed an outward migration of the medullary shell towards the cortical shell which ultimately tends to disappear. O’Connor (1999) coined the new genus name Zealithapium but this latter genus is not an Entapiidae. The numerous radial spines similar to those of Stylosphaeridae morphotypes were observed, but the characteristics of these radial spines are different between the two families.</p> <p>Family STYLATRACTIDAE Schröder, 1909 n. stat.</p> <p>sensu Matsuzaki et al. (2015)</p> <p>Stylatractida [sic] Schröder, 1909: 37 (= Stylatractidae) [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Sphaerostylida Haeckel, 1882: 451 [nomen dubium, as a tribe];1887: 122, 133 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 7 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Amphistylida Haeckel, 1882: 452 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 142 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Cromyostylida Haeckel, 1882: 453 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 146 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Caryostylida Haeckel, 1882: 454 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 148 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Ellipsida Haeckel, 1887: 289 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Rüst 1892: 150 [as a family]. — Carter 1893: 227 [as a family]. — Wisniowski 1889: 684 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 23 [as a family].</p> <p>Sphaerostylinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 24 [nomen dubium]; 1945: 11. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 10; 1944b: 4. — Chediya 1959: 80.</p> <p>Amphistylinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 13 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D54. — Chediya 1959: 82.</p> <p>Lithapinae Deflandre, 1953: 418 [as a new Nassellaria subfamily].</p> <p>Cromyostylinae – Campbell 1954: D54 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Ellipsidiicae – Campbell 1954: D68 [nomen dubium, as a superfamily].</p> <p>Ellipsidiidae – Campbell 1954: D68 [nomen dubium]. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 38-39 (sensu emend.).</p> <p>Caryostilinae – Chediya 1959: 82 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Stylatractidae – Nishimura 1990: 156 [as a new Nassellaria family].</p> <p>Amphisphaeridae Suzuki in Matsuzaki, Suzuki &amp; Nishi, 2015: 10 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Stylatractus Haeckel, 1887: 328 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D73): Stylatractus neptunus Haeckel 1887: 328] = junior subjective synonym of Druppatractylis Haeckel, 1887: 325 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D71): Druppatractus ostracion Haeckel, 1887: 326].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Druppatractylis Haeckel, 1887: 325 (= Stylatractylis n. syn.; Lithatractara, Lithatractus synonymized by Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 40; Stylatractara, Stylatractus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975:570). — Ellipsostylus Haeckel, 1887: 299 (= Ellipsostyletta with the same type species; Ellipsostylissa n. syn., Sphaerostylomma n. syn.). — Lithapium Haeckel, 1887: 303 (= Xiphatractara, Xiphatractus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 570; Xiphatractium n. syn.). — Lithomespilus Haeckel, 1882: 450. — Stylatractona Haeckel, 1887: 330 (= Amphisphaerissa synonymized byPetrushevskaya 1975: 570). — Stylosphaerantha Haeckel, 1887: 133 (= Praestylosphaera synonymized by O’Dogherty et al. 2009a: 283;? Xiphosphaerantha n. syn.). — Xiphatractylis Haeckel, 1887: 332 (= Cromydruppocarpus n. syn., Heliosestarium n. syn.,? Xiphosphaeromma n. syn.). — Xiphostylantha Haeckel, 1887: 127 (= Druppatractus, Druppatractara, Sphaerostylantha, synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 570). — Xiphostylissa Haeckel, 1887: 129 (= Xiphostyletta n. syn.).</p> <p>INVALID NAMES. — Ellipsis, Spongostylidium.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Amphisphaera, Amphisphaerantha, Amphisphaerella, Amphisphaeromma, Amphistylus, Axellipsis, Caryostylus, Cenellipsis, Cenellipsium, Cenellipsula, Cromyostaurolonche, Cromyostylus, Druppatractium, Echinocapsa, Ellipsidium, Ellipsoxiphetta, Sphaerostyletta, Sphaerostylissa, Spongolonchis, Spongostylium, Stylatractium, Stylocromyum, Xiphatractona, Xiphosphaerissa.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYM. — Spongolonche Haeckel, 1882: 455 (= Spongolonchis) nec Haeckel, 1882: 461; Sphaerostylus Haeckel, 1882 nec Chaudoir, 1854.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. —The shell consists of one to three concentric shells with bi-polar spines (rarely one). The innermost shell, if present, contains a spherical microsphere with many radial beams. The second inner shell is also a spherical macrosphere and this shell is connected to the outermost shell by many radial beams. The outermost shell is a cortical shell, occasionally found with by-spines or a fragile coverage. Most radial beams are disconnected between the concentric shells. A dark gray endoplasm occupies the cortical shell in Stylatractona.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Since the Cenozoic Genera Working Group (CGW) decided to exclude any genera based on unfigured type species, the genus Amphisphaera is regarded as a “ nomen dubium.” Its type species, Amphisphaera neptunus Haeckel, 1887, has been interpreted as a probable junior synonym of Stylatractus neptunus (Petrushevskaya 1975; Hollis 1997). However, CGW postponed this decision. Therefore, the name Amphisphaeridae by Matsuzaki et al. (2015) should also be regarded as “ nomen dubium ”. The subfamily/family rank commonly used for this group has been “Lithapiinae”, originally pertained to the Nassellaria by Deflandre (1953) and Nishimura (1990) respectively; however, many authors have overlooked the name Stylatractidae proposed earlier by Schröder (1909). Stylatractidae is easily distinguishable from both Stylosphaeridae and Entapiidae due to the presence of an innermost pyriform shell. The genera Druppatractylis, Lithapium and Stylatractona are maintained as valid for future discussions although their basic differences only depend upon the position of the spines. Internal skeletal structure was illustrated for Stylatractona in fossils (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 17, fig. 4; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 3, fig. 8) and a living form (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.10.13).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Druppatractylis</p> <p>The combination of Lithatractus and Lithatractara, and that of Stylatractus and Stylatractara have respectively the same type species. As the definitions written for Lithatractus and Stylatractus are the same even in Campbell (1954: D72 for Lithatractus and D73 for Stylatractus), both these genera are mostly conspecific. Stylatractylis is marked by a thorny or papillate surface (Campbell 1954: D73) but the type-illustration does not match with this description. Based on the principle of the name-bearing specimen, the type species for these three genera has a common structure as written in the Atlas.</p> <p>Ellipsostylus</p> <p>Ellipsostyletta has the same type species as Ellipsostylus. Both Ellipsostylus and Ellipsostylissa have a single elliptical shell and two opposite dissimilar polar spines, but the former has a regular network whereas the latter has an irregular network (Campbell 1954: D68-69 for Ellipsostylus and D69 for Ellipsostylissa). The difference in the network is insufficient as a genus criterion. Sphaerostylomma is marked by two concentric lattice shells, irregular pores with dissimilar sizes and presence of by-spines or thorns on the cortical shell (Campbell 1954: D54). Any specimens identical to the type species of these three genera are very rare so it is not possible to examine their descriptions in detail and these genera are tentatively synonymized here. All these genera are simultaneously established by Haeckel (1887: 299 for Ellipsostylus, 299 for Ellipsostyletta, 301 for Ellipsostylissa, and 140 for Sphaerostylomma). As a real specimen identifiable of Ellipsostylus psittacus, the type species of Ellipsostylus, has been found in the topotypic material of the H.M.S. Challenger Station 265, this genus is selected as a valid genus among the other ones.</p> <p>Lithapium</p> <p>Xiphatractus has the same type species as Xiphatractara. Specimens with no internal structure whose characteristics fit with the type-illustration in Haeckel (1887: pl. 14, fig. 9) are always associate with specimens having three concentric shells in the topotypic material from the H.M.S. Challenger Station 266. Based on this observation, the definition of Lithapium has changed in the Atlas. As Lithapium, the lectotype of Xiphatractium also has three concentric shells (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 12, figs 3a-d). Xiphatractus has three concentric shells based on its type-illustration (Haeckel 1887: pl. 17, fig. 11). Distinguishing characters are an elliptical or pear-shaped cortical shell with a single spine on one pole for Lithapium (Campbell 1954: D69); a cortical shell with a smooth surface and a regular network, and two opposite dissimilar polar spines for Xiphatractus (Campbell 1954: D73); and a cortical shell with a thorny or papillate surface and an irregular network, and also two dissimilar spines for Xiphatractium (Campbell 1954: D73). As indicated by the type-illustration of Lithapium (Haeckel 1887: pl. 14, fig. 9), Lithapium pyriforme has two opposite dissimilar polar spines and this character can be confirmed with topotypic specimens from the H.M.S. Challenger samples (the supporting image for Lithapium). The lectotype of Xiphatractium does not match with the description by Campbell (1954: D73). Rather, pore arrangement and size patterns are the same in the type species of both Xiphatractus and Xiphatractium. Although the exact internal structure is not well known for Xiphatractus and Xiphatractium, it is unnecessary to keep these three genera valid. All genera were simultaneously described in Haeckel (1887: 303 for Lithapium, 332 for Xiphatractus, 331 for Xiphatractara, and 334 for Xiphatractium). Lithapium is validated among them because many representative specimens are found in the topotypic material.</p> <p>Stylatractona</p> <p>The concept of this genus corresponds to the current usage of Amphisphaera. The difference between Stylatractona and Amphisphaerissa at “genus” level is the presence of an irregular network in the former (Campbell 1954: D73) or in the presence of irregular pores with dissimilar sizes in the latter (Campbell 1954: D54). This difference cannot be recognized from type-illustrations (Haeckel 1887: pl. 17, fig. 2 for Stylatractona and pl. 17, fig. 5 for Amphisphaerissa). No other differences are observed in the type species of both these genera. These two genera were simultaneously established in Haeckel (1887: 330 for Stylatractona and 144 for Amphisphaerissa). Stylatractona is validated because of a better illustrated type specimen in Haeckel (1887: pl. 17, fig. 2). The differences between Lithapium and Stylatractona need a more precise study.</p> <p>Stylosphaerantha</p> <p>Xiphosphaerantha is questionably synonymized with Stylosphaerantha herein, in consideration of the same number of shells and the bladed polar spines. This synonymy needs to evaluate by trace of evolutionary continuity between the type species of Stylosphaerantha and that of Xiphosphaerantha.</p> <p>Xiphatractylis</p> <p>Differing from the other genera of the Stylatractidae, Xiphatractylis has several radial spines which are directly connected by radial beams and these radial spines tend to appear in the equatorial zone of the shell. Xiphosphaera was defined by a double medullary shell, two opposite dissimilar polar spines, a regular network, and a spiny or thorny surface (Campbell 1954: D73), but this definition does not match with the lectotype which has only two lattice shells (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 3, figs 6a, 6b). Any well-preserved specimens identifiable as Heliosestarium cretaceum, the type species of Cromydruppocarpus, are not so far formally illustrated, so the total number of shells cannot be confirmed. However, the taxa belonging to the Stylatractidae are rarely associated with robust radial spines in the equatorial zone of the shell. Xiphosphaeromma is defined by the presence of irregular pores with dissimilar sizes, a spiny or thorny surface, two similar polar spines and a single latticed shell (Campbell 1954: D54). The specimen most similar to the type image for Xiphosphaeromma was found from an upper Eocene Barbados sample (supporting image for Xiphosphaeromma). If this specimen is the true Xiphosphaeromma vestum, this genus has three concentric shells and robust radial spines which are not connected by radial beams. This internal structure is similar to that of some Actinommidae. Until the internal structures could be well described, Xiphatractylis, Praestylosphaera, Heliosestarium and Xiphosphaerantha are synonymized herein. The oldest available names are Xiphatractylis and Xiphosphaeromma which were simultaneously published by Haeckel (1887: 322 for Xiphatractylis and 126 for Xiphosphaeromma). As the real type specimen of Xiphatractylis is in the Ehrenberg collection, Xiphatractylis is selected as a valid name.</p> <p>Xiphostylantha</p> <p>Druppatractus hippocampus is the type species of three genera Druppatractus, Druppatractara and Sphaerostylantha. Xiphostylantha was defined by a single lattice shell, two dissimilar polar spines, regular pores with similar sizes, and no by-spines or thorns on the surface (Campbell 1954: D54). The shorter polar spine of Xiphostylus phasianus, the type species of Xiphostylantha, is so characteristic of the Stylatractidae that this species is a synonym of “ Stylosphaera coronata ” (the supporting image for Xiphostylantha). The lectotype of the latter species (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 12, figs 1a-d) has two shells so Xiphostylantha should be regarded as a genus with two shells. Druppatractus is defined by an elliptical shell, a simple medullary shell and two dissimilar polar spines (Campbell 1954: D71). The sphericity of the outer shell in both Xiphostylantha and Druppatractus is a little bit different but it is explained by a difference at the species level. These two genera were simultaneously published by Haeckel (1887: 127 for Xiphostylantha and 324 for Druppatractus). The first genus in Haeckel (1887) is validated.</p> <p>Xiphostylissa</p> <p>Following Campbell (1954: D54), Xiphostylissa and Xiphostyletta have a common structure with a single lattice shell and dissimilar polar spines. The difference is the absence of by-spines and thorns in Xiphostylissa and the presence of byspines and thorns in Xiphostyletta. These characters, however, are helpless to precisely determine the real specimen referable to their type species, Xiphostylus trogon for Xiphostylissa (Haeckel 1887: pl. 14, fig. 12) and Xiphostylus picus for Xiphostyletta (Haeckel 1887: pl. 14, fig.13). Based on the type-illustrations, Xiphostylissa lacks a prominent polar spine whereas Xiphostyletta has a prominent polar spine. The difference in its length can be explained by an intraspecies variation.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Campanian-Holocene.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFA1FE000686FD87FBEB4941	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFA2FE0305ADFE46FD544A3A.text	038DDA73FFA2FE0305ADFE46FD544A3A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Entapiidae Dumitrica in De Wever, Dumitrica, Caulet, Nigrini & Caridroit 2001	<div><p>Family ENTAPIIDAE Dumitrica in De Wever, Dumitrica, Caulet, Nigrini &amp; Caridroit, 2001</p> <p>Entapiidae Dumitrica in De Wever, Dumitrica, Caulet, Nigrini &amp; Caridroit, 2001: 118-119.</p> <p>Entapiinae – Afanasieva et al. 2005: 273. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon, 2006: 110.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Entapium Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel, 1973: 491 [type species by original designation: Entapium regulare Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel, 1973: 492]</p> <p>INCLUDED GENUS. — Entapium Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel, 1973: 491.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Skeleton consists of two shells. The innermost shell has a pyriform shape and the outer shell is latticed and spherical. Three to six radial bladed beams penetrate the outer shell to form bladed radial spines. No fine radial beams were observed.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-early Middle Eocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The internal skeletal structure for Entapium was illustrated (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 22, fig. 6?; Nishimura 2001; pl. 1, fig. 13; Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1973: pls 23, 24). However, Entapium showed an outward migration of the medullary shell towards the cortical shell which ultimately tends to disappear. O’Connor (1999) coined the new genus name Zealithapium but this latter genus is not an Entapiidae. The numerous radial spines similar to those of Stylosphaeridae morphotypes were observed, but the characteristics of these radial spines are different between the two families.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFA2FE0305ADFE46FD544A3A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFA2FE0D05F1FA4DFA734D4D.text	038DDA73FFA2FE0D05F1FA4DFA734D4D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Stylatractidae Schroder 1909	<div><p>Family STYLATRACTIDAE Schröder, 1909 n. stat.</p> <p>sensu Matsuzaki et al. (2015)</p> <p>Stylatractida [sic] Schröder, 1909: 37 (= Stylatractidae) [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Sphaerostylida Haeckel, 1882: 451 [nomen dubium, as a tribe];1887: 122, 133 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 7 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Amphistylida Haeckel, 1882: 452 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 142 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Cromyostylida Haeckel, 1882: 453 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 146 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Caryostylida Haeckel, 1882: 454 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 148 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Ellipsida Haeckel, 1887: 289 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Rüst 1892: 150 [as a family]. — Carter 1893: 227 [as a family]. — Wisniowski 1889: 684 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 23 [as a family].</p> <p>Sphaerostylinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 24 [nomen dubium]; 1945: 11. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 10; 1944b: 4. — Chediya 1959: 80.</p> <p>Amphistylinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 13 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D54. — Chediya 1959: 82.</p> <p>Lithapinae Deflandre, 1953: 418 [as a new Nassellaria subfamily].</p> <p>Cromyostylinae – Campbell 1954: D54 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Ellipsidiicae – Campbell 1954: D68 [nomen dubium, as a superfamily].</p> <p>Ellipsidiidae – Campbell 1954: D68 [nomen dubium]. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 38-39 (sensu emend.).</p> <p>Caryostilinae – Chediya 1959: 82 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Stylatractidae – Nishimura 1990: 156 [as a new Nassellaria family].</p> <p>Amphisphaeridae Suzuki in Matsuzaki, Suzuki &amp; Nishi, 2015: 10 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Stylatractus Haeckel, 1887: 328 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D73): Stylatractus neptunus Haeckel 1887: 328] = junior subjective synonym of Druppatractylis Haeckel, 1887: 325 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D71): Druppatractus ostracion Haeckel, 1887: 326].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Druppatractylis Haeckel, 1887: 325 (= Stylatractylis n. syn.; Lithatractara, Lithatractus synonymized by Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 40; Stylatractara, Stylatractus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975:570). — Ellipsostylus Haeckel, 1887: 299 (= Ellipsostyletta with the same type species; Ellipsostylissa n. syn., Sphaerostylomma n. syn.). — Lithapium Haeckel, 1887: 303 (= Xiphatractara, Xiphatractus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 570; Xiphatractium n. syn.). — Lithomespilus Haeckel, 1882: 450. — Stylatractona Haeckel, 1887: 330 (= Amphisphaerissa synonymized byPetrushevskaya 1975: 570). — Stylosphaerantha Haeckel, 1887: 133 (= Praestylosphaera synonymized by O’Dogherty et al. 2009a: 283;? Xiphosphaerantha n. syn.). — Xiphatractylis Haeckel, 1887: 332 (= Cromydruppocarpus n. syn., Heliosestarium n. syn.,? Xiphosphaeromma n. syn.). — Xiphostylantha Haeckel, 1887: 127 (= Druppatractus, Druppatractara, Sphaerostylantha, synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 570). — Xiphostylissa Haeckel, 1887: 129 (= Xiphostyletta n. syn.).</p> <p>INVALID NAMES. — Ellipsis, Spongostylidium.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Amphisphaera, Amphisphaerantha, Amphisphaerella, Amphisphaeromma, Amphistylus, Axellipsis, Caryostylus, Cenellipsis, Cenellipsium, Cenellipsula, Cromyostaurolonche, Cromyostylus, Druppatractium, Echinocapsa, Ellipsidium, Ellipsoxiphetta, Sphaerostyletta, Sphaerostylissa, Spongolonchis, Spongostylium, Stylatractium, Stylocromyum, Xiphatractona, Xiphosphaerissa.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYM. — Spongolonche Haeckel, 1882: 455 (= Spongolonchis) nec Haeckel, 1882: 461; Sphaerostylus Haeckel, 1882 nec Chaudoir, 1854.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. —The shell consists of one to three concentric shells with bi-polar spines (rarely one). The innermost shell, if present, contains a spherical microsphere with many radial beams. The second inner shell is also a spherical macrosphere and this shell is connected to the outermost shell by many radial beams. The outermost shell is a cortical shell, occasionally found with by-spines or a fragile coverage. Most radial beams are disconnected between the concentric shells. A dark gray endoplasm occupies the cortical shell in Stylatractona.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Since the Cenozoic Genera Working Group (CGW) decided to exclude any genera based on unfigured type species, the genus Amphisphaera is regarded as a “ nomen dubium.” Its type species, Amphisphaera neptunus Haeckel, 1887, has been interpreted as a probable junior synonym of Stylatractus neptunus (Petrushevskaya 1975; Hollis 1997). However, CGW postponed this decision. Therefore, the name Amphisphaeridae by Matsuzaki et al. (2015) should also be regarded as “ nomen dubium ”. The subfamily/family rank commonly used for this group has been “Lithapiinae”, originally pertained to the Nassellaria by Deflandre (1953) and Nishimura (1990) respectively; however, many authors have overlooked the name Stylatractidae proposed earlier by Schröder (1909). Stylatractidae is easily distinguishable from both Stylosphaeridae and Entapiidae due to the presence of an innermost pyriform shell. The genera Druppatractylis, Lithapium and Stylatractona are maintained as valid for future discussions although their basic differences only depend upon the position of the spines. Internal skeletal structure was illustrated for Stylatractona in fossils (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 17, fig. 4; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 3, fig. 8) and a living form (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.10.13).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Druppatractylis</p> <p>The combination of Lithatractus and Lithatractara, and that of Stylatractus and Stylatractara have respectively the same type species. As the definitions written for Lithatractus and Stylatractus are the same even in Campbell (1954: D72 for Lithatractus and D73 for Stylatractus), both these genera are mostly conspecific. Stylatractylis is marked by a thorny or papillate surface (Campbell 1954: D73) but the type-illustration does not match with this description. Based on the principle of the name-bearing specimen, the type species for these three genera has a common structure as written in the Atlas.</p> <p>Ellipsostylus</p> <p>Ellipsostyletta has the same type species as Ellipsostylus. Both Ellipsostylus and Ellipsostylissa have a single elliptical shell and two opposite dissimilar polar spines, but the former has a regular network whereas the latter has an irregular network (Campbell 1954: D68-69 for Ellipsostylus and D69 for Ellipsostylissa). The difference in the network is insufficient as a genus criterion. Sphaerostylomma is marked by two concentric lattice shells, irregular pores with dissimilar sizes and presence of by-spines or thorns on the cortical shell (Campbell 1954: D54). Any specimens identical to the type species of these three genera are very rare so it is not possible to examine their descriptions in detail and these genera are tentatively synonymized here. All these genera are simultaneously established by Haeckel (1887: 299 for Ellipsostylus, 299 for Ellipsostyletta, 301 for Ellipsostylissa, and 140 for Sphaerostylomma). As a real specimen identifiable of Ellipsostylus psittacus, the type species of Ellipsostylus, has been found in the topotypic material of the H.M.S. Challenger Station 265, this genus is selected as a valid genus among the other ones.</p> <p>Lithapium</p> <p>Xiphatractus has the same type species as Xiphatractara. Specimens with no internal structure whose characteristics fit with the type-illustration in Haeckel (1887: pl. 14, fig. 9) are always associate with specimens having three concentric shells in the topotypic material from the H.M.S. Challenger Station 266. Based on this observation, the definition of Lithapium has changed in the Atlas. As Lithapium, the lectotype of Xiphatractium also has three concentric shells (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 12, figs 3a-d). Xiphatractus has three concentric shells based on its type-illustration (Haeckel 1887: pl. 17, fig. 11). Distinguishing characters are an elliptical or pear-shaped cortical shell with a single spine on one pole for Lithapium (Campbell 1954: D69); a cortical shell with a smooth surface and a regular network, and two opposite dissimilar polar spines for Xiphatractus (Campbell 1954: D73); and a cortical shell with a thorny or papillate surface and an irregular network, and also two dissimilar spines for Xiphatractium (Campbell 1954: D73). As indicated by the type-illustration of Lithapium (Haeckel 1887: pl. 14, fig. 9), Lithapium pyriforme has two opposite dissimilar polar spines and this character can be confirmed with topotypic specimens from the H.M.S. Challenger samples (the supporting image for Lithapium). The lectotype of Xiphatractium does not match with the description by Campbell (1954: D73). Rather, pore arrangement and size patterns are the same in the type species of both Xiphatractus and Xiphatractium. Although the exact internal structure is not well known for Xiphatractus and Xiphatractium, it is unnecessary to keep these three genera valid. All genera were simultaneously described in Haeckel (1887: 303 for Lithapium, 332 for Xiphatractus, 331 for Xiphatractara, and 334 for Xiphatractium). Lithapium is validated among them because many representative specimens are found in the topotypic material.</p> <p>Stylatractona</p> <p>The concept of this genus corresponds to the current usage of Amphisphaera. The difference between Stylatractona and Amphisphaerissa at “genus” level is the presence of an irregular network in the former (Campbell 1954: D73) or in the presence of irregular pores with dissimilar sizes in the latter (Campbell 1954: D54). This difference cannot be recognized from type-illustrations (Haeckel 1887: pl. 17, fig. 2 for Stylatractona and pl. 17, fig. 5 for Amphisphaerissa). No other differences are observed in the type species of both these genera. These two genera were simultaneously established in Haeckel (1887: 330 for Stylatractona and 144 for Amphisphaerissa). Stylatractona is validated because of a better illustrated type specimen in Haeckel (1887: pl. 17, fig. 2). The differences between Lithapium and Stylatractona need a more precise study.</p> <p>Stylosphaerantha</p> <p>Xiphosphaerantha is questionably synonymized with Stylosphaerantha herein, in consideration of the same number of shells and the bladed polar spines. This synonymy needs to evaluate by trace of evolutionary continuity between the type species of Stylosphaerantha and that of Xiphosphaerantha.</p> <p>Xiphatractylis</p> <p>Differing from the other genera of the Stylatractidae, Xiphatractylis has several radial spines which are directly connected by radial beams and these radial spines tend to appear in the equatorial zone of the shell. Xiphosphaera was defined by a double medullary shell, two opposite dissimilar polar spines, a regular network, and a spiny or thorny surface (Campbell 1954: D73), but this definition does not match with the lectotype which has only two lattice shells (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 3, figs 6a, 6b). Any well-preserved specimens identifiable as Heliosestarium cretaceum, the type species of Cromydruppocarpus, are not so far formally illustrated, so the total number of shells cannot be confirmed. However, the taxa belonging to the Stylatractidae are rarely associated with robust radial spines in the equatorial zone of the shell. Xiphosphaeromma is defined by the presence of irregular pores with dissimilar sizes, a spiny or thorny surface, two similar polar spines and a single latticed shell (Campbell 1954: D54). The specimen most similar to the type image for Xiphosphaeromma was found from an upper Eocene Barbados sample (supporting image for Xiphosphaeromma). If this specimen is the true Xiphosphaeromma vestum, this genus has three concentric shells and robust radial spines which are not connected by radial beams. This internal structure is similar to that of some Actinommidae. Until the internal structures could be well described, Xiphatractylis, Praestylosphaera, Heliosestarium and Xiphosphaerantha are synonymized herein. The oldest available names are Xiphatractylis and Xiphosphaeromma which were simultaneously published by Haeckel (1887: 322 for Xiphatractylis and 126 for Xiphosphaeromma). As the real type specimen of Xiphatractylis is in the Ehrenberg collection, Xiphatractylis is selected as a valid name.</p> <p>Xiphostylantha</p> <p>Druppatractus hippocampus is the type species of three genera Druppatractus, Druppatractara and Sphaerostylantha. Xiphostylantha was defined by a single lattice shell, two dissimilar polar spines, regular pores with similar sizes, and no by-spines or thorns on the surface (Campbell 1954: D54). The shorter polar spine of Xiphostylus phasianus, the type species of Xiphostylantha, is so characteristic of the Stylatractidae that this species is a synonym of “ Stylosphaera coronata ” (the supporting image for Xiphostylantha). The lectotype of the latter species (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 12, figs 1a-d) has two shells so Xiphostylantha should be regarded as a genus with two shells. Druppatractus is defined by an elliptical shell, a simple medullary shell and two dissimilar polar spines (Campbell 1954: D71). The sphericity of the outer shell in both Xiphostylantha and Druppatractus is a little bit different but it is explained by a difference at the species level. These two genera were simultaneously published by Haeckel (1887: 127 for Xiphostylantha and 324 for Druppatractus). The first genus in Haeckel (1887) is validated.</p> <p>Xiphostylissa</p> <p>Following Campbell (1954: D54), Xiphostylissa and Xiphostyletta have a common structure with a single lattice shell and dissimilar polar spines. The difference is the absence of by-spines and thorns in Xiphostylissa and the presence of byspines and thorns in Xiphostyletta. These characters, however, are helpless to precisely determine the real specimen referable to their type species, Xiphostylus trogon for Xiphostylissa (Haeckel 1887: pl. 14, fig. 12) and Xiphostylus picus for Xiphostyletta (Haeckel 1887: pl. 14, fig.13). Based on the type-illustrations, Xiphostylissa lacks a prominent polar spine whereas Xiphostyletta has a prominent polar spine. The difference in its length can be explained by an intraspecies variation.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Campanian-Holocene.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFA2FE0D05F1FA4DFA734D4D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFACFE0C06A7FD86FDF74880.text	038DDA73FFACFE0C06A7FD86FDF74880.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Stylosphaeridae Haeckel 1887	<div><p>Family STYLOSPHAERIDAE Haeckel, 1887 sensu Dumitrica (1985)Stylosphaerida Haeckel, 1887: 121 [as a family], 133 [as a subfamily]. — Rüst 1892: 141 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 23 [as a family].Stylosphaeridae – Haecker 1908: 440. — Popofsky 1912: 83. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 24; 1945: 11. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 10; 1944b: 4. — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 12. — Deflandre 1953: 417. — Campbell 1954: D53. — Chediya 1959: 78. — Orlev 1959: 433. — Zhamoida &amp; Kozlova 1971: 79. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 141. — Dumitrica 1984: 98; 1985: 185. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 150. — Tan 1998: 121. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 144. — De Wever et al. 2001: 117. — Bragin 2007: 889. — Bragin 2011: 753. — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 10. — Chen et al. 2017: 124. — Dumitrica &amp; Hungerbühler 2017: 88. Stylosphaerinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 24; 1945: 11. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944b: 4. — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 13. — Campbell 1954: D53. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 15; 1984: 118. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S273. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 110. — Bragin 2007: 889. — Bragin 2011: 753.Stylosphaerids – Sugiyama et al. 1992: 11. TYPE GENUS. — Stylosphaera Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [type species by monotypy: Stylosphaera hispida Ehrenberg, 1854b: 246] INCLUDED GENERA. — Druppatractona Haeckel, 1887: 326. — Lithatractona Haeckel, 1887: 322. — Spongatractus Haeckel, 1887: 350 (=? Spongoprunumn. syn.; Spongoxiphus synonymized by Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1973: 519). — Stylosphaera Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Stylosphaerella with the same type species; Stylosphaerissan. syn.). NOMINA DUBIA. — Lithatractium, Lithatractylis, Stylosphaeromma.DIAGNOSIS. — The skeleton consists of one to three concentric shells and two prominent polar spines (that may be absent in older species). The skeleton may also consist of one to three concentric shells with a cluster of shorter polar spines instead of one prominent polar spine. A single or double internal shell is present, the innermost shell is always of ovoid or pyriform shape. The outermost shell is robust and latticed, or made by fine spongy layer. It is of spherical to ellipsoid shape and is connected to the inner shells by many radial spines. The polar spine is usually three-bladed (cylindrical in rare cases) and originates from the innermost shell. The polar spine that joins the sharp end of the pyriform inner shell tends to be shorter than the opposite polar spine. Intraspecific variability, reveals a spectrum of morphotypes differing by having numerous radial beams from the opposite side of the pyriform inner shell, which give rise to the radial spines. Additional radial secondary spines may sometimes be present on the external shell.STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Campanian-Living.REMARKS The Stylosphaeridae are externally similar to the Axoprunidae and Stylatractidae by them having two prominent polar spines. The former family is distinguishable from the Axoprunidae in that the latter has cylindrical polar spines, and microbursa-type microspheres (see remarks for Heliosaturnaloidea). Stylosphaeridae is also different from the Stylatractidae due to its spherical innermost shell. The genera belonging to the Stylosphaeridae can be identified by the number of shells and the type of the polar spines (cylindrical or three-bladed). It is only possible to differentiate Lithatractona from Stylatractona (Stylatractidae) by an examination of the innermost shell. The number and length of radial spines are variable at species level. This is recognized in the late Eocene to early Middle Miocene Stylosphaera radiosa (Gorbunov 1979: pl. 2, figs 2a-2e; Nakaseko 1955: pl. 2, fig. 6; pl. 3, fig. 1; pl. 4, fig. 6; pl. 5, figs 1, 4; Suzuki et al. 2009d: pl. 1, figs 9, 10) and in the extant Stylosphaera pyriformis (Takahashi 1991: pl. 15, fig.12-14; Itaki &amp; BjØrklund 2007: pl. 6, figs 9-13; Nishimura 2015: pl. 11, figs 2-5, 7, 8; Chen et al. 2017: pl. 15, figs 18-21; pl. 28, figs 12-16; pl. 30, figs 8-10; pl. 35, figs 12-19). These observations were possible by the presence of co-occurring variable forms in a single sample. The number and length of radial spines are an important characteristic at genus level but need to be carefully examined. Internal structure for Druppatractus (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 20, fig. 2) and Stylosphaera (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 19, fig. 4; pl. 21, figs 1, 3; pl. 24, figs 1, 4; Nishimura 1982: pl. 2, figs 1-7; Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 15, figs 2, 6, 7) was well illustrated. VALIDITY OF GENERASpongatractus The synonymy between Spongatractus and Spongoxiphus was well established by Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel (1973). Any real specimen identifiable as Spongoprunum, the type species of Spongoprunum, have not been so far illustrated. Spongoprunum is tentatively synonymized with Spongatractus due to the occurrence of their spongy elongate shells. Spongatractus, Spongoprunum and Spongoxiphus were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1887: 350 for Spongatractus, 347 for Spongoprunum, and 353 for Spongoxiphus). In respect to the first reviser rule, Spongatractus is selected as a valid genus between Spongatractus and Spongoxiphus. StylosphaeraStylosphaerella has the same type species as Stylosphaera. Stylosphaerissa is defined by two concentric lattice shells, irregular pores with dissimilar sizes, no by-spines or thorns on the surface (Campbell 1954: D53). The specimen most similar to the illustration of Stylosphaera nana (Haeckel 1887: pl. 16, figs 12, 13) was found in an upper Paleocene to lower Eocene sample from the Pacific Ocean (supporting image of Stylosphaerissa). Based on this specimen, all morphological features, except the shape of the inner shell, do exactly match between them. The real sample has a pyriform inner shell and subsequently Stylosphaerissa is a synonym of Stylosphaera. The oldest available genus is Stylosphaera.</p> <p>sensu Dumitrica (1985)</p> <p>Stylosphaerida Haeckel, 1887: 121 [as a family], 133 [as a subfamily]. — Rüst 1892: 141 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 23 [as a family].</p> <p>Stylosphaeridae – Haecker 1908: 440. — Popofsky 1912: 83. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 24; 1945: 11. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 10; 1944b: 4. — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 12. — Deflandre 1953: 417. — Campbell 1954: D53. — Chediya 1959: 78. — Orlev 1959: 433. — Zhamoida &amp; Kozlova 1971: 79. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 141. — Dumitrica 1984: 98; 1985: 185. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 150. — Tan 1998: 121. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 144. — De Wever et al. 2001: 117. — Bragin 2007: 889. — Bragin 2011: 753. — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 10. — Chen et al. 2017: 124. — Dumitrica &amp; Hungerbühler 2017: 88.</p> <p>Stylosphaerinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 24; 1945: 11. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944b: 4. — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 13. — Campbell 1954: D53. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 15; 1984: 118. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S273. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 110. — Bragin 2007: 889. — Bragin 2011: 753.</p> <p>Stylosphaerids – Sugiyama et al. 1992: 11.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Stylosphaera Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [type species by monotypy: Stylosphaera hispida Ehrenberg, 1854b: 246]</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Druppatractona Haeckel, 1887: 326. — Lithatractona Haeckel, 1887: 322. — Spongatractus Haeckel, 1887: 350 (=? Spongoprunum n. syn.; Spongoxiphus synonymized by Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1973: 519). — Stylosphaera Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Stylosphaerella with the same type species; Stylosphaerissa n. syn.).</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Lithatractium, Lithatractylis, Stylosphaeromma.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — The skeleton consists of one to three concentric shells and two prominent polar spines (that may be absent in older species). The skeleton may also consist of one to three concentric shells with a cluster of shorter polar spines instead of one prominent polar spine. A single or double internal shell is present, the innermost shell is always of ovoid or pyriform shape. The outermost shell is robust and latticed, or made by fine spongy layer. It is of spherical to ellipsoid shape and is connected to the inner shells by many radial spines. The polar spine is usually three-bladed (cylindrical in rare cases) and originates from the innermost shell. The polar spine that joins the sharp end of the pyriform inner shell tends to be shorter than the opposite polar spine. Intraspecific variability, reveals a spectrum of morphotypes differing by having numerous radial beams from the opposite side of the pyriform inner shell, which give rise to the radial spines. Additional radial secondary spines may sometimes be present on the external shell.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Campanian-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Stylosphaeridae are externally similar to the Axoprunidae and Stylatractidae by them having two prominent polar spines. The former family is distinguishable from the Axoprunidae in that the latter has cylindrical polar spines, and microbursa-type microspheres (see remarks for Heliosaturnaloidea). Stylosphaeridae is also different from the Stylatractidae due to its spherical innermost shell. The genera belonging to the Stylosphaeridae can be identified by the number of shells and the type of the polar spines (cylindrical or three-bladed). It is only possible to differentiate Lithatractona from Stylatractona (Stylatractidae) by an examination of the innermost shell. The number and length of radial spines are variable at species level. This is recognized in the late Eocene to early Middle Miocene Stylosphaera radiosa (Gorbunov 1979: pl. 2, figs 2a-2e; Nakaseko 1955: pl. 2, fig. 6; pl. 3, fig. 1; pl. 4, fig. 6; pl. 5, figs 1, 4; Suzuki et al. 2009d: pl. 1, figs 9, 10) and in the extant Stylosphaera pyriformis (Takahashi 1991: pl. 15, fig.12-14; Itaki &amp; BjØrklund 2007: pl. 6, figs 9-13; Nishimura 2015: pl. 11, figs 2-5, 7, 8; Chen et al. 2017: pl. 15, figs 18-21; pl. 28, figs 12-16; pl. 30, figs 8-10; pl. 35, figs 12-19). These observations were possible by the presence of co-occurring variable forms in a single sample. The number and length of radial spines are an important characteristic at genus level but need to be carefully examined. Internal structure for Druppatractus (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 20, fig. 2) and Stylosphaera (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 19, fig. 4; pl. 21, figs 1, 3; pl. 24, figs 1, 4; Nishimura 1982: pl. 2, figs 1-7; Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 15, figs 2, 6, 7) was well illustrated.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Spongatractus</p> <p>The synonymy between Spongatractus and Spongoxiphus was well established by Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel (1973). Any real specimen identifiable as Spongoprunum, the type species of Spongoprunum, have not been so far illustrated. Spongoprunum is tentatively synonymized with Spongatractus due to the occurrence of their spongy elongate shells. Spongatractus, Spongoprunum and Spongoxiphus were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1887: 350 for Spongatractus, 347 for Spongoprunum, and 353 for Spongoxiphus). In respect to the first reviser rule, Spongatractus is selected as a valid genus between Spongatractus and Spongoxiphus.</p> <p>Stylosphaera</p> <p>Stylosphaerella has the same type species as Stylosphaera. Stylosphaerissa is defined by two concentric lattice shells, irregular pores with dissimilar sizes, no by-spines or thorns on the surface (Campbell 1954: D53). The specimen most similar to the illustration of Stylosphaera nana (Haeckel 1887: pl. 16, figs 12, 13) was found in an upper Paleocene to lower Eocene sample from the Pacific Ocean (supporting image of Stylosphaerissa). Based on this specimen, all morphological features, except the shape of the inner shell, do exactly match between them. The real sample has a pyriform inner shell and subsequently Stylosphaerissa is a synonym of Stylosphaera. The oldest available genus is Stylosphaera.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFACFE0C06A7FD86FDF74880	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFADFE0F06A4FF06FD4149AF.text	038DDA73FFADFE0F06A4FF06FD4149AF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tubosphaeridae Suzuki & Caulet & Dumitrica 2021	<div><p>Family TUBOSPHAERIDAE Suzuki, n. fam.</p> <p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: A8584914-5C69-4F52-A4B5-B93D21B66EA3</p> <p>Staurostylida Haeckel, 1882: 450 [nomen dubium, as a tribe].</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Tubosphaera Popofsky, 1917: 268 [type species by monotypy: Tubosphaera quadrispina Popofsky, 1917: 268].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Staurosphaerella Haeckel, 1887: 154. — Stauroxiphos Haeckel, 1887: 163 (= Staurolonchidium n. syn.). — Stylostaurus Haeckel, 1882: 450. — Tubosphaera Popofsky, 1917: 268.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Staurosphaeromma, Staurostylus.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Skeleton consists of four radial spines and one to three spherical shells.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — late Middle Eocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This new family is represented by some genera previously included in the “Staurostylidae”. Because the type genus Staurostylus is a nomen dubium based on a poorly illustrated Mesozoic specimen, a new family name is required. There are some doubts regarding the phylogenetic relationships among the assigned genera, but no other appropriate family is yet available.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Stauroxiphos</p> <p>Real specimens with two shells and four decussate radial spines aligned on the equatorial plane are quite rare. Staurolonchidium is synonymized with Stauroxiphos for an easy identification until new information is provided in the future.</p> <p>Incertae familiae spumellarians</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Peritiviator Pessagno, 1976: 45. — Tanochenia Dumitrica, 2014b: 95. — Tepka Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel in Sanfilippo et al., 1973: 228.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Hollis (1997: 43; pl. 4, fig. 16) regarded Peritiviator as a genus of Phorticiidae (originally Pyloniidae). However, the high contrast photo makes this impossible to confirm. Tepka was once considered as Nassellaria (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 870) but nothing is known about the complete appearance of this genus, making this grouping impossible to confirm. Tanochenia seems to be an endemic form; its internal skeletal structure was already illustrated (Dumitrica 2014b: pl. 1, figs 1-4).</p> <p>Orphaned spumellarian family ranks</p> <p>Discida Haeckel, 1862: 239-240, 476-485 [invalid name, as a family]; 1882: 456 [as a family]; 1884: 29 [as a family]. — Claus 1876: 160 [as a family]. — Dunikowski 1882: 190 [as a family]. — Lankester 1885: 849 [as a family].</p> <p>Polysphaerida Zittel, 1876-1880: 120 [invalid name, rank un- known]. — Stöhr 1880: 90 [as a family].</p> <p>Dyssphaeriden [sic] Hertwig, 1879: 179-185 [invalid name] (= Dyosphaeriden) [as a family].</p> <p>Disciden – Hertwig 1879: 185-196 [invalid name, as a family].</p> <p>Discidae – Pantanelli 1880: 48 [invalid name].</p> <p>Sphaerida Haeckel, 1882: 448 [invalid name, as a family]. — Dunikowski 1882: 184 [as a family].</p> <p>Dyosphaerida Haeckel, 1882: 451 [invalid name, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Polysphaeria Haeckel, 1882: 454 [invalid name, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Pylocapsida Haeckel, 1882: 463 [nomen nudum, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Pylophormida Haeckel, 1882: 463 [invalid name, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Sphaeroida – Haeckel 1884: 28-29 [invalid name, as a family].</p> <p>Diplozonaria Haeckel, 1887: 632, 640 [invalid name]. — Schröder 1909: 53 [as a subfamily]. — Tan &amp; Chen 1990: 111-113 (sensu emend.); Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 243 [as a subfamily]. — Tan 1998: 252 [as a subfamily]. — Chen et al. 2017: 151 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Haplozonaria Haeckel, 1887: 632 [invalid name, as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 53 [as a subfamily]. — Tan &amp; Chen 1990: 124-125; 1999: 257 [as a subfamily]. — Tan 1998: 270 [as a subfamily]. — Chen et al. 2017: 150 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Triplozonaria Haeckel, 1887: 632, 656 [invalid name, as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 53 [as a subfamily]. — Tan &amp; Chen in Tan 1998: 267 [as a subfamily]. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 255 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Monostomida Dreyer, 1889: 12 [invalid name, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Amphistomida Dreyer, 1889: 25 [invalid name, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Sphaeroidea – Deflandre 1953: 415 (sensu emend.) [invalid name, as a superfamily].</p> <p>Discoidea – Deflandre 1953: 416, 422 [invalid name, as a superfamily]. — Chediya 1959: 120 [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Diplozonarinae – Chediya 1959: 154 [invalid name].</p> <p>Haplozonarinae – Chediya 1959: 154 [invalid name].</p> <p>Triplozonarinae – Chediya 1959: 155 [invalid name].</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Families with no assigned species that are identified as probable Spumellaria and nomen nudum without any taxonomic information are simply listed herein. This list does not include any higher rank than the family-rank (e.g., Discida).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFADFE0F06A4FF06FD4149AF	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFAEFE0F058DF8D8FC2A4C63.text	038DDA73FFAEFE0F058DF8D8FC2A4C63.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Entactinaria Kozur & Mostler 1982	<div><p>Order ENTACTINARIA Kozur &amp; Mostler, 1982</p> <p>Molecular phylogenetic lineage III (Sandin et al. 2021)</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — One, to rarely two or three, spherical cortical shells, whose wall are made of a spongy layer or of a spherical shape consisting of a full coarse mesh. The central cubic structure is framed with sharp corners and contains a heteropolar microsphere; with</p> <p>MB and two A-rays on its top. Following an author’s recommen- dation (PD), the Lineage III is regarded as a living Entactinaria. Nonetheless, it is noted that the true genus Entactinia have a MB and two sets of radial rays at both ends; however, it has never been observed in living Entactinaria (Nakamura et al. 2020: supplement).</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>We include the Rhizosphaeroidea (Clade G: Haliommilla, Rhizosphaera), Centrocuboidea (Clade H: Octodendron; Clade I: Plegmosphaeromma), Centrolonchoidea, Heliosaturnaloidea and Thalassothamnoidea in the Entactinaria sensu Dumitrica, but the diagnosis for the Lineage III shown above does not include Centrolonchoidea, Heliosaturnaloidea and Thalassothamnoidea due to the lack of molecular support. The axopodial system was regarded as a determinant character applicable to superfamily or order level taxonomy (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960; Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985). However, molecular phylogenetic studies (Sandin et al. 2021) discarded this hypothesis.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFAEFE0F058DF8D8FC2A4C63	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFAEFE0E0676FC44FDBE4EFD.text	038DDA73FFAEFE0E0676FC44FDBE4EFD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhizosphaeroidea Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Superfamily RHIZOSPHAEROIDEA Haeckel, 1882 n. stat.</p> <p>Rhizosphaerida Haeckel, 1882: 455 [as a tribe].</p> <p>Anaxoplastidiés [pars] Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960: 22-23, 30-31, 69, 112-113 (= Macrosphaeridae + Centrocubidae). — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1972c: 297-300.</p> <p>Périaxoplastidiés [pars] Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960: 20-22, 25-30, 48, 68, 85 (= Cenosphaeridae + Stigmophaeridae + Excentroconchidae + Heliasteridae). — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1972c: 293-297.</p> <p>Cryptoaxoplastidés Cachon &amp; Cachon, 1972c: 303-305.</p> <p>Periaxoplastidies [pars] Anderson, 1983: 49.</p> <p>Cryptoaxoplastida Cachon &amp; Cachon, 1985: 286 [as an order].</p> <p>Periaxoplastida [pars] – Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 288.</p> <p>Cryptoaxoplastidiata – Cachon et al. 1989: 341.</p> <p>Periaxoplastidiata [pars] – Cachon et al. 1989: 341.</p> <p>Capsulata Afanasieva &amp; Amon in Afanasieva, Amon, Agarkov &amp; Boltovskoy, 2005: S278 [as an order of Class Spumellaria] (= Centrocubidae + Quinquecapsulariidae + Rhizosphaeridae). — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 116 [as an order].</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Spherical entactinarians with a cortical and a single or double medullary shell. First medullary shell ovoid, or spherical, with spicule ectopically placed in its wall. Spicule with a median bar, two apical spines and four basal spines. All spines well developed, radially prolonged to the cortical shell, or short, prolonged only to the second medullary shell, or even shorter.</p> <p>REMARKS This superfamily was established in order to separate the Rhizosphaeridae from the Centrocuboidea at superfamily level. The central structure is more similar to that of the Heliosaturnaloidea, rather than that of the Centrocuboidea and Centrolonchoidea, when accounting for the presence of a “microbursa-like” central structure (Dumitrica et al. 2010: 285). Afanasieva et al. (2005) proposed an Order “ Capsulata ” to include the families Centrocubidae, Quinquecapsulariidae and Rhizosphaeridae. Unfortunately, their rank concept is unacceptable when considering higher rank consistency in Eukaryotes compiled by Adl et al. (2019).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFAEFE0E0676FC44FDBE4EFD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFAFFE0905DDFE09FEEE4D3D.text	038DDA73FFAFFE0905DDFE09FEEE4D3D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhizosphaeridae Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Family RHIZOSPHAERIDAE Haeckel, 1882</p> <p>sensu Dumitrica (2017b)</p> <p>Rhizosphaerida Haeckel, 1882: 455 [as a tribe]. — Dunikowski 1882: 188 [as a tribe]. — Haeckel 1887: 209 [as a tribe]. — Schröder 1909: 18 [as a tribe].</p> <p>Elatommida Haeckel, 1887: 208 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]. — Schröder 1909: 16 [as a rank between subfamily and genus].</p> <p>Actinosphaerinae Mast, 1910: 40. — Popofsky 1912: 93, 101.</p> <p>Rhizosphaeridae – Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: 69, 95, 106. — Petrushevskaya 1975: 571. — Anderson 1983: 51. — Dumitrica 1984: 99. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 287 [in Order Centroaxoplastida]. — De Wever et al. 2001: 201-202 [in Entactinaria]. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S278 [in Order Capsulata]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 117. — Dumitrica 2017b: 471-473 (sensu emend.) [in Order Entactinaria].</p> <p>Rhizosphaerinae –Petrushevskaya 1979: 107; Petrushevskaya 1986: 127. — Dumitrica 2017b: 478.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Rhizosphaera Haeckel, 1861b: 840 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D68): Rhizosphaera leptomita Haeckel, 1861b: 840].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA (Cenozoic genera only). — Haliommilla Haeckel, 1887: 226 (= Actinosphaera with the same type species; Elatommura synonymized byDumitrica 2017b: 478). — Heliosoma Haeckel, 1882: 451 (= Heliosomantha with the same type species). — Hexarhizacontium Dumitrica, 2017b: 488. — Rhizosphaera Haeckel, 1861b: 840. NOMINA DUBIA. — Elatomma, Elatommella, Pityomma.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYM. — Rhizospongia Hertwig, 1932 nec d’Orbigny, 1852.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Shell with one (rarely two to three) spherical cortical shells and a medullary shell. The medullary shell contains a centrally-placed innermost microsphere that is covered by a sponge-like or latticed frame network. The innermost microsphere does not form a discrete shell. Instead, MB, two A-rays (apical rays) and four B-rays (basal rays) are identified on the microsphere. The A-rays are equals or unequals in appearance and are commonly not connected. The B-rays are interconnected by several arches to form part of the outer sponge-like, or latticed, coarse frame network. The network, outside of the innermost microsphere, tends to develop further on the opposite side of the MB rather than on the MB side of the microsphere. The spherical cortical shell is latticed or sponge-like. Regarding the axopodial system of centroaxoplastid-type: the axoplast is located in the center of the shell and the nucleus wraps the axoplast. Bundles of axoneme from the axoplast penetrate through the fine tunnels that are surrounded by the nucleus membrane. The endoplasm is a gray to yellowish orange color and occupies a large portion inside the cortical shell. The axopodia is flexible (Haliomma capillacea, Rhizosphaera trigonacantha) or robust and straight (Rhizosphaera arcadophora). Algal symbionts are absent in H. capillacea and R. trigonacantha but are scattered throughout the endoplasm in R. arcadophora.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The internal skeletal structure of Haliommilla has been well documented (Cachon &amp; Cachon 1972b; pl. 11, fig. a; Takahashi 1991: pl. 9, fig. 2; van de Paverd 1995: pl. 14, figs 1, 2, 3; Suzuki et al. 2009a: figs 1.3, 1.6; Dumitrica 2017b: pl. 3, figs 3-6; pl. 4, figs 1-7), Hexarhizacontium (Dumitrica 2017b: pl. 9, figs 1-6), and Rhizosphaera (Dumitrica 1973a: pl. 7, fig. 4; 2017b: pl. 4, figs 8, 9; pl. 5, figs 1-4; pl. 6, figs 1-3; pl. 7, figs 1-12; pl. 8, figs 1-14; Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 9, figs 2, 3; Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 15, figs 8-10?). Major living members of Rhizosphaera in the modern taxonomy are Rhizosphaera banzare (Riedel, 1958) (= so-called Actinomma antarctica Haeckel, 1887, an unillustrated species), Rhizosphaera mediana (Nigrini, 1967) and Rhizosphaera aracadophora (Haeckel, 1887). These species were referred by Nigrini (1967: 26) to the genus in order to expand the definition of Actinomma to include a medullary meshwork. This idea was eventually discarded by both anatomical (Dumitrica 2017b) and molecular phylogenic studies (Sandin et al. 2021). It is generally difficult to identify living cells with protoplasm as their important skeletal characteristics are hidden within the protoplasm, but this is not the case for Haliommilla and Rhizosphaera. Abundant Haliommilla and Rhizosphaera specimens are easily collected in plankton samplings and the relationships between the protoplasm and the skeleton has been easily observed. Protoplasmic structures of Haliomma and Rhizosphaera were already illustrated in the 1870s for Haliommilla (Hertwig 1879: pl. 4, figs 1, 3). The fatal symbiosis (Hertwig 1932: pls 3-5), axopodial system (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1954: fig. c; 1960: pl. 5, figs 1-8), and ultrafine protoplasmic structure (Cachon &amp; Cachon 1972b; Anderson 1984: fig. 8) were studied. Images of living specimens and protoplasm were captured for Haliommilla (Suzuki et al. 2009a: figs 1.1, 1.4, 1.8; Matsuoka 2017: figs 5.1, 5.2) and Rhizosphaera (Anderson 1984: fig.8; 1994: fig.4; Suzuki 2005: pl. 1, figs 1-8;Matsuoka 2017: fig. 4.2; Matsuoka et al. 2017: appendix A). Fine protoplasmic structure was also illustrated in Haliommilla (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 5, figs 4, 6; pl. 20, fig. 1; pl. 34, fig. 2; pl. 52, figs 1, 2) and Rhizosphaera (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 5, figs 1-3, 5, 7, 8; pl. 24, fig. 1; pl. 34, fig. 1; pl. 49, figs 1-4; pl. 50, figs 1-5; pl. 51, figs 1-3; pl. 59, fig. 1). Protoplasm and algal symbionts were documented by epi-fluorescent observation with DAPI dyeing in Haliommilla (Suzuki et al. 2009b: figs 3K, 3L; Zhang et al. 2018: 17, fig. 3) and Rhizosphaera (Ogane et al. 2009c: fig. 3A-3D; 2010: figs 1.1-1.2, 2.1-2.2; 2014; pl. 1, figs 3-4; Zhang et al. 2018: 11, fig. 28). Haliommilla is infected by the syndinean dinoflagellate genus Euduboscquella (Suzuki et al. 2009b; Bachvaroff et al. 2012). According to Cachon (1964), “ Actinosphaera ” is infected by Hollandella piriformis, but it is impossible to amend the taxonomic name of the host without a complete image.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Haliommilla</p> <p>Actinosphaera has the same type species as Haliommilla. It is noted that the description of the internal structure in Haliom-</p> <p>milla and Elatommura by Campbell (1954: D62) is already outdated. Haliommilla is marked by radial spines covering whole surface (Campbell 1954: D62) whereas Elatommura is by an outer shell covered by branched radial spines (Campbell 1954: D62). This difference is not necessary to use for genus classification. These two genera were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1887: 236 for Haliommilla and 242 for Elatommura). As the real Haliomma capillaceum specimen examined by Haeckel himself, the type species of Haliommilla, was found in the Enrst-Haeckel Haus, Jena, Germany (Sakai et al. 2009: pl. 23, fig. 4a), Haliommilla is selected as a valid genus.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFAFFE0905DDFE09FEEE4D3D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFA8FE0905B3FD46FE304BD9.text	038DDA73FFA8FE0905B3FD46FE304BD9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Centrocuboidea Hollande & Enjumet, 1960 sensu Dumitrica 2001	<div><p>Superfamily CENTROCUBOIDEA Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960 sensu Dumitrica (2001)</p> <p>Centrocubidae Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960: 48, 51, 69, 120-121.</p> <p>Centrocubacea [sic] – Dumitrica 2001: 193 (= Centrocuboidea).</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — The central structure is very small: a simple frame made of short bars with several sharp corners. The external skeleton is outside the central structure. It is spherical, made of a normal latticed shell, a spongy layered shell, and is full of coarse polygonal meshes.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Centrocuboidea consist of the Centrocubidae (Clade H), Excentroconchidae (Clade I), Quinquecapsulariidae and Spongodrymidae (Clade I) in the Cenozoic. The presence of sharp corners on the edges of the central structure is helpful in differentiating Centrocuboidea from other superfamilies such as the Rhizosphaeroidea.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFA8FE0905B3FD46FE304BD9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFA8FE080592FAEFFE1B4C18.text	038DDA73FFA8FE080592FAEFFE1B4C18.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Centrocubidae Hollande & Enjumet 1960	<div><p>Family CENTROCUBIDAE Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960 sensu De Wever et al. (2001)Centrocubidae Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960: 48, 51, 69, 120-121. — Petrushevskaya 1975: 571. — Anderson 1983: 52. — Dumitrica 1983a: 224 [in Spumellaria]; 1984: 95. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 286 [in Order Cryptoaxoplastida]. — Kiessling 1999: 44 [in Entactinaria]. — De Wever et al. 2001: 197, 200 [in Entactinaria]. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S278 [in Order Capsulata]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 116. Centrocubinae – Petrushevskaya 1979: 108. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979:15.</p> <p>sensu De Wever et al. (2001)</p> <p>Centrocubidae Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960: 48, 51, 69, 120-121. — Petrushevskaya 1975: 571. — Anderson 1983: 52. — Dumitrica 1983a: 224 [in Spumellaria]; 1984: 95. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 286 [in Order Cryptoaxoplastida]. — Kiessling 1999: 44 [in Entactinaria]. — De Wever et al. 2001: 197, 200 [in Entactinaria]. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S278 [in Order Capsulata]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 116.</p> <p>Centrocubinae – Petrushevskaya 1979: 108. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979:15.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Centrocubus Haeckel, 1887: 277 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D66): Centrocubus cladostylus Haeckel, 1887: 278].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA (CENOZOIC ONLY). — Centrocubus Haeckel, 1887: 277. — Octodendron Haeckel, 1887: 279 (= Octodendridium with the same type species; Heterospongus n. syn.).</p> <p>NOMEN DUBIUM. — Octodendronium.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — The central structure is constructed of a cubic frame and eight rays emerging from the cubic frame. The external part outside the cubic frame consists of a spherical shell made of homogenous layers of coarse polygonal meshes, or a spherical shell made of coarse polygonal meshes. Eight or more radial bladed spines are present. Eight radial spines directly arise from the eight internal rays while the remaining radial spines appear at some points of the shell and are made of coarse polygonal meshes.</p> <p>The protoplasm is observed in Centrocubus. The endoplasm occupies the central part and appears as a dark brown sphere surrounded by a brownish grey ectoplasm. The ectoplasm is distributed in the inner half of the meshed shell. In regard to the axopodial system of an anaxoplastid-type; no axoplast and no bundles of axonemes are observed. The central structure is attached to the nucleus which is located at the center of the intracapsular zone. Instead of bundles of axoneme, the axoneme densely radiates throughout the endoplasm. No algal symbionts were detected.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — early Middle Miocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>It is nearly impossible to differentiate Centrocubus from Spongodendron and Spongosphaera (Spongosphaeridae) without an examination of its central structure. However, it may be possible to identify these species by an examination of both siliceous skeletal parts and protoplasmic characteristics. A fixed image with dyeing was published for Centrocubus (Aita et al. 2009: pl. 23, fig. 3). The living status of Centrocubus is plausible if the photo of “Ses55” specimen of Sandin et al. (2021) is compared to the pl. 23, fig. 3 of Aita et al. (2009). A specimen covered with protoplasm may appear different when observed. Living specimens of Spongosphaera, Tetrasphaera (? Spongodrymidae), Cladococcus and “ Elaphococcus ” (Cladococcidae) are well documented due to the fact that these genera are commonly found in warm shallow seawaters; such good documentation enables differentiation from Centrocubus easier. The endoplasm of Lychnosphaera (Cladococcidae) never covers the outer part of the skeleton. Consequently, it cannot be confused with Centrocubus even in living cells. However, the living status of Spongodendron has not been confirmed making difficult to compare them with living cells. The living specimen shown in De Wever et al. (1994: figs 13, 16) was identified as Octodendron but it is impossible to confirm this identification given the quality of the images. The fine protoplasmic structure was illustrated for Centrocubus (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 9, fig. 7; pl. 13, figs 1-8; pl. 26, fig. 3; pl. 60, fig. 1), and Octodendron (pl. 60, fig. 7).</p> <p>The internal skeletal structure for Centrocubus was documented (Dumitrica 1983a: pl. 3, figs 1-3; van de Paverd 1995: pl. 27, figs 1, 2). The overall character of the specimen illustrated in van de Paverd (1995: pl. 26, fig. 2) is identical to Octodendron, but the central structure is probably the same as that of the Excentroconchidae. A new and undescribed genus probably belongs to this family (e.g., Aita et al. 2009: pl. 40, fig. 1; pl. 43, fig. 3). Old Centrocubidae genera such as the Triassic Arcicubulus (Dumitrica 1983a), the Jurassic Solicubulus (Dumitrica 1983a), and the Cretaceous Marianasphaera (Li &amp; Sashida in Li et al. 2011) and Pessagnulus (Dumitrica 1983a) are also included in this family.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Octodendron</p> <p>Octodendridium has the same type species as Octodendron. Genera in the Centrocubidae are mainly classified by the construction of the microsphere, the number of rays from the microsphere, branched patterns of these rays, and relationship of rays with shells. Heterospongus is defined by branched eight main spines, cube-shaped microsphere, radial spines produced from corners (Campbell 1954: D68). Octodendron is defined by latticed cortical shell surrounded by spongy network which may bear small radial spines and no secondary radial spines (Campbell 1954: D68). Ridiculously, attention points are not overlapped each other between these definitions, it is unable to pinpoint the difference points from them. The definition of Octodendron is properly applicable for Heterospongus; on the other hand, that of Heterospongus is also properly applicable for Octodendron. This concludes the synonymy relationship even under the concept of Campbell (1954). As Octodendridium is simultaneously published as a subgenus of Octodendron with Octodendron in Haeckel (1887), Octodendron prioritized over Octodendridium as a valid name.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFA8FE080592FAEFFE1B4C18	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFA9FE0805BDFC2CFB854C23.text	038DDA73FFA9FE0805BDFC2CFB854C23.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Excentroconchidae Hollande & Enjumet, 1960 sensu Dumitrica 2014	<div><p>Family EXCENTROCONCHIDAE Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960 sensu Dumitrica (2014a)</p> <p>Excentroconchidae Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960: 68, 86. — Dumitrica 1979: 18; 1984: 94; 2001: 193-194 (sensu emend.); 2014a: 59-60 [in Entactinaria]. — Petrushevskaya 1979: 105. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 33. — Anderson 1983: 50. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 288 [in the Order Periaxoplastida].</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Excentroconcha Mast, 1910: 64 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D67): Excentroconcha minor Mast, 1910: 64].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Excentroconcha Mast, 1910: 64. — Gonosphaera JØrgensen, 1905: 132. — Lonchosphaera Popofsky, 1908: 217 (= Arachnostylus synonymized by Dumitrica 1984: 94).</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — The central structure consists of an MB, two A-rays, four B-rays (rarely two), one to three AA-rays, and a central frame. The MB is also a part of the central frame. A-rays, B-rays and AArays are oriented towards upper, lateral (equatorial) and lower directions, respectively, from the central frame. A-rays emerge from both ends of MB. Four B-rays extend laterally from each corner of the central frame at the equatorial plane. The central frame is vertically subdivided into upper and lower hemispheres by the height level of the central frame where B-rays are joined. The upper hemisphere of the central frame is constructed by the MB and four to three downward rays. The lower hemisphere is variable but two sets of the four downward rays are joined near the opposite side of MB, respectively. The junction point is visible from a view parallel to MB. These two joint points are connected by a small arch at the antapical end of the central frame (named the antapical arch). The plane of the antapical arch is perpendicularly oriented to the length of MB. One to three AA-rays extend from the end of the antapical arch towards the opposite direction of the double A-rays. Some members develop an additional equatorial ring that is also connected by four B-rays and, or, other arches in the lower hemisphere of the central frame. One latticed, one spongy layered cortical shell, or a spherical structure made of coarse spongy meshwork is present. Short to long radial spines directly connected to the internal rays or beams are visible. The by-spine may be present or absent.</p> <p>Regarding the axopodial system of periaxoplastid-type; the axoplast is located at the center of the protoplasm and a bundle of axonemes radiates from the center. The nucleus is independent of the axopodial system and has an arch shape. No axoflagellum was recognized. The central structure is attached to the capsular wall, placing it at the center of the skeleton. The arched nucleus is placed on the opposite side of the central structure.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — early Early Miocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This family is specified by reference to fig. 3 in Dumitrica (2014a). Some undescribed species remain. The internal skeletal structure for Lonchosphaera (Helmcke &amp; Bach 1990: 75; Matsuoka 2009: fig. 3.12; Dumitrica 2014a: figs 3.a-3.h) was illustrated. The fine protoplasmic structure was illustrated for Excentroconcha (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 1, fig. 7; pl. 19, fig. 5; pl. 43, fig. 1) and Lonchosphaera (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 1, figs 8, 9).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFA9FE0805BDFC2CFB854C23	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFA9FE080657FC44FADC4880.text	038DDA73FFA9FE080657FC44FADC4880.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Quinquecapsulariidae Dumitrica 1995	<div><p>Family QUINQUECAPSULARIIDAE Dumitrica, 1995</p> <p>Quinquecapsulariidae Dumitrica, 1995: 21. — De Wever et al. 2001: 200-201 [in Entactinaria]. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S278 [in Order Capsulata]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 117.</p> <p>Quinquecapsulariidae O’Dogherty, 1994: 268 [nomen nudum].</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Quinquecapsularia Pessagno, 1971b: 362 [type species by objective designation: Quinquecapsularia spinosa Pessagno, 1971b: 364].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA (CENOZOIC ONLY). — Joergensenium BjØrklund, Dumitrica, Dolven &amp; Swanberg, 2008: 460.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — The central structure is very small with twin pentagonal frames located parallel to each other. Three to five connecting bars between these two pentagonal frames are present. This central structure comprises two acute corners and one straight beam is arising from each corner. A Cenozoic member of this family has three concentric shells: the innermost shell is the central structure, the second internal shell is a spherical outer medullary shell with a patterned, indented surface, and the outermost is large latticed cortical shell. The shape of the outer medullary shell is closely related by radial beams. The endoplasm completely surrounds the outer medullary shell.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Miocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The family Quinquecapsulariidae was initially proposed for a Cretaceous spherical polycystine Quinquecapsularia spinosa Pessagno, 1972. Joergensenium is the only known Cenozoic genus. The oldest report of this family dates back to the Early Jurassic (Empirea Whalen &amp; Carter in Carter et al. 1998). BjØrklund et al. (2008) insisted on Joergensenium being an endemic Norwegian genus but the Joergensenium -species was already identified everywhere in the Neogene.The Internal skeletal structure for Joergensenium was illustrated (Ikenoue et al. 2016; pl. 6). Based on molecular data, Joergensenium is infected with Marine Alveolata Groups I and II (Ikenoue et al. 2016).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFA9FE080657FC44FADC4880	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFAAFE0B0681FB49FA564874.text	038DDA73FFAAFE0B0681FB49FA564874.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Entactinaria	<div><p>Superfamily CENTROLONCHOIDEA Campbell, 1954 n. stat.Centrolonchinae Campbell, 1954: D60.Hexastyloidea – Petrushevskaya 1975: 567 [nomen dubium]. — Dumitrica 1979: 15-16; 1984: 91.Hexastylioidea – Petrushevskaya 1979: 104 [nomen dubium]; 1984: 128; 1986: 125. Hexastylacea – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1981: 5-12 [nomen dubium, as a superfamily]; 1982: 402 [as a superfamily in Entactinaria]. Hexastyliidae [sic] – Dumitrica 1984: 93-94 [nomen dubium] (= Hexastylidae). Hexasilioidea [sic] – Amon 2000: 29 [nomen dubium] (= Hexastyloidea).</p> <p>Campbell, 1954 n. stat.</p> <p>Centrolonchinae Campbell, 1954: D60.</p> <p>Hexastyloidea – Petrushevskaya 1975: 567 [nomen dubium]. — Dumitrica 1979: 15-16; 1984: 91.</p> <p>Hexastylioidea – Petrushevskaya 1979: 104 [nomen dubium]; 1984: 128; 1986: 125.</p> <p>Hexastylacea – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1981: 5-12 [nomen dubium, as a superfamily]; 1982: 402 [as a superfamily in Entactinaria].</p> <p>Hexastyliidae [sic] – Dumitrica 1984: 93-94 [nomen dubium] (= Hexastylidae).</p> <p>Hexasilioidea [sic] – Amon 2000: 29 [nomen dubium] (= Hexastyloidea).</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Same as the family.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The reason why Centrolonchoidea is validated as opposed to Hexastyloidea is written in the remarks for Centrolonchidae.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFAAFE0B0681FB49FA564874	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFAAFE0B0588FF06FB9F4B7D.text	038DDA73FFAAFE0B0588FF06FB9F4B7D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Spongodrymidae Haeckel 1887	<div><p>Family SPONGODRYMIDAE Haeckel, 1887 n. stat.</p> <p>Spongodrymida Haeckel, 1887:209 [as a tribe]. — Schröder 1909: 17 [as a tribe].</p> <p>Tetrasphaeria Haeckel, 1882: 453 [as a subfamily, nomen nudum].</p> <p>Plegmosphaerida Haeckel, 1882: 455 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 60, 86 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 6 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Tetrasphaeridae – Enriques 1932: 987.</p> <p>Plegmosphaerinae – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 10 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D50. — Chediya 1959: 72. — Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: 68, 102. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 225. — Petrushevskaya 1979: 109. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 287. — Tan 1998: 101. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 128.</p> <p>Spongodryminae – Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: 104. — Anderson 1983: 50-51, 57, 170. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 287.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Spongodrymus Haeckel, 1882: 455 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D96): Spongodrymus elaphococcus Haeckel, 1887: 272].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Plegmosphaeromma Haeckel, 1887: 89. — Spongodictyum Haeckel, 1862: 459 (= Spongodictyoma with the same type species). — Spongodrymus Haeckel, 1882: 455. —? Tetrasphaera Popofsky, 1912: 111. —? Tricorporisphaera O’Connor, 1999: 4.</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Spongodictyon.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Dictyoplegma, Dictyosphagma, Dispongia, Plegmosphaera, Plegmosphaerantha, Plegmosphaerella, Plegmosphaerusa, Spongiommella, Spongothamnus, Styptosphaera.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYM. — Dictyosoma Müller 1856 (= Dictyoplegma) nec Temminck &amp; Schlegel, 1845.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Spherical spongy cortical shell with a variable number of medullary shells, a very delicately framed central structure and no robust three-bladed radial beams are present.</p> <p>A brownish to reddish brown opaque endoplasm occupies almost all shells, excluding the peripheral parts of the skeleton. The capsular wall is well visible. An ectoplasmic membrane covers all skeletons including by-spines. No algal symbionts are observed. Axopodial system of centroaxoplastid-type: axoplast placed in the center of the intracapsular zone as a very small fused point and no significant bundles of axoneme. Instead of bundles, axoneme radiate evenly throughout the intracapsular zone. Nucleus is placed in the center of the intracapsular zone and enclosing the axoplast.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Pleistocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The number of medullary shells is varied among the genera belonging to Spongodrymidae and the central structure is unstable in several genera. Spongodrymus species at least have a single framed microsphere with fibrous radial beams radiating from the microsphere.Both Spongodictyum and Tricorporisphaera seem to possess latticed double medullary shells. Tetrasphaera has three concentric medullary shells and always co-occurs with Plegmosphaeromma in a same sample. Tricorporisphaera has mildly bladed radial beams arising from the medullary shell.In contrast, both Spongodictyum and Tetrasphaera have fibrous radial beams comparable to Spongodrymus. The family “Tetrasphaeria” was proposed by Haeckel (1882), prior to the establishment of the tribe “Spongodrymida” by Haeckel (1887) himself. The genus Tetrasphaera was first established byPopofsky (1912), and subsequently Haeckel’s family “Tetrasphaeria” became nomen nudum.</p> <p>The internal skeletal structure was illustrated for the “ Plegmosphaerusa ”-form of Plegmosphaeromma (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 10, fig. 1) and the “ Styptosphaera ”- form of Plegmosphaeromma (Suzuki 1998b: pl. 3, fig. 1). The fine protoplasmic structure was illustrated for the “ Plegmosphaerella ”- form of Plegmosphaeromma (Swanberg et al. 1990; pl. 3, figs 1-6), Plegmosphaeromma (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 7, figs 7-9; pl. 8, figs 1-9; pl. 10, figs 1-8; pl. 48, figs 1-5) and Spongodrymus (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 7, fig. 3). An image of living specimens was captured for the “ Plegmosphaerella ”- form of Plegmosphaeromma (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.8.) and protoplasm and algal symbionts were documented by epi-fluorescent observation with DAPI dyeing for the Plegmosphaerusa - form of Plegmosphaeromma (Zhang et al. 2018: 19, fig. 1). According to Cachon (1964), “ Plegmosphaera ” is infected with Hollandella lobata, but it is impossible to amend the taxonomic name for the host without its overall image.</p> <p>Several papers for living radiolarian studies wrote about “ Spongodrymus sp. (spp.)”, but its identification is doubtful because “ Spongodrymus ” appears as nearly covered by full opaque endoplasm, similar in appearance to Spongosphaeromma and the Elaphococcus -form of Cladococcus (Cladococcidae). These papers never clarified the key points distinguishing between the above-mentioned genera.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFAAFE0B0588FF06FB9F4B7D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFAAFE0A0648F88FFBA74B82.text	038DDA73FFAAFE0A0648F88FFBA74B82.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Calocyclas sensu emend.	<div><p>Family CENTROLONCHIDAE Campbell, 1954 sensu Hollande &amp; Enjumet (1960) Centrolonchinae Campbell, 1954: D60. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 29 (sensu emend.). Hexastylida Haeckel, 1882: 450 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 170-171 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 8 [as a subfamily].Hexastylinae – Campbell 1954: D58 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 90. — Dieci 1964: 185.Stigmosphaeridae Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960: 68, 86, 89 [nomen dubium]. — Anderson 1983: 49-50. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 288 [in Order Periaxoplastida]. Hexastylidae – Petrushevskaya 1975: 567 [nomen dubium]; 1979: 104-105. — Dumitrica 1979: 16, 18. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1981: 12 (sensu emend.); 1982: 402-403 [in Entactinaria]. — Dumitrica 1995: 21. — Amon 2000: 29. — De Wever et al. 2001: 202-203 [in Entactinaria]. — Suzuki H. et al. 2002: 166, 167 [in Spumellaria]. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S272 [in Entactinaria]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 108. — Chen et al. 2017: 100. Centrolonchidae – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 27-28 (sensu emend.). Centrolonchini – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 29 (sensu emend.). Stigmosphaerini – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 29 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1981: 16 [a tribe].Stigmosphaerinae – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1981: 16 [nomen dubium]; Kozur &amp; Mostler 1989: 192.</p> <p>sensu Hollande &amp; Enjumet (1960)</p> <p>Centrolonchinae Campbell, 1954: D60. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 29 (sensu emend.).</p> <p>Hexastylida Haeckel, 1882: 450 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 170-171 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 8 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Hexastylinae – Campbell 1954: D58 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 90. — Dieci 1964: 185.</p> <p>Stigmosphaeridae Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960: 68, 86, 89 [nomen dubium]. — Anderson 1983: 49-50. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 288 [in Order Periaxoplastida].</p> <p>Hexastylidae – Petrushevskaya 1975: 567 [nomen dubium]; 1979: 104-105. — Dumitrica 1979: 16, 18. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1981: 12 (sensu emend.); 1982: 402-403 [in Entactinaria]. — Dumitrica 1995: 21. — Amon 2000: 29. — De Wever et al. 2001: 202-203 [in Entactinaria]. — Suzuki H. et al. 2002: 166, 167 [in Spumellaria]. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S272 [in Entactinaria]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 108. — Chen et al. 2017: 100.</p> <p>Centrolonchidae – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 27-28 (sensu emend.).</p> <p>Centrolonchini – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 29 (sensu emend.).</p> <p>Stigmosphaerini – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979: 29 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1981: 16 [a tribe].</p> <p>Stigmosphaerinae – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1981: 16 [nomen dubium]; Kozur &amp; Mostler 1989: 192.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Centrolonche Popofsky, 1912: 89 [type species by monotypy: Centrolonche hexalonche Popofsky, 1912: 89].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Centrolonche Popofsky, 1912: 89. — Stigmosphaerusa Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960: 90. — Stigmostylus Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960: 90.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Centracontium, Stigmosphaera.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — One latticed cortical shell with a few fiber strings which are fused at a point in the center of the cortical shell. The fibers directly join the cortical shell or are attached at some point to other fibers. Radial spines, if present, are very thin and connected to each fiber. Short to long by-spines radiate throughout the pore frame of the cortical shell. Endoplasm of a tiny size is transparent and surrounds the fused point of the previously mentioned fibers. Probable algal symbionts surround the endoplasm inside the cortical shell. The axopodial system classified as periaxoplastid-type. The axoplast is located on one side of the nucleus; the thick bundle of axonemes penetrates through the nucleus to the opposite side of the axoplast and extends outside the capsular wall, becoming an axoflagellum. The fused point of the fibers is attached on the axoplast. Usually, the fused point is placed at the center of the cortical shell (e.g., Stigmostylus) or on the capsular wall (e.g., Stigmosphaerusa).</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — late Late Miocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The taxonomic concept of the so-called Hexastylidae was historically based on Hexastylus phaenaxonius defined by Haeckel, 1887. This type of designation by Campbell (1954: D58) seems to violate the Article 69.3 of the Code. The validation of the type species of Hexastylus involves a complex issue. Hexastylus was first established in Haeckel (1882) without including any particular species. The first species belonging to Hexastylus is Hexastylus primaevus Rüst, 1885, a Mesozoic radiolarian of Hornfels from Csernye (Hungary) and black hornfels from Rigi (Italy). Under the current Code, the species by Rüst (1885) is the first and only nominal species included in Hexastylus, hence this species is the type species by subse- quent monotypy (Article 69.3) regardless the coherence the Mesozoic species with Haeckel’s description for Hexastylus. Campbell (1951: 528) thought the identification of Hexastylus by Rüst (1885) was a mistake, and Campbell (1954: D58) erroneously designated H. phaenaxonius as type species of Hexastylus. The species H. primaevus was illustrated by Rüst (1885) but this is a nomen dubium due to the fact that the distinguishing skeletal structure are invisible at the generic level. Hence, the “ nomen dubium ” status can only be fixed after Rüst’s drawing because the name-bearing type specimen was destroyed during the Second World War (Steiger 1995). Unfortunately, rexamination of topotypical material is not possible because the outcrops in and around the type locality have been deeply buried at the present (Suzuki 1998a). As the concept of the Hexastylidae, based on H. phaenaxonius, concords with the Centrolonchidae and because “Centolonchinae” was once synonymized with the Hexastylidae (De Wever et al. 2001: 202-203), we replace the valid family name for these members by Centrolonchidae. The internal skeletal structure of Stigmosphaerusa was documented in Helmcke &amp; Bach (1990: 104) and Takahashi (1991: pl. 9, fig. 1). The protoplasm for Centrolonche was illustrated (Zhang et al. 2018: 11, fig. 19). The fine protoplasmic structures were documented for Centrolonche (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 2, fig. 10), Stigmosphaerusa (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 1, fig. 11; pl. 43, fig. 2) and Stigmostylus (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960: pl. 2, figs 1-4; pl. 31, fig. 8). Hollande &amp; Enjumet (1960) detailed the homogeny of cellular microstructures between Ethmosphaeridae (originally “ Macrosphaeridae ”) and Centrocubidae, and subsequently proposed the “Anaxoplastidies” as an informal group. Later, the Centrocubidae was included into another informal group: the “Cryptoaxoplasides” by Cachon &amp; Cachon (1972c).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFAAFE0A0648F88FFBA74B82	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFABFE750685FAE2FEBD4B23.text	038DDA73FFABFE750685FAE2FEBD4B23.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Heliosaturnalinae Kozur & Mostler 1972	<div><p>Superfamily HELIOSATURNALOIDEA Kozur &amp; Mostler, 1972 n. stat.Heliosaturnalinae Kozur &amp; Mostler, 1972: 27 [as a subfamily]. Saturnalicaea [sic] Kozur &amp; Mostler, 1990: 182-187 [nomen dubium, as a superfamily of Spumellaria]. Saturnaliacea [sic] – Dumitrica et al. 2010: 285, 287 [as a superfamily of Entactinaria, nomen dubium] (= Saturnaloidea). Saturnaloidea – Dumitrica &amp; Zügel 2008: 59 [nomen dubium, in Entactinaria].</p> <p>Kozur &amp; Mostler, 1972 n. stat.</p> <p>Heliosaturnalinae Kozur &amp; Mostler, 1972: 27 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Saturnalicaea [sic] Kozur &amp; Mostler, 1990: 182-187 [nomen dubium, as a superfamily of Spumellaria].</p> <p>Saturnaliacea [sic] – Dumitrica et al. 2010: 285, 287 [as a superfamily of Entactinaria, nomen dubium] (= Saturnaloidea).</p> <p>Saturnaloidea – Dumitrica &amp; Zügel 2008: 59 [nomen dubium, in Entactinaria].</p> <p>Saturnalata [pars] – Afanasieva &amp; Amon in Afanasieva et al. 2005: S279 [as an order of Class Spumellaria]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 118 [as an order].</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — This superfamily includes the Axoprunidae and Saturnulidae Suzuki, n. fam. (not Saturnalidae) in the Cenozoic. Skeleton formed by a spherical shell or spongy spherical shell with a heteropolar microsphere and a ring directly connected to the shell by polar spines. The heteropolar microsphere resembles a sack-like formation and was named “microbursa” (Dumitrica et al. 2010: 285). Virtually, the microbursa is divided by polar beams (P) into an apical side (upper side) and an antapical side (lower hemisphere). The apical side of the microbursa is constructed by MB and consists of four polygonal pores (coded as LG when parallel to MB and as TG when vertical to MB) whose frames are assembled by four basal bars from MB. The antapical side displays a tetrapetaloid structure. P is oriented in an orthogonal direction to MB and is adjoined to the antapical side of the microsphere. The microbursa is covered by an outer spherical medullary shell or a spherically arranged coarse frame. Both spheres are connected with four apical bars from the apical side of the microbursa and other short bars from the antapical side. Outside these two spheres, a single ring of variable type (densely concentric convex lens-shaped shell, or cortical shell) is developed. However, no ornaments on polar beams are present for the Axoprunidae. Several connecting bars are visible between the ring and the inner structures in some members, but the only Ps are directly connected to the ring. Polar beams are never bladed.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>As Saturnalis is a nomen dubium without an illustrated type specimen, it is impossible to retain the name “Saturnaloidea.” for the superfamily rank. The “Saturnaloidea” is subdivided into four families, namely the Saturnulidae Suzuki, n. fam. (synonym of “ Saturnalidae Deflandre, 1953 ”), Heliosaturnalidae Kozur &amp; Mostler, 1972, Hexasturnalidae Kozur &amp; Mostler, 1983, and Axoprunidae Dumitrica, 1985 (Dumitrica &amp; Zügel 2008; Dumitrica et al. 2010). Thus, the superfamily name must be replaced for the senior family name Heliosaturnalidae Kozur &amp; Mostler, 1972. The concept of Heliosaturnaloidea has been subject of discussion among Mesozoic specialists (Dumitrica et al. 2010: 285, 287).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFABFE750685FAE2FEBD4B23	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFD4FE7505C7FB45FB584880.text	038DDA73FFD4FE7505C7FB45FB584880.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Axoprunidae Dumitrica 1985	<div><p>Family AXOPRUNIDAE Dumitrica, 1985</p> <p>Axopruninae Dumitrica, 1985: 186. — De Wever et al. 2001: 209-210. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S280. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 119.</p> <p>Spongostylida Haeckel, 1882: 455 [nomen dubium, as a tribe];1887: 122, 148 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 8 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Spongostylinae – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 12 [nomen dubium]. — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 15. — Campbell 1954: D54. — Chediya 1959: 83.</p> <p>Dorydiscinae Campbell, 1954: D89 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Axoprunidae – Suzuki et al. 2009d: 241. — Dumitrica et al. 2010: 287.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Axoprunum Haeckel, 1887: 298 [type species by monotypy: Axoprunum stauraxonium Haeckel, 1887: 289].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Axoprunum Haeckel, 1887: 298 (= Ellipsoxiphium n. syn., Xiphosphaerella n. syn.; Stylacontarium synonymized by Sugiyama et al. 1992: 16). — Dorylonchella Clark &amp; Campbell, 1942: 22.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Dorylonchomma, Dorydiscus, Dorydruppa, Doryphacus, Doryprunum.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Heliosaturnaloidea without equatorial ring, with two polar spines and a latticed cortical shell (Dumitrica et al. 2010: 287). A dark grey endoplasm fills the medullary shell and is additionally observed in its surrounding periphery.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Polycystinea with a spherical to oblong shell with bi-polar spines (also present in the Stylatractidae and Stylosphaeridae). The initial differentiation marker for Axoprunidae was based on the presence of inner non-bladed bi-polar spines. Instead, the precise identification of this family’s representatives should be based on the presence of a microbursa. Skeletal structure, including growth line, was documented for Axoprunum (Dumitrica 1985: pl. 3, figs 19, 20; Nishimura 1986: fig. 7.3; Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 16, figs 9, 11; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 12, fig. 4; Vasilenko 2019: pl. 1, fig. 6). A “ living” image for the Axoprunum collected in the Mesopelagic zone (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.10.14) was documented. The last occurrence of “ Axoprunum ” angelinum (Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a), as senior synonym of “ Stylatractus ” universus Hays 1970 ”, is dated as 0.46 ± 0.04 Ma age in the Pacific (Matsuzaki et al. 2014; Kamikuri 2017), Atlantic (Morley &amp; Shackleton 1978) and Southern Ocean (McIntyre &amp; Kaczmarska 1996). Notwithstanding, no appropriate genus has been proposed for this species (e.g., Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 12, figs 3, 4; Dumitrica 1985: pl. 3, figs 16-18; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 13, fig. 3).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Axoprunum</p> <p>The central part of the type species for Axoprunum is missing in the type-illustration (Haeckel 1887: pl. 48, fig. 4), but all other characters, except the central part, are sufficient to specify this genus of the Cenozoic. The definition of Axoprunum in Campbell (1954: D68) is useless because his definition did not include the probable presence of internal shell(s), the presence of six radial beams whose pairs are perpendicular to each other, and the presence of two un-bladed similar opposite polar spines. These characters are fully or partly overlooked in the definition of the remaining genera in Campbell (1954: D54 for Xiphosphaerella, D60 for Stylacontarium and D69 for Ellipsoxiphium) so that they are useless to understand the differences between these genera. The internal structure is invisible in the type-illustrations for Ellipsoxiphium (Haeckel 1887: pl. 14, fig. 7) as well as Xiphosphaerella (Haeckel 1887: pl. 14, fig. 4), but the occurrence of a completely empty shell has not been clearly proved in these two genera. The definition of Xiphosphaerella includes the presence of a papillose to spiny or thorny surface, but this characteristic is not significant (supporting image for Xiphosphaerella). Until the exact internal structures of Xiphosphaerella and Ellipsoxiphium are documented, the four genera discussed here are regarded as synonyms. Axoprunum, Ellipsoxiphium and Xiphosphaerella were simultaneously published by Haeckel (1887: 124 for Xiphosphaerella, 296 for Ellipsoxiphium and 298 for Axoprunum). Axoprunum is validated because this is the only genus whose internal structure is illustrated in images of the type.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFD4FE7505C7FB45FB584880	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFD5FE7405C2FF06FD844887.text	038DDA73FFD5FE7405C2FF06FD844887.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Saturnulidae Suzuki & Caulet & Dumitrica 2021	<div><p>Family SATURNULIDAE Suzuki, n. fam.</p> <p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 06AC02CC-EE68-41C9-9567-59445FAA7301</p> <p>Saturnalinae Deflandre, 1953: 419-420 [nomen dubium]. — Riedel 1967b: 294. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1972: 30. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 521. — Foreman 1973b: 260. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 169. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 121. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 863. — Donofrio &amp; Mostler 1978: 20-22. — De Wever et al. 1979: 79; 2001: 208-209. — Anderson 1983: 37. — De Wever 1984: 16 (sensu emend.). — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1985: 590-591. — Takahashi 1991: 78. — Carter 1993: 52. — Dumitrica 1995: 23. — Dumitrica et al. 1997: 18. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S280. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 118-119. — Dumitrica &amp; Zügel 2008: 66.</p> <p>Saturnalidae – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1972: 30 [nomen dubium] (sensu emend.); 1981: 53 [as a subfamily] (sensu emend.); 1983: 12 [in Spumellaria]; 1990: 213-214 [in Spumellaria]. — Dumitrica 1979: 26; 1984: 101. — Petrushevskaya 1979: 115-116; 1986: 128. — De Wever 1984: 13. — Carter 1993: 51. — O’Dogherty 1994: 248 [in Spumellaria]. — Dumitrica 1995: 23. — Hollis 1997: 41. — Cordey 1998: 91. — De Wever et al. 2001: 205. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S279 [in Order Saturnalata]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 118. — Bragin 2007: 991, 993 [in Spumellaria]; Bragin 2011: 758.</p> <p>Saturnalideidae [sic] – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1990: 206 [nomen dubium] (= Saturnalidae).</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Saturnulus Haeckel, 1879: 705 [type species by monotypy: Saturnulus planeta Haeckel, 1879: 705].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA (CENOZOIC ONLY). — Saturnulus Haeckel, 1879: 705 (=? Saturnalium n. syn.). — Spongosaturninus Campbell &amp; Clark, 1944b: 7.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Saturnalina, Saturnalis, Saturninus, Spongostylus.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Heliosaturnaloidea with an equatorial ring and no polar spines. The ring’s shape is circular to elliptical and elongated in the perpendicular direction to the polar rays. Polar rays flat to elliptical in cross section, or, most frequently, three or four-bladed. Shell spongy to latticed with two layers (Dumitrica et al. 2010: 287). A dark grey endoplasm fills the microsphere and is also present in the surrounding area.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Toarcian-Early Paleocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The name “ Saturnalidae ” and “ Saturnalis ” have been widely accepted by the majority of radiolarists. However, it was impossible to retain this name due to the absence of an illustrated type specimen for Saturnalis. The internal spicular system was illustrated for Saturnulus (Dumitrica 1985: pl. 3, figs 3, 7, 15; van de Paverd 1995: pl. 30, figs 1, 2, 5) and Spongosaturninus (Dumitrica 1985: pl. 3, fig. 11). A “living” image for Saturnulus was collected and documented from the Bathypelagic zone (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.10.16).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Saturnulus</p> <p>Real specimens identifiable as the type species of Saturnalium have not been found so far.We simply synonymized Saturnulus and Saturnalium due to the existence of a ring.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFD5FE7405C2FF06FD844887	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFD5FE740649FDACFA4849B1.text	038DDA73FFD5FE740649FDACFA4849B1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Thalassothamnidae Haecker 1906	<div><p>Family THALASSOTHAMNIDAE Haecker, 1906</p> <p>Thalassothamnidae Haecker, 1906: 879; 1908: 394-400. — Popofsky 1908: 203-205. — Lankester et al. 1909: 144. — Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1953: 108 [in Collodaria]. — Campbell 1954: D46 [in Collodaria].— Kozur &amp; Mostler 1981: 5; 1982: 406 [in Entactinaria]. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 284 [in Sphaerocollina]. — Petrushevskaya 1986: 122- 123. — De Wever et al. 2001: 175, 177 [in Entactinaria].</p> <p>Cytocladidae Schröder, 1908: 209.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Thalassothamnus Haecker, 1906: 888 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D46): Thalassothamnus genista Haecker, 1906: 881].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Cytocladus Schröder, 1908: 219. — Thalassothamnus Haecker, 1906: 888.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS (CONTRIBUTED BY YASUHIDE NAKAMURA). — A radiolarian with a single large diverging spicule. The several radial spines of the diverging spicule merge together at several points.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Holocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS (CONTRIBUTED BY YASUHIDE NAKAMURA)</p> <p>The genus Cytocladus was classified into the family Thalassothamnidae Haecker 1906. It should be noted that Cytocladus is covered with a spherical extracapsular protoplasm and that its skeletal architecture is similar to the Sphaerozoidae and Thalassosphaeridae. These features suggest a close relationship to Collodaria (Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985; Petrushevskaya 1984; Nakamura et al. 2020). Living specimens were illustrated and examined by Cachon &amp; Cachon (1985: 284) and Nakamura et al. (2020: figs 2.D-2.F). The overall appearance of Thalassothamnus somewhat resembles that of the family Astracanthidae of Phaeodaria (Cercozoa, Rhizaria).However, this genus differs from the aforementioned phaeodarians in several ways: a) the cross-section of the radial spines is solid (not hollow), b) several divergent points occasionally exist, and, c) there is generally one central capsule (whereas, several central capsules can be found in Astracanthidae).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFD5FE740649FDACFA4849B1	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFD5FE740662FEC9FB214D5B.text	038DDA73FFD5FE740662FEC9FB214D5B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Thalassothamnoidea Haecker 1906	<div><p>Superfamily THALASSOTHAMNOIDEA Haecker, 1906</p> <p>Thalassothamnidae Haecker, 1906: 879; 1908: 394-400 [in Col-lodaria].</p> <p>Thalassothamnacea – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1982: 405 [as a superfamily of Entactinaria].</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Same as the family Thalassothamnidae.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>See the remarks for Thalassothamnidae.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFD5FE740662FEC9FB214D5B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFD5FE7706A6F8F2FCFE4EBE.text	038DDA73FFD5FE7706A6F8F2FCFE4EBE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Nassellaria Ehrenberg 1876	<div><p>Order NASSELLARIA Ehrenberg, 1876</p> <p>Phylogenetic Molecular Lineage I (Sandin et al. 2019)</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Multi-segmented Nassellaria having a simple cephalis and discrete dividers between the subsequent segments below the thorax.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Lineage I is the oldest clade in the entire Nassellaria order as the molecular clock indicates that it may date back to the Devonian (Sandin et al. 2019). Although only one genus Eucyrtidium was confirmed as a member of Lineage I, Amphipyndacoidea, Archaeodictyomitroidea and Eucyrtidioidea are likewise considered members of Lineage I. This inclusion is done because the huge number of studies devoted to them over the last century.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFD5FE7706A6F8F2FCFE4EBE	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFD6FE7705DBF98DFACA4C3A.text	038DDA73FFD6FE7705DBF98DFACA4C3A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Amphipyndacidae Riedel 1967	<div><p>Family AMPHIPYNDACIDAE Riedel, 1967</p> <p>Amphipyndacidae Riedel, 1967a: 148; 1967b: 296; 1971: 657. — Petrushevskaya 1971b: 985 [as a subfamily]. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 545. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 174. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 131. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 877. — Dumitrica 1979: 32; 1995: 30. — Anderson 1983: 44. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1985: 596. — Takemura 1986: 55. — O’Dogherty 1994: 138. — Hollis 1997: 66. — De Wever et al. 2001: 266, 268. — Suzuki H. et al. 2002: 180; 2004: 383. — Suzuki &amp; Gawlick 2003: 191. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S303. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 152-153. Amphipyndacinae – Dumitrica 1995: 31.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Amphipyndax Foreman, 1966: 355 [type species by subsequent designation: Amphipyndax enesseffi Foreman, 1966: 356].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENUS (CENOZOIC ONLY). — Amphipternis Foreman, 1973a: 430 (= Amphiparvex synonymized byO’Dogherty et al. 2009a: 327; Protostichocapsa synonymized by De Wever et al. 2001: 268).</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — A multisegmented Nassellaria whose post-cephalis segments are separated by distinct dividers. The apical part is robust and consists of a spherical cephalis, a narrowly necked tunnel with a thick separator in the lower part of the cephalic cavity. The robust proximal top part is fully or partially covered by a thick poreless wall. No rods from the initial spicular system extend outwards from the shell.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Berriasian-early Middle Miocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The initial spicular system of the Amphipyndacidae has been repeatedly discussed and documented (Foreman 1966: text-fig. 1-9; Empson-Morin 1982: text-fig. 2; Takemura 1986: 36-37; De Wever et al. 2001: fig. 176). According to Empson-Morin (1982), the cephalis and thorax correspond to the cephalic cavity of aforementioned papers.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFD6FE7705DBF98DFACA4C3A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFD6FE7705FCFDC9FCF14979.text	038DDA73FFD6FE7705FCFDC9FCF14979.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Amphipyndacoidea Riedel 1967	<div><p>Superfamily AMPHIPYNDACOIDEA Riedel, 1967</p> <p>Amphipyndacidae Riedel, 1967a: 148; 1967b: 296; 1971: 657.</p> <p>Amphipyndacaceae [sic] O’Dogherty, 1994: 98 (= Amphipyndacoidea)[as a superfamily].</p> <p>Amphipyndacea [sic] – De Wever et al. 2001: 266 (= Amphipyndacoidea)[as a superfamily].</p> <p>Amphipyndacioidea [sic] – Afanasieva et al. 2005: S302 (= Amphipyndacoidea). — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 151.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Amphipyndacoidea are multisegmented Nassellaria whose cephalis is divided into two parts, a spherical cavity and flattened space, by a thick, horizontal divider. This divider is formed by horizontally or subhorizontally extended branches of A-rod. A-, D-, V-, Lr- and Ll-rods are observed.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This superfamily consists of the Mesozoic Amphipyndacidae, Canoptidae Pessagno in Pessagno et al. (1979), Parvicingulidae Pessagno 1977c, Syringocapsidae Foreman 1973b, and Spongocapsulidae Pessagno 1977c (De Wever et al. 2001). Amphipyndacidae is the only known member appearing in the Cenozoic. Suzuki H. et al. (2002: 180) noted the similarity between the cephalic initial spicular system of the earliest Jurassic Canoptum and that of Amphipyndacidae. They subsequently concluded that Canoptidae is a junior synonym of the Amphipyndacidae.However, the photographic evidence of Suzuki H. et al. (2002: fig. 8K) was insufficient in evaluating the illustrated structure of the Canoptidae that was drawn and published in De Wever et al. (2001: fig. 177). The difference between De Wever et al. (2001) and Suzuki, Hisashi’s opinion (Suzuki H. et al. 2002) is the rank of superfamily/family.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFD6FE7705FCFDC9FCF14979	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFD6FE77060EFC4DFB7249F0.text	038DDA73FFD6FE77060EFC4DFB7249F0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Archaeodictyomitroidea Pessagno 1976	<div><p>Superfamily ARCHAEODICTYOMITROIDEA Pessagno, 1976</p> <p>Archaeodictyomitridae Pessagno, 1976: 49; 1977a: 41 (sensu emend.); 1977b: 934.</p> <p>Archaeodictyomitracea [sic] – Grill &amp; Kozur 1986: 254 (= Archaeodictyomitroidea) [as a superfamily]. — O’Dogherty 1994: 69. — De Wever et al. 2001: 262.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — A multisegmented Nassellaria with a simple cephalis with MB, A-, V-, D- and double L-rods. The shell is covered with continuously aligned longitudinal costae. One to two (or more) rows of pores; similar rows of relict pores, or platy longitudinal depression, are arranged between adjacent longitudinal costae.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This superfamily consists of the Mesozoic Bagotidae Pessagno &amp; Whalen 1982, Archaeodictyomitridae Pessagno 1976, Hsuidae Pessagno &amp; Whalen 1982, and Unumidae Kozur 1984 (De Wever et al. 2001: 262-266). The Archaeodictyomitridae are the only known family in the Cenozoic. This type of multisegmented structure is shared with the Ruesticyrtiidae Kozur &amp; Mostler 1979, Amphipyndacoidea and Eucyrtidioidea. Dissimilarly to the Archaeodictyomitroidea, the Ruesticyrtiidae have a more complex initial spicular system (De Wever et al. 2001: fig. 171).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFD6FE77060EFC4DFB7249F0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFD6FE760655F932FDA34C43.text	038DDA73FFD6FE760655F932FDA34C43.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Archaeodictyomitridae Pessagno 1976	<div><p>Family ARCHAEODICTYOMITRIDAE Pessagno, 1976</p> <p>Archaeodictyomitridae Pessagno, 1976: 49; 1977a: 41 (sensu emend.); 1977b: 934. — Dumitrica 1979: 31; 1995: 29. — Blome 1984: 354. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1985: 598. — Petrushevskaya 1986: 135. — Dumitrica et al. 1997: 37-38. — Hollis 1997: 68. — Hull 1997: 78. — Amon 2000: 70. — De Wever et al. 2001: 263. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S302. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 151.</p> <p>Archaeodictyomitrinae – Petrushevskaya 1981: 192-194. TYPE GENUS. — Archaeodictyomitra Pessagno 1976: 49 [type species by original designation: Archaeodictyomitra squinaboli Pessagno 1976: 50].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENUS (CENOZOIC ONLY). — Dictyomitra Zittel, 1876: 81 (= Dictyomitroma with the same type species; Diplostrobus synonymized by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 550; Zifondium synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 196).</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — A multisegmented Nassellaria whose shell is covered by continuously arranged longitudinal costae. One, rarely two, rows of pores are aligned along adjacent longitudinal costae. The pores are open or relict. In some members, relict pores are completely missing in platy grooves between adjacent longitudinal costae.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. —Early Berriasian-late Middle Eocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Illustrations of their cephalic initial spicular system were too rarely published (Pessagno 1976: pl. 14, fig. 5; Pessagno 1977a: pl. 6, 13: De Wever et al. 2001: fig. 173) to gain an adequate understanding of its organization.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFD6FE760655F932FDA34C43	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFD7FE7605F2FCA4FAD74D3C.text	038DDA73FFD7FE7605F2FCA4FAD74D3C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Eucyrtidioidea (Petrushevskaya 1981)	<div><p>Superfamily EUCYRTIDIOIDEA Ehrenberg, 1846 sensu Suzuki emend. hereinEucyrtidina Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [as a family]; 1847: 54 [as a family]; 1876: 156.Stichocyrtoidea – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 91 [nomen dubium, as a section above a family]; 1945: 49. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 51; 1944b: 36 [as a section].Stichoperilae – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 229 [nomen dubium, as a subsuperfamily].Eucyrtidioidea – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 166-169 (sensu emend.); 1971b: 985 (sensu emend.); 1975: 578; 1981: 165-167; 1986: 136. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 535. — Grill &amp; Kozur 1986: 246 (sensu emend.). — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S297-298. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 146. — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 56-57. — Suzuki in Sandin et al. 2019: 201 (sensu emend.). Stichocyrtoidae – Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 294 [nomen dubium]. Eucyrtidioida – Amon 2000: 62 [as an order]. Eucyrtidiacea [sic] – De Wever et al. 2001: 273 (= Eucyrtidioidea).</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Eucyrtidina Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [as a family]; 1847: 54 [as a family]; 1876: 156.</p> <p>Stichocyrtoidea – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 91 [nomen dubium, as a section above a family]; 1945: 49. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 51; 1944b: 36 [as a section].</p> <p>Stichoperilae – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 229 [nomen dubium, as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Eucyrtidioidea – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 166-169 (sensu emend.); 1971b: 985 (sensu emend.); 1975: 578; 1981: 165-167; 1986: 136. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 535. — Grill &amp; Kozur 1986: 246 (sensu emend.). — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S297-298. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 146. — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 56-57. — Suzuki in Sandin et al. 2019: 201 (sensu emend.).</p> <p>Stichocyrtoidae – Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 294 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Eucyrtidioida – Amon 2000: 62 [as an order].</p> <p>Eucyrtidiacea [sic] – De Wever et al. 2001: 273 (= Eucyrtidioidea).</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Multisegmented Nassellaria with a simple cephalis. Cephalic base clearly separated from the thorax by a basal ring of the cephalis. The subsequent segments are separated by significant dividers.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Cenozoic Eucyrtidioidea includes the Eucyrtidiidae, Lithostrobidae and Xitomitridae, but molecular data was only provided for Eucyrtidium by Sandin et al. (2019). The identified family members of the Eucyrtidioidea were different among authors. For instance, nine families were identified in Petrushevskaya (1981) compared to the eight families in De Wever et al. (2001). In order to respect consistency between the morphological classification and molecular phylogenic studies (Sandin et al. 2019), the Cenozoic families Theocotylidae, Theoperidae, Lophocyrtiidae and Bekomidae were herein excluded from the Eucyrtidioidea. Petrushevskaya (1981) included the Cenozoic families Lychnocaniidae, Sethoperidae, Artostrobiidae, Pterocorythidae and Carpocaniidae in the Eucyrtidioidea but all of them were also excluded in this catalogue. All previously mentioned families identified by De Wever et al. (2001) and Petrushevskaya (1981) that were herein excluded; differ from the Eucyrtidioidea on a variety of points. The main distinguishing features are the absence of significant dividers below the cephalo-thoracic area, a fewer number of segments (less than three or four), the possession of a more complex cephalic initial spicular system, and/or elongated robust feet generated by the A-, D- and double L-rods of the cephalis.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFD7FE7605F2FCA4FAD74D3C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFD7FE7206A1FD46FE5B4887.text	038DDA73FFD7FE7206A1FD46FE5B4887.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cyrtida	<div><p>Family EUCYRTIDIIDAE Ehrenberg, 1846 sensu Suzuki emend. hereinEucyrtidina Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [as a family]; 1847: 54 [as a family]; 1876: 156. — Schomburgk 1847: 124, 125 [as a family]. Stichocyrtida Haeckel, 1862: 238, 280, 312 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1882: 438 [as a subfamily];1887: 1434 [a section between suborder and family]. — Zittel 1876-1880: 121 [rank unknown]. — Mivart 1878: 178 [as a subdivision of subsection Cyrtida]. — Stöhr 1880: 101 [as a family].— Bütschli 1889: 1993 [as a suborder].— Rüst 1892: 186 [as a suborder]. — Poche 1913: 221 [as super-superfamily]. — Popofsky 1913: 401 [as a section between suborder and family]. — Schröder 1914: 91, 132 [as a group between suborder and family]. — Chediya 1959: 225 [as a group between superfamily and family]. Artocapsida Haeckel, 1882: 438 [as a tribe].Artophormida Haeckel, 1882: 438 [as a tribe].Artophatnida Haeckel, 1882: 439 [nomen dubium, as a tribe].Stichocorida Haeckel, 1882: 438 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1435, 1468 [as a subfamily]. — Wisniowski 1889: 690.Stichophatnida Haeckel, 1882: 439 [as a tribe].Stichoperida Haeckel, 1882: 439 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 1435, 1436, 1447 [as a subfamily].Stichophormida Haeckel, 1882: 439 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1435, 1454 [as a subfamily].Podocampida Haeckel, 1887: 1435, 1436 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1993 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 186.Stichophaenida Haeckel, 1887: 1435, 1454, 1463 [as a subfamily].Lithocampida Haeckel, 1887: 1435, 1467-1468 [as a family]. — Wisniowski 1889: 689. — Bütschli 1889: 1994 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 187 [as a family].Podocampidae – Popofsky 1908: 290 [nomen dubium]; 1913: 401. — Schröder 1914: 132. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944b: 36. — Chediya 1959: 225. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 290. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 179. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 154. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 113, 206. — Chen et al. 2017: 219. Lithocampidae – Haecker 1908: 460. — Popofsky 1908: 292; 1913: 406. — Schröder 1914: 133. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 91; 1945: 49. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 51; 1944b: 38. — Chediya 1959: 230. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 154. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 113, 216. — Chen et al. 2017: 222. Stichocorinae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 91 (= Stichocorythinae); 1945: 49. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 51; 1944b: 38. — Ichikawa 1950: 308-309. — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 32. — Chediya 1959: 230.Stichophorminae [sic] – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944b: 37 (= Stichophormidinae). — Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 38. — Chediya 1959: 228. Stichocoridae [sic] – Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 32 (= Stichocorythidae). Stichoperinae – Campbell 1954: D136. — Chediya 1959: 227.Artophormididae – Campbell 1954: D138.Arthophormidinae – Campbell 1954: D138-139.Stichocorythidae – Campbell 1954: D140. — Dieci 1964: 188. Stichocorythinae – Campbell 1954: D140. — Dieci 1964: 188.Lithocampinae – Orlev 1959: 458.Stichoperidae – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 229 [nomen dubium].Eucyrtidiidae – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 169-171 (sensu emend.); 1971b: 985 (sensu emend.); 1975: 578; 1981: 200-202. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 545. — Dumitrica 1979: 30-31; 2017a: 47. — De Wever 1982b: 293. — Steiger 1992: 68-70. — Hollis 1997: 73-74. — Cordey 1998: 106. — Kozlova 1999: 152. — De Wever et al. 2001: 278, 280. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S298. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 146. — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 57. Eucyrtidiinae – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 215 (sensu emend.); 1971b: 985 (sensu emend.); 1975: 580; 1981: 202. — Takahashi 1991: 114. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S298. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 146-147. Eucyrtididae [sic] – Amon 2000: 62-63 (= Eucyrtidiidae). Eucyrtidinae [sic] – Amon 2000: 63 (= Eucyrtidiinae).</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Eucyrtidina Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [as a family]; 1847: 54 [as a family]; 1876: 156. — Schomburgk 1847: 124, 125 [as a family].</p> <p>Stichocyrtida Haeckel, 1862: 238, 280, 312 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1882: 438 [as a subfamily];1887: 1434 [a section between suborder and family]. — Zittel 1876-1880: 121 [rank unknown]. — Mivart 1878: 178 [as a subdivision of subsection Cyrtida]. — Stöhr 1880: 101 [as a family].— Bütschli 1889: 1993 [as a suborder].— Rüst 1892: 186 [as a suborder]. — Poche 1913: 221 [as super-superfamily]. — Popofsky 1913: 401 [as a section between suborder and family]. — Schröder 1914: 91, 132 [as a group between suborder and family]. — Chediya 1959: 225 [as a group between superfamily and family].</p> <p>Artocapsida Haeckel, 1882: 438 [as a tribe].</p> <p>Artophormida Haeckel, 1882: 438 [as a tribe].</p> <p>Artophatnida Haeckel, 1882: 439 [nomen dubium, as a tribe].</p> <p>Stichocorida Haeckel, 1882: 438 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1435, 1468 [as a subfamily]. — Wisniowski 1889: 690.</p> <p>Stichophatnida Haeckel, 1882: 439 [as a tribe].</p> <p>Stichoperida Haeckel, 1882: 439 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 1435, 1436, 1447 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Stichophormida Haeckel, 1882: 439 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1435, 1454 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Podocampida Haeckel, 1887: 1435, 1436 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1993 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 186.</p> <p>Stichophaenida Haeckel, 1887: 1435, 1454, 1463 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Lithocampida Haeckel, 1887: 1435, 1467-1468 [as a family]. — Wisniowski 1889: 689. — Bütschli 1889: 1994 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 187 [as a family].</p> <p>Podocampidae – Popofsky 1908: 290 [nomen dubium]; 1913: 401. — Schröder 1914: 132. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944b: 36. — Chediya 1959: 225. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 290. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 179. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 154. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 113, 206. — Chen et al. 2017: 219.</p> <p>Lithocampidae – Haecker 1908: 460. — Popofsky 1908: 292; 1913: 406. — Schröder 1914: 133. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 91; 1945: 49. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 51; 1944b: 38. — Chediya 1959: 230. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 154. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 113, 216. — Chen et al. 2017: 222.</p> <p>Stichocorinae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 91 (= Stichocorythinae); 1945: 49. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 51; 1944b: 38. — Ichikawa 1950: 308-309. — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 32. — Chediya 1959: 230.</p> <p>Stichophorminae [sic] – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944b: 37 (= Stichophormidinae). — Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 38. — Chediya 1959: 228.</p> <p>Stichocoridae [sic] – Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 32 (= Stichocorythidae).</p> <p>Stichoperinae – Campbell 1954: D136. — Chediya 1959: 227.</p> <p>Artophormididae – Campbell 1954: D138.</p> <p>Arthophormidinae – Campbell 1954: D138-139.</p> <p>Stichocorythidae – Campbell 1954: D140. — Dieci 1964: 188.</p> <p>Stichocorythinae – Campbell 1954: D140. — Dieci 1964: 188.</p> <p>Lithocampinae – Orlev 1959: 458.</p> <p>Stichoperidae – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 229 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Eucyrtidiidae – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 169-171 (sensu emend.); 1971b: 985 (sensu emend.); 1975: 578; 1981: 200-202. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 545. — Dumitrica 1979: 30-31; 2017a: 47. — De Wever 1982b: 293. — Steiger 1992: 68-70. — Hollis 1997: 73-74. — Cordey 1998: 106. — Kozlova 1999: 152. — De Wever et al. 2001: 278, 280. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S298. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 146. — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 57.</p> <p>Eucyrtidiinae – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 215 (sensu emend.); 1971b: 985 (sensu emend.); 1975: 580; 1981: 202. — Takahashi 1991: 114. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S298. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 146-147.</p> <p>Eucyrtididae [sic] – Amon 2000: 62-63 (= Eucyrtidiidae).</p> <p>Eucyrtidinae [sic] – Amon 2000: 63 (= Eucyrtidiinae).</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Eucyrtidium Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [type species by subsequent designation (Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 33): Lithocampe acuminata Ehrenberg, 1844a: 84].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Artocapsa Haeckel, 1882: 438 (=? Acanthocyrtis n. syn.). — Cymaetron Caulet, 1991: 536. — Cyrtocapsella Haeckel, 1887: 1512 (= Syringium synonymized byRiedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970: 530). — Eucyrtidium Ehrenberg, 1846: 385. — Glomaria Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel, 1970: 455. — Lithocampe Ehrenberg, 1839: 128 (= Lithocampula with the same type species; Ariadnella n. syn., Cyrtopenta, synonymized by Haeckel 1862: 316, Lithomitrissa n. syn.). — Lithopera Ehrenberg, 1846: 385. — Stichocorys Haeckel, 1882: 438 (= Artophormis n. syn., Cyrtharia n. syn.,? Cyrtocapsoma n. syn., Cyrtophormiscus synonymized by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 547; Cyrtophormium n. syn.,? Eusyringoma n. syn.; Cyrtophormis, Stichophaenoma, synonymized byPetrushevskaya 1981: 213). — Stichophatna Haeckel, 1882: 439 (= Stichophaenidium with the same type species; Cyrtolagena, Stichophormium synonymized byPetrushevskaya 1981: 175; Sticholagena synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 582; Stichophormiscus synonymized by Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: 55). — Stichopterygium Haeckel, 1882: 439 (= Artocyrtis n. syn., n. syn. Conostrobus, Stichopodium n. syn.; Spirocyrtoma synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 205). — Theocoronium Haeckel, 1887: 1415 (= Theocapsetta n. syn., Theocapsomma n. syn.). — Tricolocamptra Haeckel, 1887: 1413. — Udan Renz, 1976: 127.</p> <p>INVALID NAMES. — Artophaena, Stichophaena.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Artophatna, Diabolocampe, Podocampe, Pylosphaera, Spirocampe, Stichocyrtis, Stichopera, Stichoperina.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Eucyrtidiidae with two to six segmented shell with an aperture. The segments are divided by distinctive inner-ring dividers. Feet are not observed. The cephalis is spherical to globular in shape, with a thick wall and relict or true fine pores. The wall of the cephalis is discernible in such a way that the collar suture between the cephalis and the thorax appears distinctive. Even if covered by silica, the cephalic boundary with the thorax remains recognizable under a light microscope. The cephalis is attached to the cephalic base by a base ring or to a thickened wall. The sutural pores are developed to separate the cephalis and thorax in some species or genera. The pores are randomly scattered or horizontally aligned. The cephalic initial spicular system is characterized by MB, A-, V-, D-, and double L-rods. When present the ax-rod has a dot-like shape. The double l-rod is absent, except in Lithocampe. The A-rod is embedded inside the cephalic wall or is freely oriented upright in the cephalic cavity. In some members, an indistinct tubular structure is visible near the end of the V-rod. Basal ring is directly connected with the A-rod side end of MB, V- and double L-rods to form four collar pores. A basal ring is bended along the line with the double L-rod such that double pores related to the LV-arch are raised towards the ventral side. The D- and double L-rods are visible on the thoracic and subsequent segmental wall in some members.</p> <p>The size of the endoplasm is variable, but never occupies the complete shell. A very long pseudopodium (axial projection) extends from the aperture of the shell and is used as a tool to capture food. Algal symbionts are observed in some species of Eucyrtidium.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The cephalic initial spicular system have been illustrated for: Cyrtocapsella (Nishimura H. 1987: figs 6.A, 6.B; pl. 1, figs 2, 3 5; pl. 2, figs 1, 2; 1990: figs 4, figs 40.1, 40.2), Stichophatna (Sugiyama 1998: pl.4, fig. 2b), Eucyrtidium (Cachon &amp; Cachon 1972a: figs 4.a-4.c, fig. 5.a; Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 39, figs 5, 11; Takemura &amp; Nakaseko 1986: figs 5.4-5.5, 5.8-5.9; Nishimura 1990: fig. 41.2; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 23, fig. 7?), Lithocampe (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 22, figs 2-8), Lithopera (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 33, fig.6; Nishimura H. 1987: pl. 1, fig. 4) and Stichocorys (Takemura &amp; Nakaseko 1986: figs 5.10-5.11; Nishimura H. 1987: pl. 1, fig.1; 1990: fig. 41. 4; O’Connor 1997a: pl. 9, figs 13-16; pl. 11, figs 4, 8). The basal ring with four collar pores is a common feature among the genera Lithocampe due to the lack of a double l-rod. Nishimura (1986) thought that the l-rods are covered through a thickening process of the cephalic wall; however, this is unlikely for most of the genera because the edge of the double arch between MB and L-rod occupies the place where that the l-rod occupies. The generic assignment is uncertain for Cyrtocapsa osculum O’Connor because the cephalic structure remains unknown (O’Connor 1997a: pl. 1, figs 15-17; pl. 2, figs 1, 2; pl. 8, figs 3-10), Eucyrtidium inflatum (Takemura &amp; Nakaseko 1986: figs 5.6-5.7) and Eucyrtidium calvertense (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 23, fig. 3), Eucyrtidium ventricosum O’Connor, 1999 (O’Connor 1999: pl. 3, figs 17-21b; pl. 6, figs 28-31). Eucyrtidium inflatum and E. calvertense have double l-rods that form very small double pores with the double Dl-arch as in Lithocampe.</p> <p>Over the last century, the taxonomy of the Eucyrtidiidae has been problematic because few keys were available to determine the evolutionary lineages. This was partly due to the polyphyletic character denoted in many groups of the Eucyrtidiidae (De Wever et al. 2001). Based on the consistency with molecular phylogeny, five Cenozoic genera (Buryella, Calocyclas, Calocycloma and Phormocyrtis) are excluded from the family. Instead, seven Cenozoic genera (Stichophatna, Lithocampe, Stichopterygium, Theocoronium, Tricolocamptra and Udan) are newly included as their cephalic similarity with Eucyrtidium was considered. Many genera of Eucyrtidiidae were historically included in “theoperids” but this name is inappropriate for a taxonomic position as the Eucyrtidiidae have no morphological characters in common with the genus Theopera (see also De Wever et al. 2001: 278).</p> <p>The evolutionary hypotheses in some linages of Eucyrtidiidae were well documented (Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1970; Sanfilippo et al. 1985: figs 16, 23). The “ Eucyrtidium ” spp. in the sense of Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel (1970) is considered a direct ancestor of Cyrtocapsella and Stichocorys; Lithopera originated from Stichocorys diploconus in Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1970, and Glomaria diverged from Lithopera (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1981: fig. 12.9). Little is known about the evolutionary phylogenies of other genera. The specific divergent process between Eucyrtidium calvertense and Eucyrtidium matuyamai was also noted. This was quantitively evaluated with high-resolution models as a typical gradual evolution phenomenon (Hays 1970; Kellogg 1976). Morphological changes in the Lithocampe peregrina (originally Stichocorys peregrina) lineage associated to different geographic areas were also quantitatively documented (Kamikuri 2012). The paleobiogeographic morphotypes of Lithocampe (originally Stichocorys, Casey et al. 1983) were well studied in time-series distribution changes in the North Pacific (Lombari 1985; Oseki &amp; Suzuki 2009).</p> <p>The protoplasm and living specimen images were illustrated for Eucyrtidium (Matsuoka 1993a: fig. 2:7;2007: fig. 4a;2017: figs 24, 25; Sugiyama &amp; Anderson 1997b: pl. 1, figs 1, 2; Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: figs 11.6, 11.9, 11.11; Sugiyama et al. 2008: figs 2-6; Suzuki &amp; Aita 2011: fig. 5.P; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: figs 8.4.3, 8.11.18, 8.11.19; Matsuoka et al. 2017: Appendix B), Lithopera (Gowing 1989: figs 2.D-2.F; 1993: fig. 6.i; Zhang et al. 2018: 21, fig. 8.11) and Stichopterygium (Sashida &amp; Uematsu 1994: fig. 3.1). Cytological ultrafine structure was also observed in Eucyrtidium (Sugiyama &amp; Anderson 1997b: pls 2, 3). Growth lines of pore frame are well documented in Cyrtocapsella (Nishimura H. 1987: pl. 1, figs 5b, 5c; pl. 2; 1990: figs 4, 40), Eucyrtidium (Nishimura 1990: figs 41.2b), Lithopera (Nishimura H. 1987: pl. 1, fig. 4b) and Lithocampe (Nishimura H. 1987: pl. 1, fig. 1b; Nishimura 1990: figs 41.4b). Live silicification sites on the shell were localized for Eucyrtidium with an epi-fluorescence microscopy PDMPO dyeing method (Ogane et al. 2010: figs 1.11-1.12, 2.11-2.12, 3, 4.3).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Artocapsa</p> <p>Artocapsa is defined by a pointed, conical, terminal segment with a basal spine and an apical horn (Campbell 1954: D143) and Acanthocyrtis is defined by a solid apical horn, variable heights of segments, a spiny surface, and an open aperture (Campbell 1954: D140). As the remarkable characteristics for these genera are different in each other except for the presence of an apical horn and the distal terminal structure, it is impossible to discuss about their synonymy based on the definition. The topotypic specimen of Eucyrtidium tricinctum from the H.M.S. Challenger Station 225 is a little bit different from the description in Campbell (1954) by the similar height of the segments (supporting image for Acanthocyrtis). This difference is well explained by intra-species variations. The topotypic specimen has a thorny appearance but it is not significant compared to the type-illustration for Artocapsa. The genus Artocapsa has a closed final segment whereas Acanthocyrtis has a fenestrated aperture. This is insufficient to separate them at generic level. Both these genera were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1887: 437 for Acanthocyrtis and 438 for Artocapsa). As the species with a basal spine at the end of the final segment is rare in other genera, Artocapsa is selected as a valid name.</p> <p>Stichophatna</p> <p>The synonymy of Cyrtolagena, Sticholagena, Stichophaenidium, Stichophatna, Stichophormium, Stichophormiscus has been well established by previous studies (Petrushevskaya 1975; De Wever et al. 2001; Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984). Cyrtolagena published in Haeckel (1887: 1449) has been used a long time as the valid name but the oldest available name is Stichophatna published in Haeckel (1882: 439).</p> <p>Lithocampe</p> <p>Lithocampanula has the same type species as Lithocampe. Tochilina (1989a, 2008) erected two genera Ariadnella and Cyrtopenta associated with Stichocorys under the Lithocampidae in her sense. The translated diagnosis from the original Russian for Cyrtopenta follows. “ Fundamental part of the shell constituted by five segments relatively of same height, progressively enlarging from the first one to the fourth, but the fifth narrower. From two to five additional segments. Shell of conical shape. Pores distributed symmetrically ”. The topotype of Lithocampe radicula (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 12, figs 8a, 8b), type species of Lithocampe, exactly matches the definition of Cyrtopenta. It is noted that “ Stichocorys delmontensis ” and “ Stichocorys peregrina ” were placed in Cyrtopenta in Tochilina (1989a). This also means that both these species belong to Lithocampe but not to Stichocorys.</p> <p>Ariadnella is defined by “ six to seven main segments and one to two additional ones with a nearly conical-cylindrical shape, and by a terminal tube with a mesh structure ” (translation from Tochilina 2008: 62-63). Tochilina (2008) commented that Ariadnella differs from Lithocampe and Stichocorys by its general shape and the much greater number of segments. When compared, Lithocampe radicula and Lithocampe subligata, respectively type species of Lithocampe and Ariadnella, the former has six segments and the latter eight segments. However, all other characters including the general shape are nearly identical. The difference pointed out by Tochilina (2008) is not applicable as genus criteria. Tochilina (1989a: 63) includes Lithomitra infundibulum as a member of this Ariadnella. As L. infundibulum is the type species of Lithomitrissa, Tochilina (2008) herself agrees with the synonymy relationship between Ariadnella and Lithomitrissa. The oldest available name is Lithocampe among them.</p> <p>Stichocorys</p> <p>The practical usage of Stichocorys was once extremely broaden by Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel (1970) in order to include “ Stichocorys peregrina ” and “ Stichocorys delmontensis.” Stichocorys differs from Lithocampe by the fact that the proportions between the segments are less variable and that external constrictions are well-differentiated (translation from Petrushevskaya 1981: 212). Stichocorys in the sense of Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel (1970) was mixed with Lithocampe under the modern sense. Tochilina (1989a: 56) revised the definition to separate Lithocampe (Cyrtopenta in original) from Stichocorys on the basis of “ a three-segmented conical shell, thin-walled fourth and fifth segments (when present), the third segment with a maximum width, and the occurrence of regular pores on the second and third segments differently from the irregular pores located on the fourth and fifth segments ” (translation from Tochilina 1989a by J. P. Caulet). Except pore patterns, these distinguishing points are well fit with our concept of Stichocorys.</p> <p>The same type species is designated for Cyrtophormis, Cyrtophormium and Cyrtophormiscus. Referred to Campbell (1954), the main difference at family level in the sense of Campbell (1954: D139-143) is the number of radial apophyses around the test (four to nine or more radial apophyses for Artophormis, Cyrtophormis, Stichophaenoma; presence of radial apophyses for Cyrtocapsoma and Eusyringoma). Obviously, the state of development of the radial apophyses illustrated in the type specimens are intraspecies variations but cannot be a criterion for genus level. The next distinguishing character of lower value at the subfamily level in the sense of Campbell (1954) is the fenestrated basal end of the test (Cyrtocapsoma and Stichophaenoma), or the opened basal end (Artophormis, Cyrtophormis and Eusyringoma). The difference between “fenestrated” and “open” is easily recognizable in the type-illustrations, but such kind of variation is commonly encountered in each of the samples. If this difference is accepted for subfamily classification, tens or hundreds of subfamilies will be created with only a few samples. Due to these reason, the difference under the definition written is as follows: oval or spindle-shaped shell, radial ribs prolonged into feet for Artophormis (Campbell 1954: D139); oval or spindle-shaped shell, absence of lateral ribs, and six to five feet for Cyrtophormis (Campbell 1954: D139); pointed final segment with basal spines for Stichophaenoma (Campbell 1954: D140); long narrow appendage as the last segment and 4 or more segments for Eusyringoma (Campbell 1954: D140); and presence of apical horn and four or more ring-like strictures for Cyrtocapsoma (Campbell 1954: D143). The type-illustration for Artophormis shows very indistinguishable radial ribs, sufficient characteristic to be separated from Cyrtophormis. “Feet” for both Artophormis and Cyrtophormis depend on specimens but not even at species level nor genus level. There are no reasons to separate Artophormis and Cyrtophormis. As both these genera, the characteristic of a pointed final segment with basal spines can be included in a variation between “ Artophormis / Cyrtophormis ”, thus Stichophaenoma is also a synonym of these two genera at genus level. The definition of Eusyringoma written in Campbell (1954) does not match the illustrated type specimen (Stöhr 1880: pl. 4, fig. 8). More clearly, the type specimen is exactly the same as that of Stichocorys in the sense of Tochilina (2008). The presence of an apical horn is noted only for Cyrtocapsoma among the genera discussed here, but the apical horn of the type specimen (Stöhr 1880: pl. 4, fig. 9) is so tiny as not to be differentiate in other genera. In conclusion all characteristics pointed by Campbell (1954) have no value for generic differences. Excluded these characteristics, the synonymy is simply evaluated following the similitude with Stichocorys in the sense of Tochilina (2008). It is a little bit unclear for Stichophaenoma but all other genera are fallen in her concept. Artophormis and Stichocorys were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1882: 438 for both genera). Stichocorys is the best valid genus for taxonomic stability.</p> <p>Stichopterygium</p> <p>The five genera listed here were used to be classified into the “Tricartinae” (Campbell 1954: D136 for Stichopodium and Stichopterygium) and “Stichocorythinae” (Campbell 1954: D140 for Artocyrtis, D141 for Conostrobus, and D142 for Spirocyrtoma) in the sense of Campbell (1954). They are synonymized herein with a significant apical horn, an open aperture, and four or more segments. The presence of a significant apical horn in Stichopterygium makes the difference with Eucyrtidium and Lithocampe. The following discussion is largely commented after Campbell (1954): All these five genera have “radial apophyses” but these structures are not recognizable in any type-illustrations; Stichopodium is characterized by three latticed basal feet but real specimens (supporting image for Stichopodium) are exactly similar with Conostrobus except for the basal feet (supporting image for Conostrobus). Conostrobus is defined by a conical shell with a straight axis and similar strictures between segments (Campbell 1954: D141) and these characters do exactly fit with the type species of Stichopodium. Spirocyrtoma is marked by an ovate to spindle-shaped shell and spirally disposed strictures (Campbell 1954: D142). The ovate to spindle appearance can be classed into intraspecies variations and spirally disposed strictures occur in any species of bizarre forms. As these characteristics are not considered as valuable at genus level, “ Spirocyrtoma ” can be classified into Conostrobus or Spirocyrtoma. Artocyrtis is characterized by joints of dissimilar lengths and a smooth surface, according to Campbell (1954: D140). Referred to the lectotype of Artocyrtis (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 55, figs 5a-c), “joints of dissimilar length” is interpreted as a larger thorax (2nd segment). This larger thorax and a smooth surface are also characteristics in common with the type-illustration of Stichopterygium. Except for the larger thorax, Artocyrtis can be interpreted as a cylindrical form typical of Conostrobus and Spirocyrtoma.</p> <p>This synonymy, however, should be re-examined by the shape of the evolutionary lineages. The first, latticed lateral ribs, or wings, is the only character in Stichopterygium (Campbell 1954: D136). As the type species of Artocyrtis, Conostrobus, Stichopodium and Stichopterygium are living species, as the occurrence of latticed lateral ribs or wings is impossible to be explained by intraspecific variations, this characteristic must be considered to be as differences at species or genus level. This point has not yet been evidenced. The second characteristic, the importance of the larger thorax, has not yet been evaluated. If this character is important, these five genera would be divided into two groups. For the lack of lattice lateral ribs or wings, Artocyrtis is the only genus which can be synonymized with Stichopterygium. The third characteristic (presence of a significant apical horn) is regarded as a major character to differentiate Stichopterygium from Eucyrtidium and Lithocampe. No papers prove it can be considered as a phylogenetic marker based on evolutionary phylogeny. For example, Artocyrtis is exactly similar to “ Cyrtopenta ” except for the apical horn as referred to the lectotypes of these two type species in Suzuki et al. (2009c: pl. 15, fig. 7b for Cyrtopenta and pl. 55, figs 5a-c for Artocyrtis). These three points must be evaluated in future studies.</p> <p>Theocoronium</p> <p>As Theocoronium was placed in the “Theocorythinae” (Campbell 1954: D134) while Theocapsetta and Theocapsomma were placed in the “Theocapsinae” (Campbell 1954: D136) sensu Campbell (1954), the difference at subfamily level is relied on whether the distal end of the last segment is open or fenestrated. As commonly discussed for the Eucyrtidiidae, this difference is within intra-or infra variations. According to Campbell (1954), these three genera have in common similar thoracic and abdominal pores. ForCampbell (1954) Theocoronium is marked by a swollen ovate abdomen and a single apical horn, Theocapsetta has thorax and abdomen of nearly the same size, and Theocapsomma has a thorax much smaller than the abdomen. Referred to the lectotype of Theocoronium (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 55, figs 11a, 11b) and type-illustrations in Haeckel (1887: pl. 66, fig. 6 for Theocapsetta and pl. 66, fig. 13 for Theocapsomma), all these three genera have a single apical horn. The shape of the abdomen is only noted for Theocoronium but the difference in the abdomen among the three type species is commonly observable as a difference in the ontogenetic growth. The characteristic difference between Theocapsetta and Theocapsomma is the size ratio between the thorax and the abdomen. As already commented, the difference of abdomen is a difference in the ontogenetic growth stages. These three genera were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1887: 1415 for Theocoronium, 1426 for Theocapsetta and 1428 for Theocapsomma). Theocoronium is validated among them because the real type specimen is found in the Ehrenberg collection.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFD7FE7206A1FD46FE5B4887	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFD3FE7D0644FF06FDC54E9D.text	038DDA73FFD3FE7D0644FF06FDC54E9D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lithostrobidae Petrushevskaya 1975	<div><p>Family LITHOSTROBIDAE Petrushevskaya, 1975</p> <p>Lithostrobiidae [sic] Petrushevskaya, 1975: 582 (= Lithostrobidae).</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Lithostrobus Bütschli, 1882: 529 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D141): Eucyrtidium argus Ehrenberg, 1874: 225].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENUS. — Lithostrobus Bütschli, 1882: 529 (= Cornustrobus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 173; Cyrtostrobus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 171; Eostichomitra n. syn.).</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Lithostrobidae are multisegmented Nassellaria whose proximal part consists of a long apical horn, a poreless small cephalis, a latticed thorax, and a large thorax. The collar stricture between cephalis and thorax is unclear. The abdomen is distinctive from the cephalon-thoracic part by significant width differences. Subsequent segments below the abdomen are similar in height and are latticed with pores that are nearly equal in size. The exact structure of the cephalic spicular system is unknown. A-rod is upright in the cephalic cavity and is attached to the cephalic wall. A narrow tunnel typical to the A-rod extends to the stem of an apical horn. A basal ring-like structure is visible inside the bottom part of the cephalis.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. —Early Turonian-late Late Miocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>As Lithostrobus is the only member of the Lithostrobidae, the particular characteristics common to this family are partially understood. Lithostrobus was placed in the Stichocorythidae (originally Stichocoridae) (Campbell 1954), Stichocapsidae (Petrushevskaya 1981: 171-173), and Eucyrtidiidae (Hollis 1997: 79). However, these three families are now synonymized to Eucyrtidiidae (see synonym of Eucyrtidiidae). The cephalic structure of the type species lectotype of Lithostrobus (Eucyrtidium argus) was illustrated in Ogane et al. (2009b: pl. 48, figs 8d-8f). As described in the diagnosis, the presence of a basal ring-like structure is common in the Eucyrtidiidae. It should be noted that the segmentation patterns on the proximal part of the Lithostrobus are different from the Eucyrtidiidae.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Lithostrobus</p> <p>As the type specimen of Lithostrobus was found from the Ehrenberg collection (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 48, figs 8a-c), its drawing in Ehrenberg (1876: pl. 9, fig. 1) appeared to be partly wrong as for the first three segments. Referred to this lectotype and type-illustrations, the segmentation patterns and a non-bladed robust apical horn are common among Lithostrobus, Cornustrobus and Cyrtostrobus (Campbell 1954: D141). Cornustrobus is marked by the horn-shaped shell with similar segmentations and Cyrtostrobus is distinguished by a conical shell with a straight axis and dissimilar segmentations. The differences noted here are not so significant among them. Eostichomitra is defined by a conical multi-segmented shell, a small cephalis with an elongate apical horn, a simple initial spicule system in the cephalis, segments increasing in width and height, a smooth or slightly papillose surface and a large circular aperture on the distal end of the test. These characteristics are slightly different in the type species of Lithostrobus; but this difference can be explained by different stratigraphic ranges because Eostichomitra was initially found from the lower Turonian and the lectotype of Lithostrobus was found from the upper Eocene from Barbados. The robust long, un-bladed apical horn, the simple cephalis, the conical multi-segmented shell similar to Eostichomitra and Lithostrobus is limitedly recognized in multi-segmented Nassellaria from the Upper Cretaceous to the upper Eocene so that these two genera should be linked by a single phylogeny at generic level. The oldest available name is Lithostrobus.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFD3FE7D0644FF06FDC54E9D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFDCFE7D0600FBC9FA64485B.text	038DDA73FFDCFE7D0600FBC9FA64485B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Plectopyramidoidea Haecker 1908	<div><p>Superfamily PLECTOPYRAMIDOIDEA Haecker, 1908 n. stat.</p> <p>Plectopyramididae Haecker, 1908: 157.</p> <p>Acropyramidoidea – Petrushevskaya 1981: 99-103 [nomen dubium]; 1986: 133-135. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 140.</p> <p>Acropyramidoida – Amon 2000: 57-58 [nomen dubium, as an order].</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Two segments with no, to very weak, constriction between the cephalis and thorax. The cephalis is very small, while the thorax is very long, or very wide resembling a shallow-depth hat. Thoracic pores are systemically distributed throughout the segment.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This superfamily consists of two Cenozoic families:the Lampromitridae (questionably included) and the Plectopyramididae. The inclusion of Lampromitridae in this superfamily is questionable (see remarks in Lampromitridae). It is not necessary to prioritize a questionably assigned family name for a valid superfamily name in order to use “ Plectopyramidoidea ” as a valid name. Sandin et al. (2019) commented the high 28S rDNA gene in deep ocean forms of “ Plectopyramidoidea ” (originally Acropyramidoidea). This contract the idea that the Lampromitridae are generally found in shallow water. The “molecular Plectopyramidoidea ” may not include the Lampromitridae.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFDCFE7D0600FBC9FA64485B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFDCFE7D047BFDE6FB1D4CBD.text	038DDA73FFDCFE7D047BFDE6FB1D4CBD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Xitomitridae O'Dogherty, Gorican & Gawlick 2017	<div><p>Family XITOMITRIDAE O’Dogherty, Goričan &amp; Gawlick, 2017Xitomitridae O’Dogherty, Goričan &amp; Gawlick, 2017: 60.</p> <p>O’Dogherty, Goričan &amp; Gawlick, 2017</p> <p>Xitomitridae O’Dogherty, Goričan &amp; Gawlick, 2017: 60.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Xitomitra O’Dogherty, Goričan &amp; Gawlick, 2017: 62 [type species by objective designation: Stichomitra ? tairai Aita 1987: 72].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA (CENOZOIC ONLY). — Dictyomitrella Haeckel 1887: 1476 (= Parvimitrella n. syn.).</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — A multisegmented Nassellaria whose cephalis is both small and poreless. All of its segments, except for the cephalis, are covered with a latticed meshwork of uniform sized pores. The distal end of the test is open or nearly closed, without distal projections or appendages. The cephalic initial spicular system present at least a MB, A-, V-, D- and double L-rods. MB is rises obliquely to the A-rod side. Thus, the basal ring of the cephalis is also oriented obliquely. The A-rod extends upright in the cephalic cavity to attach itself to the cephalic wall or even penetrate the wall. An amphipyndacid-like divider is visible in the cephalis. The divider in the proximal upper-section is constructed by the MB, D- and double L-rods.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. —Early Aalenian-late Middle Eocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Xitomitridae were related with the Canoptidae, Parvicingulidae and Xitidae (O’Dogherty et al. 2017). The cephalic structure of the type species of Xitomitra O’Dogherty et al. 2017 (the Middle-Late Jurassic Stichomitra ? tairai Aita, 1987) is well recognized in its paratypes (Aita 1987: pl. 3, fig. 8a). Referring to this photo, “the divider” in the proximal top is constructed by MB, D- and double L-rods. This does not correspond to the characteristics of the divider in Amphipyndacoidea. The proximal top of the Xitomitra tairai consists of a cephalis and thorax. The divider in Xitomitra is poorly developed in comparison to the basal ring of the cephalis in the Eucyrtidiidae. Conversely, Dictyomitrella, and the Paleogene member of the Xitomitridae appear to have a well-developed cephalis basal ring such as in the Eucyrtidiidae; however, the MB of Dictyomitrella is obliquely oriented. The cephalic view of the type species (lectotype) of Dictyomitrella is also shown in pl. 22, figs 1e and 1f of Ogane et al. (2009b).</p> <p>Phylogenetic Molecular Lineage II (Sandin et al. 2019)</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Anatomically, one or two segments, but usually one segment, is observed. This is true for most cases except Lampromitridae and some members of the Artostrobiidae.If a subsequent shell develops, the final segmented part is not divided by an inner ring. This is unlike the Eucyrtidiidae. No common characteristics in the cephalic structure are recognized among the members. No feet are observed except in some members of the Acanthodesmioidea and Diacanthocapsidae.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Lineage II includes the Plectopyramidoidea (originally Acropyramioidea), Carpocanioidea (originally Carpocaniidae), Artostrobioidea, and Acanthodesmioidea (originally Acanthodesmoidea in Sandin et al. 2019). Although the independency of the Lineage II from the other Lineages is supported with 100% PhyML bootstrap values with 10 000 replicates (BS) and&gt;0.99 posterior probabilities (PP); the independency of superfamilies inside Lineage II is only supported for the Acanthodesmioidea with 100% PhyML bootstrap values with 10 000 replicates (BS) and&gt;0.99 posterior probabilities (PP). The trees of the remaining three superfamilies have not been agreed upon within Lineage II. As for the Carpocaniidae and Artostrobiidae, both families have a common structure with very complex arches around the V-rods. Thus, it may not be necessary to separate them at the superfamily-level (see remarks for the Carpocanioidea, Carpocaniidae and Artostrobiidae). However, this possibility should be carefully examined in consideration of the Mesozoic members.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFDCFE7D047BFDE6FB1D4CBD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFDCFE7F06B7F8AFFD1F4880.text	038DDA73FFDCFE7F06B7F8AFFD1F4880.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Plectopyramididae Haecker 1908	<div><p>Family PLECTOPYRAMIDIDAE Haecker, 1908</p> <p>Plectopyramididae Haecker, 1908: 157. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 550. — Dumitrica 1979: 34. — Hollis 1997: 71.</p> <p>Acropyramida Haeckel, 1882: 428 [nomen dubium, below tribe].</p> <p>Archiphormida Haeckel, 1882: 428 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 1133, 1158, 1159 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Haliphormida Haeckel, 1882: 428 [junior homonym, below tribe].</p> <p>Archiphormididae – Campbell 1954: D118 [nomen dubium]. — Takahashi 1991: 136.</p> <p>Archiphormidinae – Campbell 1954: D118 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Archiphorminae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 64 [nomen dubium]; 1945: 34. — Campbell &amp;Clark 1944a: 39; 1944b: 21. — Chediya 1959: 192.</p> <p>Plectopyramidinae – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 225-226 (sensu emend.); 1971b: 986 (sensu emend.). — Takahashi 1991: 113.</p> <p>Acropyramididae – Petrushevskaya 1981: 155-157 [nomen dubium]; 1986: 135. — Kozlova 1999: 124-125. — De Wever et al. 2001: 245-246. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S295. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 143.</p> <p>Cornutellidae Takemura, 1986: 68. — Nishimura 1990: 150-151, 153 (sensu emend.).</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Plectopyramis Haeckel, 1882: 432 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D128): Plectopyramis magnifica Haeckel, 1887: 1257] = junior subjective synonym of Cinclopyramis Haeckel, 1879: 705 [type species by monotypy: Cinclopyramis murrayana Haeckel, 1879: 705].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Cinclopyramis Haeckel, 1879: 705 (= Cephalopyramis n. syn., Plectopyramis n. syn., Sestropyramis n. syn., Spongopyramis n. syn.: Enneapleuris synonymized by Suzuki et al. 2009d: 262, Peripyramis synonymized by Suzuki et al. 2009d: 262, Sethopyramis synonymized by Suzuki et al. 2009d: 262). — Cladarachnium Haeckel, 1882: 430. — Cornutella Ehrenberg, 1839: 128 (= Cornutissa with the same type species; Orthocornutanna n. syn.). — Haliphormartidium Campbell, 1951: 528. — Litharachnium Haeckel, 1861b: 835 (= Litharachnidium with the same type species). — Polypleuris Haeckel, 1887: 1260.</p> <p>INVALID NAMES. — Ceratarachnium, Craspedilium, Sethodrepanum.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Acropyramis, Actinopyramis, Archiphormis, Bathropyramis, Cladopyramis, Cornutanna, Cornutosa, Heterocornutanna, Hexapleuris, Litharachnoma.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYMS. — Cornutellium Haeckel, 1887 (= Cornutella), nec Haeckel, 1882; Haliphormis Haeckel, 1887 (= Haliphormartidium) nec Ehrenberg, 1847.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Plectopyramididae consist of high-angled conical or very flat umbrella-like shaped shells. They appear as two segmented Nassellaria from an anatomical point of view but seem to be single segmented. The cephalic initial spicular system is highly degraded in some members. The proximal part above the cephalis is poreless and covered with a thick wall. The thoracic part is constructed of a gridwork pore frame. Pores are usually distributed in a longitudinal direction. If existent, four collar pores are visible in Cinclopyramis and Cornutella, and three collar pores are observed in Polypleuris. Endoplasm is small yet very long and thee cephalic part includes a proximal top. No pseudopodia or algal symbionts were observed.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Anisian-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The protoplasm and living specimen images were illustrated for Cornutella (Gowing 1993: fig. 6j; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.10.19), Litharachnium (Zhang et al. 2018: 15, fig. 4.16, p. 21, fig. 8.9) and Polypleuris (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.10.21). Environmental molecular data indicate a deep-water normal environment for the Plectopyramididae (Sandin et al. 2019). The cephalic structure was observed and documented for Cinclopyramis (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 25, fig. 9b; Takemura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 1, fig. 5; Nishimura 1990: figs 32.4b, 32.6b, 32.10b; Sugiyama 1998: pl. 5, fig. 10b), Cornutella (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 25, figs 5b, 7b; Takemura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 1, figs 1-3; Nishimura 1990: fig. 32.9b; Sugiyama 1998: pl. 6, fig. 1b), Litharachnium (Cachon &amp; Cachon 1972a: fig. 9) and Polypleuris (Nishimura 1990: figs 32.1b, 32.2b, 23.3c, 32.5c). The development stage of the cephalic initial spicular system is variable among the genera. MB, V- and double L-rods occasionally develop in Cornutella with infra-species variations (Nishimura 1990: fig. 32.8b). It was presumed that the initial spicule was embedded in the cephalic wall but this prediction was discarded after careful examination of thin-walled Cornutella specimens by Sugiyama (1998: 237). Cinclopyramis always has a cephalic initial spicular system consisting of MB, A-, D-, V-, double L-rods, and a cephalic basal ring. Litharachnium has both D- and double L-rods but the MB seems to be degraded. The apertural view of Polypleuris shows the presence of MB, D-, V-, double l-, and double L-rods, as well as a basal ring-like structure.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Cinclopyramis</p> <p>As pointed in Suzuki et al. (2009d: 262), Cinclopyramis was published by Haeckel (1879: 705) but not Haeckel (1887). Cinclopyramis includes the current usage of Acropyramis and Bathropyramis whose type species have not been illustrated. The genera synonymized in our paper are classified into two different subsuperfamilies in the sense of Campbell (1954): one is “Archipiliilae” defined by no joints and strictures on shells (Campbell 1954: D117) and the other one is “Sethopiliilae” whose shells are divided by transverse strictures into cephalis and thorax (Campbell 1954: D122). These differences do exactly reflect the absence of a cephalic cavity for the former group (Haeckel 1879: pl. 16, fig. 8 for Cinclopyramis; Haeckel 1887: pl. 54, fig. 5 for Peripyramis). The latter is relevant to the presence of a cephalic cavity (Haeckel 1887: pl. 54, fig. 6 for Enneapleuris, pl. 54, fig. 2 for Sethopyramis and pl. 56, fig. 10 for Spongopyramis) and of a ball-like cephalis (Bury 1862: pl. 11, fig. 1 for Plectopyramis; Haeckel 1887: pl. 56, fig. 7 for Cephalopyramis; Ogane et al. 2009b: the lectotype shown in pl. 21, figs 6a-6d for Sestropyramis). However, there are no specimens without cephalic cavities in these groups so the differences at the Campbell’s (1954) subsuperfamily level are wrong. This can be also concluded at the family and subfamily levels in the sense of Campbell (1954). The former two genera belong to the “Archiphormidinae” of the “ Archiphormididae ” (Campbell 1954: D118) whereas the remaining six genera to the “Sethophormidinae” of the “ Sethophormididae ” (Campbell 1954: D124). These families are defined by exactly the same phrases: “radial apophyses 4 to 9 or more” for both “Archiphormidiae” and “ Sethophormididae ”. These subfamilies are also expressed with the exactly same phrases: “basal shell mouth open” for both “Archiphormidinae” and “Sethophormidinae”. Thus, even under the concept of Campbell (1954), all these genera belong to the same family and “subfamily.” The distinguishing characters are a double meshwork in Cinclopyramis (Campbell 1954: D118), an outer mantle in Peripyramis (Campbell 1954: D119) and meshes closed by a spongy framework in Spongopyramis (Campbell 1954: D128). These characters are relied to ontogenetic growth differences formed by the secondary growth mode of Ogane et al. (2009c) in some limited species. In ignoring these secondary growth parts, Cinclopyramis and Peripyramis include a morphotype with a pyramidal shell with straight ribs and simple fenestration, and nine radial ribs in the thorax. This was cited from the definition for Sethopyramis in Campbell (1954: D127). This obviously indicates a synonymy relationship among Cinclopyramis, Sethopyramis and Peripyramis. Enneaphormis is marked by meshes fenestrated by secondary lattices and eight to nine radial beams (Campbell 1954: D127), but this can be synonymized with these three genera as discusses here. The type-illustration for Spongopyramis shows irregular framed pores, differing from any other genera listed here. Spongopyramis -like morphotypes seemed to be limited in range but this difference is not sufficient to be regarded as to constitute an independent genus from the others. Plectopyramis, Cephalopyramis and Sestropyramis are characterized by the presence of a ball-like cephalis but this character has not been used for genus differentiation. Instead, Cephalospyris is distinguished by nine radial ribs in the thorax (Campbell 1954: D127) and Sestropyramis by six radial ribs in the thorax (Campbell 1954: D127) as a subgenus of Plectopyramis (Campbell 1954: D128). The number of “radial ribs in the thorax” is not significant among their type-illustrations as to be relevant for genus differences. In conclusion, these three genera are synonyms. The specimens with ball-like cephalis are generally found in the Eocene but it is unclear whether this character is of genus or species level. The oldest available name is Cinclopyramis.</p> <p>Cornutella</p> <p>Cornutissa has the same type species as Cornutella. Semiobjective morphological studies of Cornutella by Reynolds (1978) are references to evaluate the validity of genera for the Cornutella group. Cornutella in the sense of Reynolds (1978) is subdivided into two genera (Cornutanna and Cornutella) by occurrence of an apical horn in Campbell (1954: D121) but this character is obviously an infraspecific variation. Orthocornutanna is marked by a straight shell axis (Campbell 1954: D121) but a curved specimen was found in the Messinian (by upper Miocene-upper upper Miocene; Cortese &amp; BjØrklund 1999: figs 21.G, 21.I). These curved specimens including the topotype of Cornutella clathrata (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 16, figs 4a, 4b) are not significant to separate Orthocornutanna from Cornutella. The oldest available name is Cornutella.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFDCFE7F06B7F8AFFD1F4880	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFDFFE7E0592F8E5FA5D4CFF.text	038DDA73FFDFFE7E0592F8E5FA5D4CFF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Carpocanioidea Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Superfamily CARPOCANIOIDEA Haeckel, 1882 n. stat.</p> <p>Carpocanida Haeckel, 1882: 427 [below a tribe].</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Consists of an oval to spindle shape shell with two to three (rarely four) segments. Cephalis small, tending to sink into the thorax.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>As no appropriate superfamily name has been proposed for this family, the taxonomic rank of the Carpocaniidae sensu De Wever et al. (2001) is used here. However, some partial definitions of this superfamily used byDe Wever et al. (2001), “cephalis simple”, are excluded from its definition as the type genus of the Carpocaniidae is known to have a very complex, cephalic initial spicular system (see remarks for Carpocaniidae). The “ Carpocaniidae ” sensu bothPetrushevskaya (1981: 225-226) and De Wever et al. (2001) used to be a member of the superfamily Eucyrtidioidea, but Matsuzaki et al. (2015: 66) excluded this family from the Eucyrtidioidea based on the different cephalic structures observed. This morphological decision was later confirmed by a molecular study (Sandin et al. 2019). The cephalic structure, similar to the Carpocaniidae and Artostrobiidae, is a complex arch and composed of supplementary rod-systems along the V-rod. As these families are poorly differentiated by molecular studies (99 PhyML bootstrap value 10 000 replicates, BS and 0.68 posterior probabilities), it may not be necessary to separate them at the superfamily level. This superfamily includes the Carpocaniidae and probably the Diacanthocapsidae in the Cenozoic.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFDFFE7E0592F8E5FA5D4CFF	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFD8FE78065FF905FD4A4DF9.text	038DDA73FFD8FE78065FF905FD4A4DF9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Diacanthocapsidae O'Dogherty 1994	<div><p>Family DIACANTHOCAPSIDAE O’Dogherty, 1994</p> <p>Diacanthocapsidae O’Dogherty, 1994: 216.</p> <p>Diacanthocapsinae – De Wever et al. 2001: 256-258.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Diacanthocapsa Squinabol, 1903: 129 [type species by monotypy: Diacanthocapsa euganea Squinabol 1903: 133].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENUS (CENOZOIC ONLY). — Myllocercion Foreman, 1968: 37 (= Schadelfusslerus synonymized by Hollis 1997: 62).</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — The family is oval to fusiform in shape. Two to four segments with a small simple cephalis that tends to be encased in the abdomen. The thorax is larger than the abdomen or develops three to four feet characteristics instead of a thorax.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Campanian-early Middle Eocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Diacanthocapsidae are fundamentally different from the Carpocaniidae by the presence of a simple cephalis. We consider the Diacanthocapsidae a member of the Carpocanioidea due to the similarity of all their characteristics, except for the difference in cephalic initial spicular systems. This decision undoubtedly needs to be re-examined in the future.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFD8FE78065FF905FD4A4DF9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFD9FE7805E1FD0DFE544AD3.text	038DDA73FFD9FE7805E1FD0DFE544AD3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Artostrobioidea Riedel 1967	<div><p>Superfamily ARTOSTROBIOIDEA Riedel, 1967</p> <p>Artostrobiidae Riedel, 1967a: 148; 1967b: 296; 1971: 657.</p> <p>Artostrobiaceae [sic] – O’Dogherty 1994: 158 (= Artostrobioidea) [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Artostrobioidea – Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 55.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — The shell is tubular or with a highly angled, conical shape. They consist of two or three segments. Some members have a subsequent undulated thorax whose segmentations are not marked by inner-ring dividers.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The higher taxonomic position of this superfamily is based on Botryostrobus (Artostrobiidae) and Spirocyrtis (Artostrobiidae). In Sandin et al. (2019), Ectotoxon (= misspelled Extotoxon originally, Stichopiliidae) was grouped with both previous mentioned genera, but this was owed to a misidentification based on supplemental photos. Thus, this superfamily consists of the Artostrobiidae Riedel 1967a and the Rhopalosyringiidae Empson-Morin 1981 in the Cenozoic. The Artostrobioidea are highly abundance in environmental sequences from deep waters (Sandin et al. 2019).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFD9FE7805E1FD0DFE544AD3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFD9FE7A05CDF9D7FCF84C82.text	038DDA73FFD9FE7A05CDF9D7FCF84C82.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Artostrobiidae Riedel 1967	<div><p>Family ARTOSTROBIIDAE Riedel, 1967</p> <p>sensu Sugiyama (1998)</p> <p>Artostrobiidae Riedel, 1967a: 148; 1967b: 296; 1971: 657. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1971: 1599; 1977: 878. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 536. — Foreman 1973a: 431. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 174. — Petrushevskaya 1975: 585. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 131. — Nigrini 1977: 243. — Dumitrica 1979: 34. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 263-264. — Anderson 1983: 44. — Sanfilippo et al. 1985: 702. — Takemura 1986: 63-64. — Nishimura 1990: 158 (sensu emend.). — Takahashi 1991: 127. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 154. — Hollis 1997: 57. — O’Connor 1997a: 69 (sensu emend.); O’Connor 2001: 4 (sensu emend.). — Boltovskoy 1998: 33. — Sugiyama 1998: 234. — Kozlova 1999: 134. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 355. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1018. — O’Connor 2000: 198. — De Wever et al. 2001: 255-256. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 113, 226-227. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S300. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 148-149. — Chen et al. 2017: 234.</p> <p>Artostrobiinae – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 235-236; 1971b: 985- 986. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 538.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Artostrobium Haeckel, 1887: 1482 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D140): Lithocampe aurita Ehrenberg, 1844a: 84] = junior subjective synonym of Botryostrobus Haeckel, 1887: 1475 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D141): Lithostrobus botryocyrtis Haeckel, 1887: 1475].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Botryostrobus Haeckel, 1887: 1475 (= Artostrobium synonymized by Caulet 1974: 236). — Buryella Foreman, 1973a: 433. — Dictyoprora Haeckel, 1887: 1305 (= Streptodelus with the same type species). — Lithamphora Popofsky, 1908: 294 (= Phormostichoartus synonymized Petrushevskaya 1981: 273; Poroamphora synonymized Petrushevskaya 1967: 129). — Plannapus O’Connor, 1997a: 69. — Sertiseria Sugiyama, 1994: 2. — Siphocampe Haeckel, 1882: 438 (= Lithomitra, Lithomitrella, synonymized by Nigrini 1977: 254; Siphocampula n. syn., Tricolocampium n. syn.). — Siphostichartus Nigrini, 1977: 257. — Spirocyrtis Haeckel, 1882: 438 (= Spirocyrtidium with the same type species). — Theocamptra Haeckel, 1887: 1424. — Tricolocapsa Haeckel, 1882: 436 (= Tricolocapsula with the same type species; Carpocanarium n. syn.).</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Tricolopera.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Chlamidophora, Stylocapsa, Tricolocapsium.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYM. — Acanthocyrtis Haeckel, 1887 (= Phormostichoartus) nec Haeckel, 1882.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Skeleton having three or more segments with a small cephalis. The dividers between the segments below the thorax are weak or not associated with discrete inner rings. A ventral tube is developed around the collar stricture or at the lower part of the cephalis. Pores are regularly distributed along lateral and/or longitudinal directions. Wings, or other relevant structures are absent. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, V-, D-, double L-, double l- and Ax-rods. The MB is oriented upwards, bundles of very long straight rods (Ax and “extra spines” in the sense of Sugiyama &amp; Anderson 1997b: fig. 2) downwardly directed in some genera. A free A-rod is present in the cephalic cavity and extrudes the cephalic wall as a rod-like apical horn. A free V-rod is present in the center or attached to the bottom of a ventral tube. It may also be ramified near the distal end, attaching itself on the shell wall. Several arches sometimes originate from the V-rod to make a complex structure in the cephalis, but these arches are never visible through the tube. Basal ring with two, four or six collar pores is observed. A double collar pore related to the Ll-arch is always present. In the case of four collar pores being present, another double collar pore related to the VL-arch develops. In the case of six collar pores, the double pore related to the Dl-arch appears as a tiny pore. As the MB is obliquely oriented, the basal ring zigzags along the line of the double L-rod and along the line of the double l-rod. A double pore related with the VL-arch is oriented up to the V-rod side; the double pore enmeshed to the Ll-arch rises up to the D-rod side, and the double pore related to the Dl-arch bends down with the D-rod.</p> <p>An endoplasm is observed and occupies variable places from the cephalis to the distal end of the shell. A bundle of thick pseudopodia extending from the aperture of the shell in Spirocyrtis is observed. However, this observation is not confirmed for Botryostrobus and Tricolocapsa. The nucleus is encrypted within the cephalic cavity in the case of Spirocyrtis. No algal symbionts are reported in living forms.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Toarcian-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Artostrobiidae were usually included in the Eucyrtidioidea (Petrushevskaya 1981; De Wever et al. 2001), but both the cytological and cephalic structures are fundamentally different when comparing Spirocyrtis and Eucyrtidium (Eucyrtidiidae). Thus, they cannot be grouped into the same superfamily (Sugiyama &amp; Anderson 1997b; Sugiyama 1998). This is supported by molecular phylogeny (Sandin et al. 2019). With the exception of Dictyoprora, the cephalic initial spicular system has been well illustrated in all genera: Botryostrobus (Caulet 1974: pl. 10, fig. 1; Poluzzi 1982: pl. 28, fig. 16; Nishimura 1990: fig. 34.1, 34.6; Takahashi 1991: pl. 44, fig. 5; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 28, figs 1-3), Buryella (O’Connor 2001: pls 3, 4), Lithamphora (Nishimura 1990: fig. 34.7, 34.9; O’Connor 1997b: pl. 5, fig. 4), Plannapus (O’Connor 1997a: pl. 6, figs 4, 5), Sertiseria (Sugiyama 1994: pl. 1, figs 1-3), Siphocampe (O’Connor 1997b: pl. 4, figs 11, 12; Sugiyama 1998: pl. 4, fig. 7; O’Connor 2000: pl. 3, figs 7, 8, 16-18), Siphostichartus (Sugiyama 1998: pl. 5, fig. 5), Spirocyrtis (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 40, fig. 11b; Nishimura 1990: fig. 34.12), Theocamptra (Nishimura 1990: fig. 35.4) and Tricolocapsa (Caulet 1974: pl. 7, figs 3, 4; Nishimura 1990: figs 35.6-35.9; Sugiyama 1998: pl. 5, fig. 6b). Sugiyama (1998) thought that the schematic illustrations by both Nishimura and O’Connor were imprecise.</p> <p>The Artostrobiidae are distinguished from the Rhopalosyringiidae by the presence of a ventral tube, the absence of wings or another relevant structure, and by the shell’s more regularly distributed pores.</p> <p>The evolutionary history of the Artostrobiidae at the genus level follows the lineage from Dictyoprora to Siphocampe, Lithamphora (originally Phormostichoartus), Siphostichartus, Botryostrobus and Spirocyrtis. This order was established according to the stratigraphic range of species (Nigrini 1977: text-fig. 2; Caulet 1979: fig. 4). The evolution hypothesis of Buryella at the species level was illustrated by O’Connor (2001: text-fig. 5) but the relationship of the Cretaceous Dictyoprora to Buryella is unknown. No bundle of Ax-rod and extra spines is found in Buryella, Dictyoprora, Plannapus, Sertiseria, Theocamptra and Tricolocapsa. When specimens are treated, it may be difficult to identify them in the case of: a) three tiny spines on the cephalis (Pterocyrtidium and Tricolocapsa), b) a partially encrypted cephalis (Plannapus and Carpocanium), and c) an undulated outline on thorax and subsequent segments (Botryostrobus and Siphocampe). The genus Tricolocapsa has an artostrobid-type tube on the cephalis, differentiating it from Pterocyrtidium. The cephalis of Carpocanium is generally flattened and appears to have a very complex structure under light transmitted microscopy. Conversely, the cephalis of Plannapus appears to have a simple structure. The difference between Botryostrobus and Siphocampe has not been resolved as of yet because due to the existence of many intermediate forms between these genera in the Miocene. High variability in undulation of thorax and subsequent segments create classification problems at genus and species level (Boltovskoy &amp; Vrba 1989).</p> <p>Protoplasm and living condition were illustrated for Botryostrobus (Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: fig. 11.12; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.11.12), Spirocyrtis (Matsuoka 1993b: pl. 5, figs 3, 4; 2007: fig. 4c; 2017: fig. 29; Sugiyama &amp; Anderson 1997b: pl. 1, figs 7, 8; Ogane et al. 2009c: figs 3L-3N; Suzuki et al. 2009b: figs 2E, 2F; Matsuoka et al. 2017: Appendix B; Zhang et al. 2018: 15, figs 4.23) and Tricolocapsa (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.11.13). A cytological ultrafine structure was also documented in Spirocyrtis (Sugiyama &amp; Anderson 1997b: pls 6, 7).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Siphocampe</p> <p>Lithomitra has the same type species as Lithomitrella so the latter is automatically synonymized with Siphocampe, following Nigrini (1977: 254). Tricolocampium was placed in the “Stichocorythinae”of the “ Stichocorythidae ” within the “subsuperfamily Triacartilae” sensu Campbell (1954: D141-142), and then this genus was characterized by a shell divided by many strictures into cephalis, thorax, abdomen, the presence of radial apophyses, an open aperture on the terminal end of the last segment, a hollow cylindrical cephalic tube, similar heights of segments (Campbell 1954: D136, 140-142). When referred to the real specimens identifiable as Siphocampe tubulosa (Haeckel 1887: pl. 79, fig. 13), type species of Siphocampula, the description by Campbell (1954) is not precise. This test looks to have many segments but it is due to the repetitions of surface ornaments identical to those of Siphocampe (See support images for Siphocampe and Lithomitrella in the Atlas). They are also no true dividers inside the test of Siphocampula as shown in the support image for Lithomitra in the Atlas. Tricolocampium was placed in the “Theocorythinae” of the “ Theocorythidae ” in the “subsuperfamily Theopiliilae” sensu Campbell (1954: D129, 132, 134). The taxa under these higher taxonomic ranks are characterized by a shell divided by two transverse strictures into cephalis, thorax and abdomen, no basal apophyses, and open aperture. Tricolocampium itself is defined by a cylindrical abdomen, no apical horn, and similar pore patterns on thorax and abdomen in Campbell (1954: D134). The description at higher ranks also matches with the type-illustration of Siphocampe (Haeckel 1887: pl. 79, fig. 10). Campbell (1954) documented similar pore patterns on thorax and abdomen, but this does not correspond to the type-illustration of Tricolocampium. Rather, the pore patterns on thorax and abdomen in the type species of Tricolocampium (Haeckel 1887: pl. 66, fig. 21) is similar to the type-illustration of Siphocampe. The remaining difference between these two genera is the occurrence, in the definition, of a tube on the cephalis. However, real specimens identifiable as Tricolocampe cylindrica have a tube extending laterally to the cephalis (the support image for Tricolocampium in the Atlas) and, thus, there is no reason to keep Tricolocampium as valid. The oldest available names are Siphocampe and Lithomitra which were published in the different papers of the same year (Haeckel 1882 for Siphocampe and Bütschli 1882 for Lithomitra). As the first reviser, Nigrini (1977: 254) has already validated Siphocampe.</p> <p>Tricolocapsa</p> <p>Tricolocapsula has the same type species as Tricolocapsa. Tricolocapsa is defined by the lack of an apical horn, no latticed septum between the thorax and the abdomen and a thorax as large as the abdomen or larger (Campbell 1954: D136). Carpocanarium is defined by a corona of six feet, no thoracic ribs and a hornless cephalis hidden within the thorax (Campbell 1954: D127). These descriptions, however, completely mismatch the type-illustrations of both Tricolocapsa (Haeckel 1887: pl. 66, fig. 1) and Carpocanarium (Stöhr 1880: pl. 3, fig. 8). First, identical specimens having a perfect third segment have not been so far found. Real specimens most similar to Tricolocapsa theophrasti, the type species of Tricolocapsa, always have a poreless corona with an open aperture instead of a perfect third segment, a very thin tiny horn which is probably lost in most specimens, and no latticed septum between the thorax and the poreless corona (the support image for Tricolocapsa). The illustration of Carpocanium calycothes in Stöhr (1880), the type species of Carpocanarium, has a perfect spherical cephalis above the thorax, unlike a “cephalis hidden within the thorax” as written in Campbell (1954: D127). The “corona with six feet” mentioned by Campbell (1954) is an obviously wrongly recognized broken peristome if we refer to the type-illustration. The real specimens identical to this species mostly confirm the illustrations of the type. Different characteristics observable in real specimens point out a very tiny apical horn, a tube in the cephalis-thoracic suture, a trace of a thoracic rib, and six undulations on the peristome of the corona instead of six feet. Based on support images for both Tricolocapsa and Carpocanarium, these two specimens obviously should belong to the same genus. Tricolocapsa is the oldest available name among them.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFD9FE7A05CDF9D7FCF84C82	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFDBFE7A0598FBE6FA564877.text	038DDA73FFDBFE7A0598FBE6FA564877.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhopalosyringiidae Empson-Morin 1981	<div><p>Family RHOPALOSYRINGIIDAE Empson-Morin, 1981</p> <p>Rhopalosyringiidae Empson-Morin, 1981: 264. — O’Dogherty 1994: 158. — Bak 1999: 156.</p> <p>Lithocampaninae Petrushevskaya, 1981: 115-116 [nomen dubium]. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S295. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 143.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Rhopalosyringium Campbell &amp; Clark, 1944b: 30 [type species by monotypy: Rhopalosyringium magnificum Campbell &amp; Clark, 1944b: 30].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA (CENOZOIC ONLY). — Artostrobus Haeckel, 1887: 1481 (= Artostrobulus with the same type species). — Botryometra Petrushevskaya, 1975: 590. — Ectonocorys Foreman, 1968: 40. — Pterocyrtidium Bütschli, 1882: 531. — Rhopalosyringium Campbell &amp; Clark, 1944b: 30 (= Calompterium n. syn.).</p> <p>NOMEN DUBIUM. — Lithocampana.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — The overall size of the Cenozoic representatives of the genus is small. Two (rarely three) segments are observed with or without a collar constriction. The cephalis is poreless or contains small relict pores. A single vertical apical horn emerges from a free A-rod in the cephalic cavity, an MB is obliquely oriented toward the A-rod side, and a V-rod is found oriented upward relative to the shell wall or ventral tube. The above-mentioned features are well visible under a light microscope. Double ap -arches (type of AL-arches) are also visible on the cephalic wall. The cephalic initial spicular system is composed of MB, A-, V-, D-, double L- and double l-rods. The Ax-rod is present or absent. In Pterocorythium, at least, the basal ring is separated from the shell wall and directly connected to the V-, double L- and double l-rods to form four collar pores. The basal ring bends along the line with the double L-rod. The orientation of the MB upwards to the A-rod side implies that the double pore of the VL-arch rises up to the V-rod side and the double pore of the Ll-arch also rises up to the D-rod side. The A-, D-, V- and double L-rods are directly connected to the shell wall. Several rods are laterally distributed around the basal ring and connected with the shell wall. Excepting A- and V-rods, no vertical rods are present. Lateral rods include the D-rods, the double L-rod and several sets of double supplement rods that emerge from the Ll-arch. These rods that are connected to the basal ring are not recognizable under a light microscope. A relatively robust double arch between the l-rod and the A-rod lateral end of MB (named MA-arch) is also present in some specimens. D- and double L-rods extend outwards from the thorax near the cephalis and become external spines in Cenozoic members.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Bajocian-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The representatives of the genus Artostrobus in the Cenozoic have as common character the small size of their test. No molecular support data have been obtained for this family, but the presence of a ventral tube or a ventral tube-like structure is similar to both Carpocaniidae and Artostrobiidae. This family have a basal ring isolated from the shell wall, indicating some similarity with the Carpocaniidae. However, the overall appearance and the presence of apical horns suggest a larger similarity to the Artostrobiidae. As commented in the remarks for Lineage II, these three families may potentially be grouped into a single superfamily. Artostrobus was once placed in the Plectopyramididae (originally Acropyramididae in De Wever et al. 2001: 246); meanwhile Botryometra and Rhopalosyringium were both placed in the Cannobotrydidae (originally Cannobotryidae in De Wever et al. 2001: 244). Ectonocorys and Pterocyrtidium were not treated in De Wever et al. (2001). Originally, they were grouped by the latter on the basis of a common cephalic structure; however, the initial spicular system have not been examined in SEM analyses except for Pterocyrtidium (O’Connor 1999: pl. 4, figs 21a, 21b). Therefore, the details of the cephalic structure largely relied on the SEM photos of Pterocyrtidium (O’Connor 1999: pl. 4, figs 21a, 21b) with references to a drawing of Artostrobus (Petrushevskaya 1967: figs 56, 57; 1968: fig. 4; 1971a: figs 82.IX, 82.X, 82.XII) and Botryometra (Petrushevskaya 1971a: figs 79.I, 79.II).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Rhopalosyringium</p> <p>The synonymy between Rhopalosyringium and Calompterium is in debate among the authors of this paper. The cephalic structure of the Cenozoic Rhopalosyringium and the topotypic Calompterium specimens are quite similar externally. However, the potential topotype “ Calocyclas rachiphora Clark &amp; Campbell, 1945 ” from Laguna Seca Creek section of the Kreyenhagen Formation, south of Los Banos (Blueford &amp; White 1984:67-68; pl. 2, fig. 4), lacks a rhopalosyringiid initial spicular system. The older synonym is Rhopalosyringium.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFDBFE7A0598FBE6FA564877	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFDBFE64066AF8B3FABF4C3C.text	038DDA73FFDBFE64066AF8B3FABF4C3C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Acanthodesmioidea Haeckel 1862	<div><p>Superfamily ACANTHODESMIOIDEA Haeckel, 1862</p> <p>Acanthodesmida Haeckel, 1862: 237, 265-266 [as both family and tribe]; 1882: 445 [as a tribe]; 1887: 970, 973 [as a subfamily of Coronida].</p> <p>Spyridina Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [nomen nudum, as a family];1847: 54 [as a family]; 1876: 156 [in Spumellaria].— Schomburgk 1847: 124, 126 [as a family]. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 327-328 [as a suborder].</p> <p>Spyrida – Haeckel 1882: 440 [nomen nudum, as a family]. — Lankester 1885: 850 [as a family]. — Petrushevskaya 1971a: 240-243 [as a suborder]; 1971b: 990 [as a suborder]. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 529. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 868 [as a suborder]. — Anderson 1983: 39-40 [as a suborder]. — Sanfilippo et al. 1985: 661.</p> <p>Spyroidea – Haeckel 1884: 31 [nomen nudum, as a family]; 1887: 895 1015-1021 [as a suborder]. — Bütschli 1889: 1979 [as an order]. — Haecker 1908: 445 [as a rank between suborder and family]. — Calkins 1909: 41 [as an order]. — Lankester et al. 1909: 147 [as an order]. — Schröder 1914: 90, 141-142 [as a suborder]. — Dacque 1933: 42 [rank unknown]. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 53 [as a suborder]; 1945: 29. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 33 [as a suborder]; 1944b: 21. — Deflandre 1953: 430-431 [as a superfamily]. — Chediya 1959: 176 [as a superfamily]. — Anderson 1983: 29. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 293 [as a superfamily]. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 152 [as a suborder]. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 86 [as a suborder]. — Chen et al. 2017: 167 [as a suborder].</p> <p>Stephoidea Haeckel, 1887: 895, 931-937 [as a suborder]. — Bütschli 1889: 1976 [as an order]. — nec Rüst 1892: 176 [as an order]. — Lankester et al. 1909: 147 [as an order]. — Popofsky 1913: 283 [s a suborder]. — Schröder 1914: 72, 87 [as a suborder]. — Dacque 1933: 42 [rank unknown]. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 29 [as a suborder]. — Deflandre 1953: 429-430 [as a superfamily]. — Chediya 1959: 167 [as a superfamily]. — Anderson 1983: 29. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 291 [as a superfamily]. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 152 [as a suborder]. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 83 [as a suborder]. — Chen et al. 2017: 165 [as a suborder].</p> <p>Stephoidae – Delage &amp; Hérouard 1896: 219 [as a suborder].</p> <p>Spyroidae – Delage &amp; Hérouard 1896: 233 [as a suborder].</p> <p>Stephoida – Calkins 1909: 41 [as an order].</p> <p>Spyroideen – Popofsky 1913: 304 [as a suborder].</p> <p>Stephaniicae [sic] – Campbell 1954: D105-106 (= Stephanioidea) [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Acanthodesmiacea [sic] – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 227 (= Acanthodesmioidea) [as a superfamily]. — De Wever et al. 2001: 227 [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Acanthodesmoidea [sic] – Petrushevskaya 1986: 136, 138 (= Acanthodesmioidea).</p> <p>Spyridiniformes – Amon 2000: 25-26.</p> <p>Spyridinata – Afanasieva et al. 2005: S304 [as an order]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 153 [as an order].</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — One sagittal ring (or D-shaped ring) including MB, A-rod, V-rod and AV-arch. D-, double L-, double l-rods tend to be well developed. The AV-arch is rarely absent. Many small appendages systematically extend from particular portions of these rods. Endoplasm of spherical shape with a thick capsular membrane, transparent in color. Gelatinous matter, if present, wraps the endoplasm, siliceous skeleton, and algal symbionts. Ectoplasm poorly recognized. Pseudopodia visible or invisible.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Acanthodesmioidea consists of the Acanthodesmiidae, Cephalospyrididae, Paradictyidae and Stephaniidae. Molecular data obtained by Sandin et al. (2019) cannot be used when considering the morphological classification of the family within the Acanthodesmioidea. However, it amounts to the second highest environmental sequence, relative to Plagiacanthoidea, which have the highest (Sandin et al. 2019). Moreover, sequences of Acanthodesmioidea are particularly abundant in the subtropical and tropical South China Sea (Wu et al. 2014).</p> <p>The appearance of the Acanthodesmioidea species may drastically vary. The images of the same specimen under different orientations were provided in several papers (Goll &amp; BjØrklund 1980: pls 2, 3; 1985: figs 6-9; Tan &amp; Su 1981: pls 1-3; Itaki 2009: pl. 13, figs 1-20). Based on absolute and relative Cartesian coordinates, a precise orientation is the first step to identify this group. The next steps should be followed: 1) Like in pylonioids (Zhang &amp; Suzuki 2017: fig. 4), the absolute Cartesian coordinates (Type 1) are used to define the anatomical orientation of the specimen while the relative Cartesian coordinates (Type 2) are use to describe the orientation of a real specimen in the Type 2 coordinate system. Under Euclidean geometry, the way to define Types 1 and 2 of Acanthodesmioidea is mathematically identical to that of pylonioids by Zhang &amp; Suzuki (2017). To do that, some modifications in previous studies of the Acanthodesmioidea were taken into account (Goll 1968: text-fig. 3B; Goll &amp; BjØrklund 1985: fig. 5B); 2) the origin (O-point) under Euclidian geometry is defined as the joint point of Ax-rod with MB or the V-rod side end of MB for both coordinates of Types 1 and 2; 3) As for Type 1 coordinate, the sagittal plane (Sg-plane) is defined as to roughly include MB, A- and V-rod as well as the sagittal axis (Sg-axis) which is defined in order to include MB; 4) once O-point, Sg-plane and Sg-axis are defined, the polar axis (Pl-axis) is defined in a direction perpendicular to the Sg-axis on Sg-plane and the lateral axis (Lt-axis). The lateral axis is defined by an axis that is in a direction perpendicular to both the Sg- and Pl-axes. The lateral plane (Lt-plane) is defined by the plane including the Pl- and Lt-axes. Additionally, the equatorial (Eq-plane) plane is defined by the plane including the Lt- and Sg-axes; 5) Regarding, Type 2 coordinates, the short and longest axes of the shell are coded as the shortest axis (Sh-axis) and longest axis (Lo-axis). The remaining axis is placed on the remaining direction as middle axis (Md-axis). The longest side plane (Lo-plane) includes the Lo- and Sh-axes; the shortest side plane (Sh-plane) is defined by the Sh- and Md-axes, and the remaining plane as a middle one (Md-plane, including Md- and Lo-axes). The intersection angles among three axes, or three planes, are not necessary to be equal to 90° between each other although all of them must include the O-point. The coordinate system proposed by Goll (1968) and Goll &amp; BjØrklund (1985) cannot be used due to an inappropriate mathematical definition with no O-point and mixture of Types 1 and 2 coordinate systems; 6) the orientation of a specimen faced to observers is defined by the A-rod being in front of the observers. Under the Type 1 coordinate system, the A-rod side direction along Sg-axis is specified as “dorsal” because of presence of D- (dorsal) rod and its opposite direc- tion as “ventral” because of presence of V- (ventral) rod. The right side along the Lt-axis is named “iustum” and left one “sinistram”. The direction of the Ax-rod or of the relevant structure is defined as “inferior” while the opposite side is defined as “supra”; and 7) in the Type 2 coordinate system, the front-back is oriented in the Sh-axis, the right and left in the Lo-axis and the apex-base in the Md-axis.</p> <p>A second key aspect in understanding the structure of the Acanthodesmioidea, are many common skeletal frames and pores termed by Petrushevskaya (1969: fig. 1; 1971a: fig. 10): 1) Small appendages are systemically coded: c -spinule on the D-rod; t -spinule on the l-rod; p - and d -spinules on L-rod of the MB side; a -, m - and g -spinules on A-rod from the MB side; j -spinule on the V-rod; and f -, z - and q -spinules on the AV-arch of the V-side (Petrushevskaya 1969: fig. 1); 2) Large “pores” along a sagittal ring are named “sagittal pores.” A sagittal pore is always located on the Sg-plane under Type 1 coordinates; 3) Basal pores in the basal ring are coded as J -pores on the Dl-arch, Ca -pores on the Ll-arch and Cerv -pore found on the LV-arch (Petrushevskaya 1971a: fig. 10). These pores are aligned as J-, Ca - and Cerv -pores from the A- to V-rod sides (from the dorsal to the ventral sides).</p> <p>The Acanthodesmioidea have been widely recognized (Goll 1968, 1969, 1972a, b, 1976, 1978, 1980; Goll &amp; BjØrklund 1980, 1985), but there still remains many undescribed genera and species worldwide. In particular, few names have been proposed for early to early middle Miocene Acanthodesmioidea in, but not limited to, Japan and surrounding areas. To understand the taxonomy several identification criteria are required, such as: 1) the MB, Ax- and A-rods; 2) the orientation of the specimen under both Type 1 and Type 2 coordinates; 3) the number and name codes of the pores; 4) the anatomical position of rods and arches; and 5) the arch names around the sagittal ring. In spite of the difficulties in determining an assignable genus, the species are easily identified after a correct orientation of shell has been confirmed.</p> <p>The number of basal pores ranges from three to six, but the anatomical architecture is different even when the same number of basal pores are observed. The numbers of the basal pores and their anatomical position is better defined by the presence of five types of pore pattern: 1) Six basal pores forming a full set of double J-, Ca - and Cerv -pores from the dorsal side (Goll 1968: pl. 174, fig. 10). In some taxa, six basal pores are visible from the ventral side, but the double J -basal pore is obliquely located on the dorsal side (Goll 1968: pl. 175, figs 15, 16; 1969: pl. 56, fig. 8; 1972a: pl. 47, fig. 2, pl. 58, fig. 3). If this tendency is extreme, the basal ring appears to have only four basal pores, with double Ca - and Cerv -pores (Goll 1972a: pl. 41, fig. 3); 2) Four basal double pores, the small pair is formed by a double Cerv -pore and the larger pair correspond to the double Ca- pore (Goll 1968: pl. 175, figs 7, 8; 1969: pl. 55, fig. 7, pl. 57, fig. 3;1972a: pl. 42, fig. 3, pl. 48, fig. 2, pl. 50, fig. 4); 3) Two basal pores, sometimes presented as a double pit-like pore originated from very large basal pores. These pores are related to the downward D-rod, and recognized as a double Cerv -pore and double Ca -pore (Goll 1972a: pl. 51, fig. 3). A double basal pore could also appear when the double Ca- and J - or Cerv -pores become degraded, resembling a double pit-like small pore near the base (Goll 1968: pl. 176, fig. 12), or when both J - and Cerv -pores are completely absent (Goll 1972a: pl. 37, figs 1-3). Another case is observed when the reduction of the double l-rod occurs and the pore is constructed with a -spinule of A-rod and a probable j- spinule of V-rod (Sugiyama 1998: pl. 6, figs 3b); 4) Three of three larger basal pores, the V- rod extends upwards from the basal ring and two Cerv -pores unite to become as a single pore (united Cerv -pore herein) and the remaining two pores pertain to the double Ca -pore (Goll 1972a: pl. 57, fig. 1); 5) Finally, the V-rod might be invisible, in this case, three basal pores and a double pit-like pore are found on the basal ring (Goll 1972a: pl. 62, fig. 3; Nishimura 1990: fig. 25.7), however, the double J- pore may be visible or invisible, appearing in this case a double pit (Goll 1969: pl. 56: fig. 8). Thus, double Ca -pores are generally the largest existing basal pores while double J -pores tend to disappear. However, little to nothing is known about the relationship between the taxonomic classification and the variability of basal pore patterns.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFDBFE64066AF8B3FABF4C3C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFC5FE6006B1FC47FD6A4BE2.text	038DDA73FFC5FE6006B1FC47FD6A4BE2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Acanthodesmiidae Haeckel 1862	<div><p>Family ACANTHODESMIIDAE Haeckel, 1862</p> <p>Acanthodesmida Haeckel, 1862: 237, 265-266 [as both family and tribe]; 1882: 445 [as a tribe]; 1887: 970, 973 [as a subfamily of Coronida]. — Zittel 1876-1880: 123 [rank unknown]. — Mivart 1878: 179 [as a subsection]. — Stöhr 1880: 86 [as an order].</p> <p>Acanthodesmidae – Claus 1876: 158 [in suborder Thalassicollea].</p> <p>Acanthodesmiden – Hertwig 1879: 196-200 [as a family].</p> <p>Perispyrida Haeckel, 1882: 443 [as a subfamily]; 1887: 1092, 1095 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Triostephanida Haeckel, 1882: 445 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Circospyrida Haeckel, 1882: 443 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 1024, 1072.</p> <p>Eucoronida Haeckel, 1882: 445 [as a tribe]; 1887: 970, 976 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Trissocyclida Haeckel, 1882: 446 [as a tribe]; 1887: 970, 982 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Monostephida Haeckel, 1882: 447 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Tympanida Haeckel, 1887: 937, 987-991 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1978 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 177 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].</p> <p>Semantida Haeckel, 1887: 937, 953-956 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1977 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].</p> <p>Coronida Haeckel, 1887: 937, 967-970 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1977 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 176. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].</p> <p>Lithocircida Haeckel, 1887: 940 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Cortiniscida Haeckel, 1887: 956 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Protympanida Haeckel, 1887: 990, 991 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Semantidae – Popofsky 1908: 267; Popofsky 1913: 297. — Schröder 1914: 87-88. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 29. — Chediya 1959: 169. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 292.</p> <p>Tympanidiidae [sic] – Poche 1913: 219 (= Tympaniidae).</p> <p>Coronidiidae – Poche 1913: 219.</p> <p>Semantididae [sic] – Poche 1913: 219 (= Semantidae). — Campbell 1954: D106. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 270. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 152. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 271. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 85.</p> <p>Coronidae [sic] – Popofsky 1913: 300 (= Coronidiidae). — Schröder 1914: 87. — Chediya 1959: 171. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 270. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 292.</p> <p>Tympanidae – Popofsky 1913: 301. — Schröder 1914: 87. — Chediya 1959: 173. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 292-293.</p> <p>Acanthodesmiidae – Campbell 1954: D106. — Riedel 1967b: 296; 1971: 656. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970: 523;1971: 1590. — Petrushevskaya 1971a: 260; 1971b: 990; 1981: 353-354. — Dumitrica 1973a: 840; 1979: 35. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 532- 533. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1973: 526. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 173. — Nishimura 1990: 116, 118 (sensu emend.). — Takahashi 1991: 101. — van de Paverd 1995: 200-201. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1017. — De Wever et al. 2001: 230, 232. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S305. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 155.</p> <p>Lithocircinae – Campbell 1954: D106.</p> <p>Semantidinae [sic] – Campbell 1954: D106 (= Semantinae).</p> <p>Cortiniscinae – Campbell 1954: D106. — Chediya 1959: 170.</p> <p>Acanthodesmiinae – Campbell 1954: D106-107. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 356-357. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S305-306. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 156-157.</p> <p>Eucoronidinae – Campbell 1954: D108.</p> <p>Trissocyclinae – Campbell 1954: D108. — Chediya 1959: 172.</p> <p>Protympaniinae – Campbell 1954: D108 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Perispyridinae – Campbell 1954: D116 (not from the Mesozoic Perispyridium). — Petrushevskaya 1981: 354. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S305. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 155.</p> <p>Circospyridinae – Campbell 1954: D114 [nomen dubium]. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 364-366. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S305. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 155.</p> <p>Lithocyrtinae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 168 (= Lithocircinae).</p> <p>Acanthodesminae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 171 (= Acanthodesmiinae).</p> <p>Eucoroninae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 172 (= Eucoronidinae).</p> <p>Protympaninae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 173 [nomen dubium] (= Protympaniinae).</p> <p>Circospyrinae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 181 [nomen dubium] (= Circospyridinae).</p> <p>Perispyrinae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 184 (= Perispyridinae). — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 166.</p> <p>Trissocyclidae – Goll 1968: 1416-1417 (sensu emend.). — Hollis 1997: 83.</p> <p>Spyridae [sic] – Boltovskoy 1998: 33 [nomen nudum] (= Spyrididae).</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Acanthodesmia Müller, 1856: 485 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D107): Lithocircus vinculatus Müller, 1856: 484].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Acanthodesmia Müller, 1856: 485 (= Acanthostephanus n. syn., Octotympanum n. syn., Tristephaniscus n. syn., Tristephanium n. syn., Triostephus n. syn., Tympanura n. syn., Zygostephus n. syn., Zygostephanus n. syn.; Tympanium synonymized by Nigrini &amp; Lombari 1984: N75; Lithocoronis synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1971a: 274). — Dictyospyris Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Dictyospyrissa synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1971a: 267;? Dictyospyrantha n. syn.; Dictyospyrella synonymized by Kozlova 1999: 164). — Eucoronis Haeckel, 1882: 445 (= Acrocoronis with the same type species; Acrocubus, Apocubus, synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1971a: 267; Coronidium synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 358). — Lithocircus Müller, 1856: 484 (= Archicircus, Archistephus, synonymized byPetrushevskaya 1971a: 269). — Lithocubus Haeckel, 1882: 446. — Lithotympanium Haeckel, 1882: 447. — Semantis Haeckel, 1887: 956 (= Cortiniscus n. syn.). — Tricolospyris Haeckel, 1882: 443 (= Perispyris n. syn.). — Trissocyclus Haeckel, 1882: 446 (= Tricyclarium with the same type species; Tricirconium n. syn., Tricyclonium n. syn.; Tricircarium, Trissocircus, Zygostephanium, synonymized by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 533). — Tympanomma Haeckel, 1887: 1004.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Circospyris, Dendrocircus, Dictyospyromma, Dipocoronis, Dipocubus, Hexacoronis, Monostephus, Plectocoronis, Podocoronis, Prismatium, Stephaniscus, Stephanolithis, Stylocoronis, Tetracoronis, Tetracubus, Tripocoronis, Tripocubus, Tympaniscus, Zygostephaniscus.</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Lithotympanum, Tympanidium.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Acanthodesmiidae formed by a sagittal ring with twin cupola or twin set of body frames. The Lo-axis is parallel to Lg-axis while the Sh-axis is parallel to the Sg-axis. No significant skeleton developed below the basal ring. The basal ring is construct- ed of two to six basal pores. The endoplasm is situated within the space encapsulated by the sagittal ring. The space of the cupola is occupied by algal symbionts.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This family is probably an artificial group. The very young form of Lithocircus closely resemble Zygocircus (Stephaniidae) but the former is considered to be a young stage of some acanthodesmioid genera. This family is distinguishable from the Cephalospyrididae by the presence of a significant skeleton below the basal ring and from the Paradictyidae in the Lo-axis parallel to the Sg-axis but not to Lg-axis. Living appearance and cytological ultrafine structure were illustrated in Acanthodesmia (Anderson 1983: fig. 1.2.C; Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: fig. 53.b; Matsuoka 1993a; fig. 2.9; 2017: fig. 16; Sugiyama &amp; Anderson 1998b; Suzuki &amp; Aita 2011: fig. 5.K; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015; fig. 8.11.2; Matsuoka et al. 2017: Appendix B; Zhang et al. 2018: 10, figs 2.40-2.45, pl. 15, figs 4.22, 4.26) and Lithocircus (Probert et al. 2014: S2, VEPO-10). Algal symbionts of Acanthodesmia were identified as Gymnoxanthella radiolariae, the same dinoflagellate species as those of Dictyocoryne elegans (Euchitoniidae, Spumellaria) and Dictyopodium (originally Pterocanium, Lithochytrididae, Nassellaria in Yuasa et al. 2016). Meanwhile, algal symbionts of Lithocircus were identified as Brandtodinium nutricula by Probert et al. (2014).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Acanthodesmia</p> <p>The following combination has the same type species, respectively: Tristephanium and Triostephus; Tympanium, Tympanidium and Tympanura; and Zygostephanus and Zygostephus. The genera synonymized in this paper were classified into two families by Campbell (1954): “Acanthodesmidae” whose skeleton is formed by one sagittal ring (D-ring), a horizontal basal ring, and a well-developed vertical meridian ring (Campbell 1954: D106) and “Paratympanidae” whose skeleton is composed of one sagittal ring (D-ring), a horizontal basal ring, and two parallel vertical meridian rings (Campbell 1954: D108). The former is “twin q -ring” and the latter is “twin z -ring” parallel to “twin q- ring” in the sense of Petrushevskaya (1969: fig. 1.7). Both “family” specimens are actually found at least in the northeastern Indian Ocean (confirmed by Zhang Lanlan &amp; Suzuki Noritoshi in the same slides). These specimens cannot be differentiated even at specific level by any other characters except by the number of vertical meridian rings. In consideration of this situation, the number of parallel vertical meridian rings is not applicable at not only a family level but also at genus level. These families are subdivided into several subfamilies by the number of gates (opening) in Campbell (1954). The definition of a “gate” is unclear because it is not defined by geometric rules. For example, Acanthodesmia belongs to the “Acanthodesmiinae” which are defined as having “ five large gates, or openings, between rings ” (Campbell 1954: D106), but as for the number of openings following geometric rules, Acanthodesmia has eight openings (not explained in detail here). According to Campbell (1954: D107-108), Acanthodesmia is characterized by partly latticed gates and Lithocoronis by armed rings with arborescent spines. The description of “partly latticed gates” in Acanthodesmia is wrong because the type-illustration has no latticed parts (Müller 1859b: pl. 1, fig. 7). A “Partly latticed gate” is visible in well-preserved fully-grown specimens. The genus name Acanthostephanus seems to appear only in the first description of Haeckel (1879: 705) and its type species is marked by thorny rings. There are many intermediate forms between Acanthodesmia through Acanthostephanus to Lithocoronis in same samples, suggesting ontogenetic variations. High variety in Acanthodesmia has already been commented by Petrushevskaya (1971a: 274). Triostephus is characterized by a sagittal ring (D-ring) and frontal rings (twin q -ring) of different sizes and forms whereas Tristephaniscus by a D-ring and twin q -rings alike (Campbell 1954: D108). Different shape and size between D-ring and twin q -ring depends highly on species, so it cannot be applied for genus criteria. The type-illustration of Tristephus (Haeckel 1887: pl. 93, fig. 9) is similar to that of Acanthostephanus (Haeckel 1879: pl. 16, fig. 7) with thorny rings but their differences are the presence of a twin a -f ring which is parallel to the basal ring and several feet on Tristephus. As shown in the support image for Acanthostephanus, the development of feet are intra- or infra-species variations. Several specimens display incomplete a-f ring and, thus, some species can present Acanthostephanus -forms to Tristephus -forms. This means that it is not necessary to separate Tristephus from Acanthostephanus. Zygostephanus is marked by a vertical ring without a sagittal constriction (Campbell 1954: D108). The meaning of “without sagittal constriction” is not understandable because no sagittal constrictions on vertical rings (in this case, D-ring and twin q -ring) are observed in Acanthodesmia (support image for Acanthodesmia in the Atlas). The typeillustration of Zygostephanus muelleri, the type species of Zygostephanus (Haeckel 1862: pl. 12, fig. 2), looks to lack a basal ring. As like the support image for Acanthodesmia in the Atlas, the basal ring is easily overlooked without special care. Octotympanum and Tympanium are characterized by the presence of parallel twin q- rings and twin z -rings forementioned because they were classified in the “Paratympanidae”. According to Campbell (1954: D108), Octotympanum is marked by incomplete equatorial rings but this characteristic is meaningless for any identification even at species level due to differences in the ontogenetic growth. The type-illustrations of Tympanium as well as Octotympanum are nearly identical to the type-illustration of Lithocoronis within species or at species level, except for the presence/absence of twin z -rings. The basal ring has two or four polygonal pores depending on the development stage of doble l-rod (Goll 1972a: pl. 63, fig. 2 for two basal pores-type; Goll 1969: pl. 60, fig. 3 for four basal pores-type). The two basal pores type has two unified Ca - and Cerv -pores and the four basal pore type has very large twin Ca -pores and small twin Cerv -pores. J -pore is unknown. All the genera listed here are synonymized here like this way. The oldest available name Acanthodesmia is validated.</p> <p>Dictyospyris</p> <p>All the genera synonymized here belonged to the “Circospyridinae” sensu Campbell (1954: D114) but this diagnosis is too incomplete to permit to precisely identify them. Real type specimens for Dictyospyris, Dictyospyrella and Dictyospyrissa were re-discovered in the Ehrenberg collection (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 9, figs 2a, 2b for Dictyospyris [as a topotype], pl. 75, figs 3b, 3c for Dictyospyrella, and pl. 38, figs 1a, 1b for Dictyospyrissa). Lack of basal feet is a distinguishing character for the “Circospyridinae” according to Campbell (1954), but the most important common structure in them are the presence of a latticed cephalic wall with small pores and the absence of any spines derived from the initial spicule system. The basal ring of Dictyospyrella in the lectotype (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 75, figs 3b, 3c) comprises three large pores (twin Ca -pores and a unified Cerv -pore) and two tiny pores (twin J -pores). The drawing of Dictyospyris fenestra by Ehrenberg (1876: pl. 19, fig. 11), the type species of Dictyospyrissa, looks as having four large basal pores. The real specimen of the Ehrenberg’s drawing shown in Ogane et al. (2009b: pl. 38, figs 1a, 1b) first confirmed that this specimen is obliquely oriented in the microscopic slide. Referred to the lectotype photo, these four large pores correspond to twin J- pores for the upper pores and twin Ca -pores for the lower pores. The Cerv -pores are invisible in the lectotype but the support image for Dictyospyrissa displays a unified Cerv pore in the lower side of two photos. The topotype of Dictyospyris trilobata (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 9, figs 2a, 2b), the type species of Dictyospyris, looks to have 3 large basal pores which correspond to twin Ca -pores and a unified Cerv -pore. Probable tiny twin J -pores are visible in the lower side of the specimen in the lower photo of the support image for Dictyospyris. These observations permit to conclude that Dictyospyris has five basal pores composed of large twin Ca -pores, a small to large unified Cerv -pore and small to large twin J -pores. If the unified Cerv -pore is large, the double J -pores are small. By contrast, if the unified Cerv - pore is small, the twin J- pore is large. Due to this pattern, the number of large basal pores changed as three or four among them. Large variation is only recognized in basal rings.</p> <p>The type-illustration of Dictyospyris stalactites (Haeckel 1887: pl. 89, fig. 7), the type species of Dictyospyrantha, surely fits to the description of this genus as well as the diagnosis of “Circospyridinae” sensu Campbell (1954). A probable Dictyospyrantha specimen is illustrated by Goll (1968: pl. 173, figs 21-24; 1972b: pls 73-74). Four basal pores are present with relatively large twin Ca -pores besides MB and relatively smaller unified Cerv -pores besides the V-rod. A unified J -pore is large and placed on the dorsal side of the test. In consideration of this basal pore pattern Dictyospyris and Dictyospyrantha may be different genera, but there is no time possibility to fix a much better position of Dictyospyrantha in this Atlas. According to Campbell (1954: D114), Dictyospyris, Dictyospyrissa and Dictyospyrella are respectively characterized by a basal ring with four-heart shaped basal pores, four large basal pores and three large basal pores. Under the current taxonomic system for Nassellaria (De Wever et al. 2001), it is impossible to synonymize genera with different numbers of basal pores on the basal ring. On the other hand, if this variation is plausible, Dictyospyris, Dictyospyrissa and Dictyospyrella can be synonymized as a single genus. The oldest available name is Dictyospyris among them including Dictyospyrantha.</p> <p>Eucoronis</p> <p>The combination of Eucoronis and Acrocoronis and that of Acrocubus and Apocubus have respectively the same type species. As Acanthodesmia, the genera synonymized here are classified into the “ Acanthodesmiidae ” (Coronidium, Eucoronis) and the “Paratympanidae” (Acrocubus) sensu Campbell (1954: D107-108). The “Paratympanidae” are defined by two parallel rings but the reliability of the type-illustration for Acrocubus is suspected. Referred to real specimens and following the terminology in the remarks of the Acanthodesmioidea, the type-illustration of Eucoronis is a view from the lateral plane (Lt-plane) (Haeckel 1887: pl. 82, fig. 6; the support image for Eucoronis in the Atlas) and the type-illustration of Coronidium is a view from the supra side of the equatorial plane (Eq-plane). The support image for Coronidium in the Atlas is a view from the inferior side of the Eq-plane. The referable images shown in Goll (1968: pl. 175, figs 4, 5, 8, 9, pl. 176, figs 8, 10, 12; 1972a: pl. 69, fig. 3) display four basal pores in the basal ring. Four basal pores comprise relatively small twin Cerv -pores and very large twin Ca -pores. A tiny twin J -pore is placed on the lateral side of the shell. The principle of these basal pores is common for both Acanthodesmia and Dictyospyris. Campbell (1954) characterized Coronidium by four open lateral gates, Eucoronis by six large gates, absence of large basal feet, simple gates and armed rings with short thorns, and Acrocubus by lack of an equatorial ring and basal ring without feet. All these diagnoses, whoever, are helpless to characterize this genus. Eucoronis, Acrocoronis and Acrocubus were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1882: 445, 445 and 446 in ascending order). In respect to the first revision by Petrushevskaya (1971a: 267), Eucoronis is validated here. The relationships among Eucoronis, Trissocyclus and Tympanomma need more studies.</p> <p>Lithocircus</p> <p>Archistephus has the same type species as Archicircus. Archicircus has already been synonymized with Lithocircus by Petrushevskaya (1971a: 269), but this genus is mixed with juvenile forms of Acanthodesmia, Semantis, Tricolospyris (Acanthodesmiidae), Zygocircus (Stephaniidae) and many genera of the Cephalospyrididae. It is practically impossible to differentiate a true Lithocircus from a young form of some Acanthodesmioidea.</p> <p>Semantis</p> <p>Both Semantis and Cortiniscus were classified in the “ Semantididae ” whose skeleton is composed of a vertical sagittal and a horizontal basal ring (Campbell 1954: D106). They are mixed with not only the true Semantis and Cortiniscus but also with young forms of some Acanthodesmioidea. This definition is not based on basal pore patterns and construction of the initial spicular system. As a strict differentiation at genus level based on these characters will need more time, we simply synonymized both these genera for a practical usage. These two genera were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1887: 956 for Semantis and 963 for Cortiniscus). Semantis is validated among them in consideration of realistic type specimen images (Haeckel 1887: pl. 92, fig. 2).</p> <p>Tricolospyris</p> <p>Campbell (1954: D116) characterized Tricolospyris as “lattice complete on all sides, otherwise like Perispyris ”. The “complete lattice” is obviously the supplemental skeletal part by secondary growth mode defined inOgane et al. (2009c). The basal pore parallel to the equatorial plane is two basal pores (Goll 1972b: pl. 1, figs 4, 5, pl. 3, fig. 1, pl. 4, fig. 3, pl. 6, fig. 4, pl. 7, fig. 4, pl. 9, fig. 12). These two basal pores are very large: the Japanese rice spatula-shaped twin Ca -pore. The large twin Cerv -pore is also visible at an oblique angle from the inferior view (the basal view). The large twin J -pore is also present at an oblique angle from the basal view. The presence of robust double l- and L -rods to form twin Ca -pores is common with Ceratospyris, suggesting phylogenetic relationships. Tricolospyris and Perispyris were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1882: 443 for both genera). Tricolospyris is selected here as a valid name because real specimens are recognized within this genus.</p> <p>Trissocyclus</p> <p>The combinations of Trissocyclus and Tricyclarium and that of Trissocircus and Tricircarium have respectively the same type species. The genera synonymized here are classified into the “Zygostephaninae” (Zygostephanium) with four lateral gates and the “Trissocyclinae” (Trissocyclus, Tricyclonium, Trissocircus, Tricirconium) with eight large gates in Campbell (1954: D108). The differences among the four genera in “Trissocyclinae” are the relative size differences of the sagittal rings (D-ring), the simplicity of the “gates” and the latticed conditions. According to Campbell (1954), Trissocyclus and Tricyclonium are different from Trissocircus and Tricirconium, the latter having simple gates. However, no obvious differences are recognizable in the typeillustrations of these four genera. Referred to the relative size differences of the sagittal ring, the combination of Trissocyclus and Trissocircus and that of Tricyclonium and Tricirconium are indicate their respective synonymy. Real specimens of Trissocyclus are commonly found but any real specimens identifiable as Tricyclonium or Tricirconium have not been encountered so far. As in previous genera, the difference between Trissocyclus and Tricyclonium being only the relative difference in size of their sagittal ring, we synonymize all these four genera until real Tricyclonium or Tricirconium representatives can be illustrated. The basal ring illustrated by Goll (1968: pl. 175, figs 1-5, 7-9) shows four pores which comprise larger rectangle twin Ca -pores and small elliptical twin Cerv -pores. J -pores are unknown. Zygostephanium is considered to have four lateral gates but not eight. We suspect an incorrect recognition of the number of gates so that this genus is also synonymized with the remaining genera until a new study can be conducted.Two oldest available names were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1882: 446 for Trissocyclus and Trissocircus). As real specimens are found for Trissocyclus stauroporus, Trissocyclus is validated.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFC5FE6006B1FC47FD6A4BE2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFC1FE6F0581FB07FE104CC3.text	038DDA73FFC1FE6F0581FB07FE104CC3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cephalospyrididae Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Family CEPHALOSPYRIDIDAE Haeckel, 1882 n. stat.</p> <p>Cephalospyrida Haeckel, 1882: 441 [as a tribe].</p> <p>Archiphatnida Haeckel, 1882: 429 [nomen dubium, as a tribe].</p> <p>Acrospyrida Haeckel, 1882: 441 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1085 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Brachiospyrida Haeckel, 1882: 441 [as a tribe].</p> <p>Dipodospyrida Haeckel, 1882: 441 [nomen dubium, as a tribe].</p> <p>Triospyrida Haeckel, 1882: 441 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Taurospyrida Haeckel, 1882: 442 [as a tribe].</p> <p>Aegospyrida Haeckel, 1882: 442 [nomen dubium, as a tribe].</p> <p>Phormospyrida Haeckel, 1882: 442 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 1021 1084-1085 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1981 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].</p> <p>Polyspyrida Haeckel, 1882: 442 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]; Haeckel 1887: 1024, 1059 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Tetraspyrida Haeckel, 1882: 442 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]; Haeckel 1887: 1024, 1043 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Therospyrida Haeckel, 1882: 442 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 1024, 1055 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Gorgospyrida Haeckel, 1882: 443 [as a tribe].</p> <p>Petalospyrida Haeckel, 1882: 443 [as a tribe].</p> <p>Zygostephanida Haeckel, 1882: 446 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 970 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Semantiscida Haeckel, 1887: 956 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Tholospyrida Haeckel, 1887: 1021, 1077-1078 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1981 [as a family]. —Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].</p> <p>Zygospyrida Haeckel, 1887: 1021, 1022-1024 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1980 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].</p> <p>Dipospyrida Haeckel, 1887: 1024, 1035 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Hexaspyrida Haeckel, 1887: 1024, 1046 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Lophospyrida Haeckel, 1887: 1078 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Tiarospyrida Haeckel, 1887: 1078 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Pylospyrida Haeckel, 1887: 1078 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Rhodospyrida Haeckel, 1887: 1085, 1087 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Androspyrida Haeckel, 1887: 1090-1092 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1982 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].</p> <p>Lamprospyrida Haeckel, 1887: 1092 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Archiphaenida Haeckel, 1887: 1133, 1158, 1173 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Tholospyriden – Haecker 1907: 123-124 [as a family].</p> <p>Phormospyriden – Haecker 1907: 124 [as a family].</p> <p>Zygospyridae [sic] – Haecker 1908: 445 [nomen dubium] (= Zygospyrididae). — Popofsky 1908: 269; 1913: 304. — Schröder 1914: 142. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 53; 1945: 29. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 33; 1944b: 21. — Chediya 1959: 177. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 164. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 152. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 272. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 86. — Chen et al. 2017: 167.</p> <p>Phormospyridae [sic] – Haecker 1908: 446 (= Phormospyrididae). — Popofsky 1913: 310. — Chediya 1959: 183. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 293. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 152. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 97.</p> <p>Rhodospyrinae [sic] – Haecker 1908: 446 (= Rhodospyridinae). — Chediya 1959: 183.</p> <p>Androspyridae [sic] – Popofsky 1908: 270 (= Androspyrididae); Popofsky 1913: 311. — Chediya 1959: 184. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 166. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 293. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 152. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 278. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 99.</p> <p>Tholospyridae [sic] – Popofsky 1908: 270 (= Tholospyrididae); Popofsky 1913: 309. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 165. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 293. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 152. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 92. — Chen et al. 2017: 170.</p> <p>Zygospyrididae – Poche 1913: 221 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Tholospyrididae – Poche 1913: 221. — Campbell 1954: D114.</p> <p>Androspyrididae – Poche 1913: 221. — Campbell 1954: D116.</p> <p>Cyrtostephanidae Popofsky, 1913: 288-289.— Campbell 1954: D106.</p> <p>Dipospyrinae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 55 [nomen dubium] (= Dipospyridinae). — Chediya 1959: 177.</p> <p>Tetraspyrinae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 55 [nomen dubium] (= Tetraspyridinae). — Chediya 1959: 178.</p> <p>Hexaspyrinae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 56 [nomen dubium] (= Hexaspyridinae); Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 31. — Chediya 1959: 179.</p> <p>Therospyrinae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 58 [nomen dubium] (= Theospyridinae). — Chediya 1959: 180.</p> <p>Polyspyrinae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 59 (= Polyspyridinae). — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 36. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 33. — Chediya 1959: 181.</p> <p>Semantiscinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 29 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 169.</p> <p>Triospyridae [sic] – Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 27-28 [nomen dubium] (= Triospyrididae). — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 529.</p> <p>Dipodospyrinae [sic] – Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 28 [nomen dubium] (= Dipospyridinae).</p> <p>Zygostephaninae – Campbell 1954: D108 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 171.</p> <p>Dipodospyridinae [sic] – Campbell 1954: D112 [nomen dubium] (= Dipodospyridinae). — Petrushevskaya 1981: 341-342. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S304. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 154.</p> <p>Tetrarrhabdinae Campbell, 1954: D112 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Tripospyrididae – Campbell 1954: D112 [nomen dubium]. — Blueford 1988: 242.</p> <p>Hexaspyridinae – Campbell 1954: D113 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Petalospyridinae Campbell, 1954: D114.</p> <p>Therospyridinae – Campbell 1954: D114 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Androspyridinae – Campbell 1954: D116. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 350-351. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S305. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 155.</p> <p>Phormospyrididae – Campbell 1954: D116.</p> <p>Phormospyridinae – Campbell 1954: D116.</p> <p>Rhodospyridinae – Campbell 1954: D116.</p> <p>Tiarospyridinae – Campbell 1954: D116.</p> <p>Spyridobotryidinae Campbell, 1954: D116 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Archiphatninae – Campbell 1954: D119 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Tholocpyridae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 182 (= Tholospyrididae).</p> <p>Lamprospyrinae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 184 (= Lamprospyridinae).</p> <p>Archiphaeninae – Chediya 1959: 196 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Triospyrididae – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 243-251 [nomen dubium] (sensu emend.); 1971b: 990; 1981: 328-329. — Kozlova 1999: 162. — De Wever et al. 2001: 229-230. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S304. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 154. — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 39.</p> <p>Triospyrididinae – Petrushevskaya 1981: 330 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Tholospyridinae – Petrushevskaya 1981: 347. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S304. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 154.</p> <p>Zygosmyridae [sic] – Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 293 [nomen dubium] (= Zygospyrididae).</p> <p>Triospyridinae – Afanasieva et al. 2005: S304 [nomen dubium]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 154.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Cephalospyris Haeckel, 1882: 441 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D112): Cephalospyris cancellata Haeckel, 1887: 1035] = junior subjective synonym of Platybursa Haeckel, 1882: 429 [type species by subsequent monotypy: Cantharospyris platybursa Haeckel, 1887: 1051].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Androspyris Haeckel, 1887: 1092. — Ceratospyris Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Liriocyrtis synonymized by Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 41). — Corythospyris Haeckel, 1882: 443. — Dendrospyris Haeckel, 1882: 441. — Desmospyris Haeckel, 1882: 443 (= Phormospyris synonymized by Caulet 1979: 136). — Dorcadospyris Haeckel, 1882: 441 (= Brachiospyris, Gamospyris synonymized by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 532). — Elaphospyris Haeckel, 1882: 442 (= Giraffospyris with the same type species). — Gorgospyris Haeckel, 1882: 443 (= Gorgospyrium with the same type species). — Lamprospyris Haeckel, 1882: 441 (=? Eulophospyris n. syn.). — Liriospyris Haeckel, 1882: 443 (= Petalospyromma synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 332). — Lophospyris Haeckel, 1882: 443 (nec Haeckel, 1887) (=? Semantrum n. syn.). — Pentaspyris Haeckel, 1882: 442 (= Taurospyris n. syn.). — Petalospyris Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Anthospyris n. syn., Rhodospyris n. syn., Sepalospyris n. syn.; Patagospyris synonymized by Ling 1975: 272; Petalospyrantha, Petalospyrissa synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 335; Petalospyrella synonymized by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 532). — Platybursa Haeckel, 1882: 429 (= Cephalospyris, Cyrtostephanus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1971a: 257; Clathrobursa synonymized by Haeckel 1887: 1045; Tessarospyris synonymized byPetrushevskaya 1971a: 259). — Thamnospyris Haeckel, 1882: 443. — Tholospyris Haeckel, 1882: 441 (= Tholospyrium with the same type species; Tholospyridium n. syn.; Tristylospyris, Tristylospyrula, synonymized by De Wever et al. 2001: 230). — Tiarospyris Haeckel, 1882: 443. — Triceraspyris Haeckel, 1882: 441 (= Acrospyris n. syn., Tripospyrella n. syn.; Triospyrium synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1971a: 248).</p> <p>INVALID NAMES. — Archiphaena, Calpophaena, Coronophaena, Dipospyris, Pylospyris, Stephanophaena, Tripospyris.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Acrocorona, Aegospyris, Archiphatna, Cantharospyris, Calpocapsa, Cladocorona, Cladophatna, Clathrocircus, Clathrospyris, Coronophatna, Dipodospyris, Hexaspyridium, Hexaspyris, Polyspyris, Semantidium, Semantiscus, Spyridobotrys, Stephanophatna, Stephanospyris, Tetrarhabda, Tetraspyris, Therospyris, Triospyridium, Triospyris, Tripodospyris, Tripospyrantha, Tripospyrissa, Tripospyromma, Zygospyris.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYMS. — Lophospyris Haeckel, 1887 (= Elaphospyris) nec Haeckel, 1882; Stephanospyris Haeckel, 1882 (= Dorcadospyris) nec Haeckel, 1862.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Skeleton having a sagittal ring with twin cupolas or twin set of body frames. Two or more feet, a coronal skirt and/ or a thorax are developed. In addition, the Lo-axis is parallel to the Lg-axis while the Sh-axis is parallel to the Sg-axis. The basal ring is marked by two to six basal pores. Protoplasm was identified in Lophospyris. A spherical endoplasm is located around the center of the sagittal ring while a brownish matter of unknown composition is aggregated below the spherical endoplasm and attached to the MB. Algal symbionts scattered in and out of the skeleton area. A gelatinous matter is found wrapping the endoplasm, the algal symbionts and the skeleton. The algal symbionts are scattered all over. Radiated pseudopodia are visible inside the gelatinous matter.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The family name “ Triospyridae ” has been used hitherto but cannot be upheld as a practical valid status. This is due to the absence of an illustrated type species of Triospyris. Amongst the potential candidate for family-names in Haeckel (1882) (Acrospyrida, Brachiospyrida, Cephalospyrida, Phormospyrida, and Gorgospyrida) we retain Cephalospyrididae as a valid family name, considering the best figured and described specimen representing the type genus (Cephalospyris cancellata Haeckel, 1887). However, little is known about the basal pore patterns and the relationship of the feet with the cephalic initial spicular system. Thus, this family concept may be artificial. “Living” and protoplasm images are illustrated for Lophospyris (KrabberØd et al. 2011: fig. 1.O; Matsuoka 2017: fig. 18; Zhang et al. 2018: 10, figs 2.12, 2.14-2.16) and Platybursa (Aita et al. 2009: pl. 32, fig. 7; Zhang et al. 2018: 10, fig. 2.20). Ceratospyris is known to be infected with Marine Alveolata Group I (Ikenoue et al. 2016). Evolution for Dorcadospyris was illustrated (Kling 1978: 238-239; Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1981: fig. 12.9).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Ceratospyris</p> <p>The reason for a synonymy with Liriocyrtis is written in Matsuzaki et al. (2015: 41). The basal ring structure comprises four basal pores: large, long rectangle, twin Ca -pores and small twin Cerv -pores divided by the V-rod (Goll 1972a: pl. 50, figs 1-4). Twin J -pores are very large, developed on the lateral side of the lobate shell. This basal pore pattern is similar to that of Dictyospyris. Three feet are directly connected with D- and double L-rod. No downward rod below the V-rod.</p> <p>Desmospyris</p> <p>The basal ring of Desmospyris comprises five to six basal pores (Goll 1968: pl. 173, figs 12, 13, 20; Goll 1972a: pl. 53, figs 3, 4). The J -pore is subdivided as twin J -pores by the D-rod (Goll 1968: pl. 173, fig. 20) or a unified J -pore looks as two pores with a downwardly oriented D-rod (Goll 1968: pl. 173, fig. 13; Goll 1969: pl. 53, figs 3, 4). Other basal pores are the large twin Ca -pores and relatively large twin Cerv -pores. The type-illustration of Phormospyris tricostata (Haeckel 1887: pl. 83, fig. 15) looks “strange” but the most similar specimens to this species (Caulet 1979: pl. 5, fig. 2) show identical skeletal structures. Desmospyris and Phormospyris were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1882: 443 for the former and 442 for the latter). Although Caulet (1979) did not mention the synonymy between Desmospyris and Phormospyris, this paper applied the name Desmospyris for them, implying the first reviser’s decision. The whole structure of Thamnospyris is similar to Desmospyris but they are not synonymized due to insufficient examination.</p> <p>Dorcadospyris</p> <p>The genera synonymized herein belonged to the “Diplospyridinae” sensu Campbell (1954: D112) which are defined by two lateral basal feet. Brachiospyris is marked by unbranched feet with lateral spines and no apical horn, Dorcadospyris by feet with lateral spines and a single apical horn and Gamospyris by two unbranched feet forming a ring and a single horn. Sanfilippo et al. (1985: fig. 10) illustrated these differences as an evolutionary change at species level. The basal ring structure shown in Ceratospyris ocellata, the type species of Brachiospyris, drawn by Ehrenberg (1876: pl. 20, fig. 5) is not precise when referred to the real sketch of this specimen in the Ehrenberg collection (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 77, figs 4a-c). Petrushevskaya (1981: fig. 531) illustrated four basal pores in the basal ring. The basal pore consists of a unified J- pore, twin Ca -pores and a unified Cerv -pore. Two feet do not directly connect with any initial spicular system. Dorcadospyris in the sense of Sanfilippo et al. (1985) includes species with three feet. The basal ring of Dorcadospyris with three feet is also illustrated inPetrushevskaya (1981: fig. 533). Differing from the species with two feet, the basal ring comprises five pores: a tiny twin J -pore, a large twin Ca -pore and a relatively larger unified Cerv -pore (Goll 1972a: pl. 62, fig. 3). The third foot is directly connected with the D-rod. It is unclear whether the difference of J -pore related with the presence of the third feet from the D-rod has a value as genus criteria or not. Dorcadospyris, Brachiospyris and Gamospyris were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1882: 441 for all genera). As Dorcadospyris dentata, the type species of Dorcadospyris, is commonly found, this genus name is selected as a valid name for them.</p> <p>Elaphospyris</p> <p>The basal ring is not part of the initial spicular system (Goll 1972a: pl. 47, figs 2-4), because MB is obviously above the basal ring. D-, V-, double L- and double l-rods are downwardly oriented to connect the basal ring. Six “pores” are visible but they are not the true basal pores and, thus, there are no J-, Ca - and Cerv -pores. D-rod only is directly connected with a basal foot and all the remaining feet are not directly connected with any initial part of the spicular system. Many papers applied the genus name Giraffospyris to several species, but this is taxonomically problematic. Both genera were erected the same year by Haeckel (1882: 442). The first reviser for sure is Campbell (1954: D114). This revision is however, erroneous (Nigrini, personal com.). As written in the Atlas, Campbell (1954: D114) erroneously considered Elaphospyris to be an objective synonym of Giraffospyris, and then he designated Ceratospyris heptaceros as the type species of Giraffospyris and only by inference of Elaphospyris. Therefore, we consider the type species designation of Ceratospyris heptaceros Ehrenberg to date from Chediya (1959: 180). It is clear if we check Haeckel (1887: 1056-1057) who erected the genus Elaphospyris with two subgenera Elaphospyris and Corythospyris.</p> <p>Gorgospyris</p> <p>The real specimens perfectly corresponding to the typeillustration of Gorgospyris medusa (Haeckel 1887: pl. 87, fig. 1), the type species of Gorgospyris, are rare (the support image for Gorgospyris in the Atlas). The basal ring structure in these specimens is different from that shown in Haeckel (1887: pl. 87, fig. 2). Gorgospyris is an available name older than Gorgospyrium.</p> <p>Lamprospyris</p> <p>The illustrated specimen of Lamprospyris darwinii, the type species of Lamprospyris, looks to have a free D-ring (sagittal ring) inside the cephalic lobe (Haeckel 1887: pl. 89, fig. 13). Real specimens identifiable as this species, however, have three feet which are directly connected with D- and double L-rods (the support image for Lamprospyris). Lamprospyris characteristically develops a latticed shell over the junction between the A-rod and the AV-arch. As this kind of lattice shell is rarely known in this family, Elaphospyris is synonymized with Lamprospyris herein. This synonymy needs to be confirmed in the future by an evolutionary connection between the type species of both these genera. Lamprospyris is an available name older than Eulophospyris.</p> <p>Liriospyris</p> <p>Goll (1968) identified his specimens as “ Liriospyris clathrata (Ehrenberg) ” (Goll 1968: pl. 175, figs 12, 13, 16, 17) but the specimen found in the Ehrenberg collection (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 38, figs 5a-c) is quite different from the drawing in Ehrenberg (1854c: pl. 36, fig. 25). The specimen shown in Ogane et al. (2009b) follows the indication by Ehrenberg himself so it is not possible to ignore this specimen. But this specimen is obviously different from the current usage of “ Liriospyris clathrata (Ehrenberg) ” and is also impossible to use for determining taxonomic morphological features. “ Liriospyris clathrata (Ehrenberg) ” is the type species of Stephanospyris. If this specimen is regarded as a valid name, Stephanospyris must be validated instead of Liriospyris because the former was published in Haeckel (1862: 295) while the latter in Haeckel (1882: 443). Real structure of Liriospyris can be understood from Goll (1968: pl. 175, figs 12, 13, 16, 17; 1969: pl. 57, figs 1-4). The basal ring comprises four basal pores: large twin Ca -pores and relatively larger twin Cerv -pores. A unified J -pore has a large size and is placed on the lateral side of the bilobate test. Four of six basal feet are directly connected with the double L-rod, the D-rod and an un-coded rod below the V-rod. The remaining two basal feet are present near the double l-rods but are not directly connected with them. The basal structure of Petalospyromma is shown in Goll (1969: pl. 57, figs 11, 12, 15-17). Differing from the basal structure of Liriospyris, the basal pores consist of two very large twin pores and tiny twin pores. As it is not possible to specify the D-rod and double l -rod from this sketch, the relevant code of J -, Ca - and Cerv -pores is not specified for them. Petalospyromma is tentatively synonymized with Liriospyris for a simple practical identification. Liriospyris is similar to Ceratospyris, but the former has small twin Cerv -pores and no un-coded downward rod below the V-rod. Liriospyris is an older available name than Petalospyromma.</p> <p>Lophospyris</p> <p>The basal ring of Lophospyris has two pores which are very large, polygonal, twin Ca -pores (Goll 1972a: pl. 58, figs 1-3). Both twin J -pores and twin Cerv -pores are also polygonal in shape, the former being placed on the dorsal lateral side of the test whereas the latter is placed on the ventral lateral side of the test. Goll (1976) has already proved that Semantrum quadrifore, the type species of Semantrum, is a young specimen of Lophospyris (Goll 1976: pl. 13, figs 5, 6). Lophospyris is an older available name than Semantrum.</p> <p>Pentaspyris</p> <p>No exactly fit specimen of Pentaspyris has ever been so far reported. The morphospecies most similar to Pentaspyris was illustrated as “ Lophospyris pentagona hyperborea ” byGoll (1976: pl. 15, figs 1-12). As Goll (1976) classified this morphotype as a subspecies of “ Lophospyris pentagona ”, this morphotype has exactly the same basal ring structure as Ceratospyris pentagona, the type species of Lophospyris (Goll 1976: pl. 15, figs 3, 7). No Taurospyris specimens are also so far reported. The most similar morphotypes of Taurospyris were illustrated as “ Phormospyris stabilis capoi ” by Goll (1976: pl. 7, fig. 5) but the number of basal feet is quite different. Under such suspect conditions, both these genera are synonymized as to reduce the number of “un-realistic genera” from the valid genus list. Pentaspyris and Taurospyris were simultaneously established by Haeckel (1882: 442 for both genera). Pentaspyris is validated among them in consideration of its type-illustration more realistic than that of Taurospyris.</p> <p>Petalospyris</p> <p>The genera listed here are artificially synonymized for simplicity of practical identification. The basal structure of Petalospyrissa and Petalospyrantha is a basal ring which is not directly connected with the initial spicular system below MB (Goll 1968: pl. 174, figs 5-8, 10). They have six “openings” without any arches directly connected with any D-, V-, double L- and double l-rods, and subsequently have no J -, Ca - and Cerv -pores. This basal structure is similar to that of Elaphospyris. However, the basal structure in? Petalospyrella (Goll 1969: pl. 56, figs 9-11) and Patagospyris (Goll 1969: pl. 58, fig. 11) has a basal ring directly connected with the initial spicular system. Their basal structure has three “large” basal pores with nearly the same size: the twin Ca -pores and a unified Cerv -pore. Tiny twin J -pores are also visible. Although all these genera synonymized here have many feet, none of these feet are directly connected with the initial spicular system. Although the Petalospyrissa - type basal structure is different from the Patagospyris - type one at genus or family level, it is practically impossible to apply this difference for real specimens with their current knowledge. Due to this reason, we prioritize a practical usage based on the similarity of the whole appearance until they are better studied in the future.</p> <p>In the sense of Campbell (1954), all the genera with the exception of Sepalospyris belonged to the “ Triospyrididae ” whose shell is composed of a cephalis and its apophyses and no thorax (Petalospyris, Petalospyrantha, Petalospyrella, Petalospyrissa and Anthospyris) (Campbell 1954: D112) or to the “Phormospyrididae” which have a thorax (Rhodospyris and Patagospyris) (Campbell 1954: D116). These two “families” are differentiated by the presence/absence of a thorax. As there are many intermediate forms between them, this family criterion is not applicable for these genera. Regardless of different “families”, the definition of subfamilies is the same among them (Campbell 1954: D112 for the “Petalospyridinae” and D116 for the “Rhodospyridinae”). The criterion for establishing a subfamily rank is also meaningless. The differences among Petalospyris, Petalospyrella and Petalospyrissa (Campbell 1954: D114) are based on the number of large basal pores on the basal ring. Since the number of basal pores has not yet been examined in the type species of all these genera, it is difficult to positively apply this criterion for the current taxonomy. The remaining character written in Campbell (1954) is the number of apical horns. One apical horn characterizes Petalospyris, Petalospyrantha, Petalospyrella, Petalospyrissa and Patagospyris. Three apical horns are found in Anthospyris and Rhodospyris. These genera can be divided into two groups but not in seven genera. It is not necessary to separate them by the number of apical horns. Differing from these genera, Sepalospyris has an apical cupola (Campbell 1954: D116). Although the presence of a cupola is not a sure criterion for genus or species definition, we synonymized this genus with Petalospyris because no real specimens identifiable as Sepalospyris have been found so far. The oldest available name among them is Petalospyris.</p> <p>Platybursa</p> <p>Clathrobursa has the same type species as Tessarospyris. Cyrtostephanus was classified into the “Cyrtostephanidae” of the superfamily “Stephaniicae” (Campbell 1954: D105-106). Following this classification, Cyrtostephanus is characterized by an incomplete ring, a latticed sagittal ring (D-ring) or a netlike fan of repeated anastomosed spines and a skeleton formed of a sagittal ring without a basal tripod. This definition, however, does not partly correspond to the type-illustration and the support image for Cyrtostephanus in the Atlas. The type-illustration (Popofsky 1913: pl. 28, figs 4, 5) is a basal view (a view from the bottom of the test) as the supra view (the apical view) is not known. The right photography of the support images for Cyrtostephanus in the Atlas appears to show an AV arch free in the latticed cephalic lobe. The remaining three genera belong to the “ Triospyrididae ” of the “superfamily Triospyridicae ” whose shell is composed of a cephalis and its apophyses, a binocular cephalis with a sagittal constriction, the absence of an apical cupola or dome or thorax. All these characters, however, are not recognized as superfamily criteria by the molecular phylogeny results (Sandin et al. 2019). The three genera were classified into different three “subfamilies”: the “ Triospyridinae ” with three basal feet for Cephalospyris (Campbell 1954: D112), the “Tetrarrhabdinae” with two lateral and two sagittal feet for Tessarospyris (Campbell 1954: D112), and the “Hexaspyridinae” with six basal feet for Platybursa (Campbell 1954: D114). These subfamily criteria are suspect because of the indistinguishable robustness of the feet and lengths among them. Real specimens of these type species (support images for Platybursa, Cephalospyris and Clathrobursa in the Atlas) seem to have less numbers or more numbers of “basal feet”. If this subfamily criterion would be accepted for these genera, more genera and subfamilies must be established. Following ignorance of these “subfamily” differences, Cephalospyris is characterized by an apex with an instum and sinistram apical hole (a right and left apical hole), Tessarospyris by the absence of apical horns, and Platybursa by the absence of apical horns, according to Campbell (1954: D112, 114). There are no reasons to separate Tessarospyris and Platybursa anymore. No distinguishing marker for Cephalospyris exists in any real specimens. These observations conclude that they should be regarded as a same genus. Some concerns remain about this synonymy. The basal rings are confirmed in Platybursa, Cephalospyris and Tessarospyris, but not in Cyrtostephanus. A complete ring is present in only Cyrtostephanus. These concerns should be solved in the future. All the genera, except Cyrtostephanus, were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1887: 429 for Clathrobursa and Platybursa, 441 for Cephalospyris, 442 for Tessarospyris). In respect to the first reviser, Platybursa is regarded as a valid genus among them.</p> <p>Tholospyris</p> <p>The combination of Tholospyris and Tholospyrium and that of Tristylospyris and Tristylospyrula are respectively based on the same type species. Under the scheme ofCampbell (1954: D112, 114), Tristylospyris and Tholospyris have in common three unbranched basal feet and no thorax. The “difference” among these genera relies on the definition of the family. Tristylospyris belonged to the “ Triospyrididae ” whose shell is characterized by the presence of a cephalis and its apophyses and the absence of an apical cupola (Campbell 1954: D112) whereas Tholospyris belonged to the “Tholospyrididae” whose shell includes a cephalis with an apical cupola (Campbell 1954: D114). The main difference is the presence/absence of “an apical cupola” but type images as well as support images for Tholospyris and Tristylospyris in the Atlas show the presence of “an apical cupola” in both genera. According to Campbell (1954), Tristylospyris lacks an apical horn and apical holes and Tholospyris has an apical horn. This difference depends on the development stage of the apical horn so it is not useful for genus criterion. “Apical holes” exist in both genera.</p> <p>The basal ring (Goll 1969: pl. 56, figs 3-6, 8) comprises four pores: very large, Japanese rice spatula-shaped twin Ca - pores and large twin Cerv -pores.Twin J -pores are visible from a base view, but they are obliquely oriented on the dorsal side (A-rod side) of the test. Three basal feet are directly connected with D- and double L-rods. The size of the twin Cerv -pores is obviously larger than in Ceratospyris, but the independency of both these genera has to be re-evaluated. Tholospyris and Tristylospyris were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1882: 441 for both genera). Tholospyris has already been selected as a valid genus by the first reviser (De Wever et al. 2001: 230) although no explanations were given.</p> <p>Triceraspyris</p> <p>Following Campbell’s concept (Campbell 1954: D112, D116), the genera listed here can be placed into a group with one apical or simple horn (Triospyrium, Tripospyrella, Acrospyris) and a group with three apical horns (Triceraspyris). Other differences given are absence of thorax for the “ Triospyrididae ” for Triceraspyris, Triospyrium and Tripospyrella, and presence of thorax for the “Phormospyrididae” as Acrospyris. The “thorax” of the type-illustration of Acrospyris (Haeckel 1887: pl. 95, fig. 17) is represented by supplementary meshes connecting the adjacent feet and, thus, this “genus” has no true thorax. The lectotypes of Ceratospyris didiceros (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 39, figs 1a-c) and Ceratospyris furcata (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 39, figs 5a-d), the typical species of Triceraspyris and type species of Triospyrium, show nearly the same morphology except for the developmental stage of the three apical horns and the distal ends of the three feet. These differences are not significant to separate them into two genera. The basal structure was only documented for Tripospyrella, which comprises three “large” basal pores (Campbell 1954: D112). The support image for Tripospyrella cited from Haeckel (1887: pl. 95, fig. 2) shows twin Ca -pores (coded as k in Haeckel 1887) and a unified Cerv -pore (i in Haeckel 1887). A very tiny twin J -pore is as well drawn in this figure. If this is correct, this structure is identical to that of Dictyospyris and Dorcadospyris at a family level. Triceraspyris and Acrospyris were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1882: 441 for these two genera). Real specimens identifiable as Triceraspyris are found so that this genus is selected as a valid genus.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFC1FE6F0581FB07FE104CC3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFCEFE6E05FAFC25FCF1495F.text	038DDA73FFCEFE6E05FAFC25FCF1495F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Paradictyidae Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Family PARADICTYIDAE Haeckel, 1882 n. stat.</p> <p>sensu Petrushevskaya (1981)</p> <p>Paradictyida Haeckel, 1882: 444 [as a tribe].</p> <p>Nephrospyrida Haeckel, 1887: 1092, 1099 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Nephrospyrinae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 185 (= Nephrospyridinae).</p> <p>Paradictyinae – Campbell 1954: D116. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 369-370. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S306. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 157.</p> <p>Nephrospyridinae – Petrushevskaya 1981: 352-352. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S305. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 155.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Paradictyum Haeckel, 1882: 444 [type species by absolute tautonomy: Nephrospyris paradictyum Haeckel, 1887: 1102] = junior subjective synonym of Nephrodictyum Haeckel, 1882: 444 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D106): Nephrospyris renilla Haeckel, 1887: 1101].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Amphispyris Haeckel, 1882: 443 (= Amphispyrium with the same type species; Amphispyridium n. syn., Microcubus n. syn., Toxarium n. syn., Toxellium n. syn., Toxidiella n. syn., Toxonium n. syn.,? Tricyclidium n. syn.). — Nephrodictyum Haeckel, 1882: 444 (= Nephrospyris with the same type species; Paradictyum synonymized by Goll &amp; BjØrklund 1985: 115). — Psychospyris Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo, 1971: 1591. — Sphaerospyris Haeckel, 1887: 1099.</p> <p>NOMEN DUBIUM. — Protympanium.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYM. — Toxidium Haeckel, 1887 (= Toxidiella) nec Le Conte, 1860.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Main skeleton forming a sagittal ring with twin cupolas or twin set of body frames. The Lo-axis is parallel to Sg-axis and the Sh-axis is parallel to the Pl-axis. No significant skeleton developed below the basal ring. The basal ring is constructed of three or six basal pores. Basal pores are partly, or fully, covered with fine polygonal meshes in some members. The endoplasm is spherical and situated in the area inside the sagittal ring. Both cupolas are almost occupied with tens to a hundred number of algal symbionts in Amphispyris. In Nephrodictyum, a hundred algal symbionts are exclusively distributed in the periphery or in the peripheral lobes of the shell. No algal symbionts are located outside the shell.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Nephrodictyum and related genera were hitherto included in the Acanthodesmiidae (De Wever et al. 2001: 231-232), but the orientation of the axes under Type 2 to Type 1 coordinates is fundamentally different between the Paradictyidae and the Acanthodesmiidae. Differing from the Paradictyidae, the Acanthodesmiidae have the Lo-axis parallel to the Ltaxis. The protoplasm, living status and cytological ultrafine structure were documented for Amphispyris (Sugiyama &amp; Anderson 1998b; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015; fig. 8.11.4; Zhang et al. 2018: 10, figs 2.11), Nephrodictyum (Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: fig. 53.d; Zhang et al. 2018: 10, fig. 2.18), and the Paradictyum form of Nephrodictyum (Aita et al. 2009; pl. 5, fig. 1a-2b; pl. 31, fig. 7).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Amphispyris</p> <p>Amphispyris is different from Tricolospyris at the family level as written in remarks and diagnosis of the Acanthodesmiidae and Paradictyidae, and this difference is well illustrated in Goll (1968: pl. 176, fig.13;1972b: pls 1-16), Petrushevskaya (1969: figs 4.IV, 4.V) and Tan &amp; Su (1981: pls 1-3). The following genus combinations share the same type species: Amphispyris and Amphispyrium; Toxarium and Toxellium; and Toxidium and Toxidiella. In Campbell (1954) and Haeckel (1887) there is a very strong link in the Nassellaria at a suborder level and family-rank. Four genera (Microcubus, Toxarium, Toxonium, Tricyclidium) are classified in the “Division Plectellari” (Campbell 1954: D103) and two genera in the “Division Cyrtellari” (Campbell 1954: D111). As the “division”was situated between the “ Nassellaria ” and the “superfamily” in Campbell (1954), this rank is now equal to the suborder rank. “Plectellari” is defined by “without complete skeleton” whereas “Cyrtellari” is defined by “complete lattice shell”. The fundamental framework of the genera listed here is the same. Due to this reason, these divisional schemes do not reflect difference in real specimens. The next link in a classic study is the family rank. These genera were then classified into different superfamilies, families and subfamilies but these descriptions were logically wrongly applied: the anatomical orientation and apparent orientation under the absolute Cartesian coordinates for the former and relative Cartesian coordinates for the latter (see remarks of the Acanthodesmioidea). However, these coordinates were confused in the Paradictyidae (see diagnosis and remarks of the Paradictyidae). Amphispyris and Amphispyridium were classified into the “Androspyrididae” of the “superfamily Triospyridicae ” by presence of a thorax and cephalis with an apical cupolar at family level (Campbell 1954: D116) and existence of a bilocular cephalis with a sagittal constriction at the superfamily level (Campbell 1954: D112). These criteria are meaningless because recognizing cephalis, thorax and apical cupolar can be wrong, owing to a wrong recognition of the absolute orientation of the shell. Thus, the distinguishing criteria for subfamily and any higher levels are not any longer valuable for the Paradictyidae.</p> <p>Once the link at suborder level and family-rank dissolved, synonym discussion becomes easy. Goll (1972b) identified “ Tholospyris devexa devexa ” and “ Tholospyris devexa finalis ” successively for specimens with incomplete latticed shells (Goll 1972b: pl. 10 for the former and pl. 12, figs 9-12 for the latter) and complete latticed shells (Goll 1972b: pl. 11 for the former and pl. 13 for the latter). The incomplete latticed forms can be identified as Toxarium or Toxonium if the type-illustrations of these genera are referred to. The definition of these two genera is based on the number of columellae, basal ring, equatorial ring, and thoracic bows (Campbell 1954: D108 for Toxarium and D109 for Toxonium), but it is unable to be reworded by the current terminology. A complete latticed shell can be identified as Amphispyris or Amphispyridium. These two genera have in common a shell with two transvers strictures and a latticed structure only complete in the frontal ring (Campbell 1954: D116 for both genera). Although the true meaning of the “frontal ring” is unclear, this description fits with real specimens. Amphispyris has three pairs of large annular meshes on each side of the ring-plane whereas Amphispyridium has four pairs instead of three pairs, but this difference cannot be recognized in the type-illustrations of these two genera (Haeckel 1887: pl. 88, fig. 4 for Amphispyris and pl. 88, fig. 2 for Amphispyridium). Thus, four genera Toxarium, Toxonium, Amphispyris and Amphispyridium are a same genus.</p> <p>The specimen identifiable as Tricyclidium based on the genus definition by Campbell (1954: D108) is identified as a specimen of T. devexa devexa in Goll (1976: pl. 10, fig. 1) and that of Microcubus is named as “ Tholospyris devexa dusenburyi ” (Goll 1976: pl. 12, figs 1-8). These images indicate that Tricyclidium and Microcubus are different as ontogenetic growth stages at the species level. Amphispyris, Microcubus and Tricyclidium were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1882: 443 for Amphispyris, 446 for Microcubus and Tricyclidium). Real specimens corresponding to Amphispyris were found at many locations so that this genus is selected as a valid genus.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFCEFE6E05FAFC25FCF1495F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFCFFE6E05CBF9AAFAFD4854.text	038DDA73FFCFFE6E05CBF9AAFAFD4854.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Stephaniidae Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Family STEPHANIIDAE Haeckel, 1882</p> <p>Stephanida Haeckel, 1882: 444 [as a family]; 1887: 937-940 [as a family]. — Lankester 1885: 849 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1976 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 176. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].</p> <p>Stephida – Lankester 1885: 850 [as a family].</p> <p>Cortinida Haeckel, 1887: 940, 950 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Stephaniidae – Poche 1913: 219. — Campbell 1954: D106. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 371; 1986: 132. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S305. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 155.</p> <p>Stephanidae [sic] – Popofsky 1913: 283-284 (= Stephaniidae). — Schröder 1914: 87. — Chediya 1959: 167. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 269. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 291-292. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 152. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 270. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 83. — Chen et al. 2017: 165.</p> <p>Stephaniinae – Campbell 1954: D106.</p> <p>Cortiniae – Chediya 1959: 169.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Stephanium Haeckel, 1887: 952 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D106): Stephanium quadrupes Haeckel, 1887: 952] = junior subjective synonym of Zygocircus Bütschli, 1882: 496 [type species by monotypy: Lithocircus productus Hertwig, 1879: 197].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENUS. — Zygocircus Bütschli, 1882: 496 (= Cortina n. syn., Plagiocarpa n. syn., Stephanium n. syn.).</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — The skeleton consists of only a sagittal ring. The Lo-axis is parallel to the Pl-axis while the Md-axis is parallel to Sg-axis. The endoplasm is spherical and located in the area encircled by the sagittal ring. Algal symbionts may or may not be present. Even if present, algal symbionts are uncommon and densely distributed around the endoplasm within the area of the sagittal ring.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — early Middle Eocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>In the case of very young Acanthodesmioidea, it is nearly impossible to differentiate them from the true Zygocircus. “Living” and protoplasm images were illustrated for Zygocircus (Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: fig. 53.a; Matsuoka 1993a: fig. 2.3; Suzuki et al. 2009b: figs 3I, 3J; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.11.3; Matsuoka et al. 2017: Appendix B). The Stephaniidae have been overlooked due to their small size and their transparent protoplasm observed in plankton studies. Zygocircus has simply been identified as Zygocircus productus Hertwig 1879, even if real specimens may be completely different from the type-illustration in Hertwig (1879). However, this should be avoided as algal symbiont-bearing Zygocircus possesses a different morphology to that of the Zygocircus without algal symbionts.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Zygocircus</p> <p>The Zygocircus -form includes not only fully-grown forms but also very young stages of Acanthodesmioidea, being unable to clearly differentiate them. For a simply practical identification, Zygocircus includes here into a single genus the morphotypes with a complete or incomplete D-ring, three or more basal feet directly extending from the initial spicular system and no arches except for the D-ring. Zygocircus was published by Bütschli (1882: 496), the same year as Plagiocarpa by Haeckel (1882: 424). Zygocircus is selected as the valid genus because its type species was illustrated only in 1882.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFCFFE6E05CBF9AAFAFD4854	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFC8FE690690FF06FB504887.text	038DDA73FFC8FE690690FF06FB504887.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Archipiliidae Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Family ARCHIPILIIDAE Haeckel, 1882 sensu Sandin et al. (2019)Archipilida Haeckel, 1882: 427 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1133, 1134 [as a subfamily].Trissopilida Haeckel, 1882: 427 [nomen dubium, below a tribe].Archipiliidae – Campbell 1954: D117. — Petrushevskaya 1986: 132. — Kozlova 1999: 108. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S291. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 138. Archipiliinae – Campbell 1954: D117. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S291. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 138.Archipilinae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 62 (= Archipiliinae); 1945: 33. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 38. — Chediya 1959: 188. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 247-248.Nothotripodiscinidae Deflandre, 1972: 231. Archipilidiae [sic] – Sandin et al. 2019: 201 (= Archipiliidae). TYPE GENUS. — Archipilium Haeckel, 1882: 427 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D117): Archipilium orthopterum Haeckel, 1887: 1139]. INCLUDED GENUS. — Archipilium Haeckel, 1882: 427 (= Nothotripodiscinus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 584). NOMEN DUBIUM. — Trissopilium. DIAGNOSIS. — Archipiliidae are identified by having only one segment, three feet, and short skirt extension. A three-pointed star rod system and a significant circular frame around the aperture. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of A-, D-, double L- and Ax-rods. The MB is very short or partly degraded. Double l-rod and V-rod are absent. The basal ring is large and significant. It is directly connected to the D- and double L-rods forming three collar pores. These three rods develop into external feet. The basal ring completely merges with the shell’s pore frame. One bifurcated rod may emerge from each of the basal ring’s A- and double L-rod connecting points. These rods form variable arches with other supplemental rods to create the pore frame of the cephalic wall in younger forms. The rods become completely embedded in the thick cephalic wall in fully grown forms. A short skirt-like frame develops and an endoplasm occupies the internal space of the shell. The A-rod, or a pointed MB, are sometimes missing or dissolved. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Oligocene-Living.REMARKS The overall shape of the Archipiliidae is generally similar to that of genera with three feet, one segment, configurations such as Dimelissidae or Phaenocalpididae. However, Archipiliidae are different from these latter two families by the absence or near absence of an MB and the presence of a significant basal ring. The cephalis is covered by a thick wall in normal Archipilium - specimens but a mesh-like texture similar to the cephalic part of Enneaphormis appears in very young forms of Archipilium (Takahashi 1991: pl. 36, fig. 7; O’Connor 1999: fig. 4.K). A quality image of the cephalic initial spicular system was only published in Nishimura (1990: fig. 21.2) while a schematic illustration was shown in Sandin et al. (2019: supplement 1). A “Living” specimen of Archipilium was illustrated in Suzuki &amp; Not (2015: fig. 8.10.20). Family THEOPHORMIDIDAE Haeckel, 1882 sensu Suzuki emend. hereinTheophormida Haeckel, 1882: 436 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1313, 1366 [as a subfamily].Sethophormida Haeckel, 1882: 432 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 1192, 1242, 1243 [as a subfamily].Sethophorminae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 72 [nomen dubium] (= Sethophormidinae). — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 29. — Chediya 1959: 205. Sethophormidae [sic] – Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 29 (= Sethophormididae). — Nishimura 1990: 95 (sensu emend.). — Sugiyama 1994: 3-4. — van de Paverd 1995: 225. — Sugiyama 1998: 233. Theophorminae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 81 (= Theophormidinae); 1945: 43. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 47; 1944b: 31. — Chediya 1959: 217.Sethophormididae – Riedel &amp; Campbell 1952: 667, 669 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D124. — Petrushevskaya 1971a: 65- 66; 1971b: 988; 1981: 127; 1986: 133. — Dumitrica 1979: 28. — Takahashi 1991: 108. — Kozlova 1999: 118. — De Wever et al. 2001: 236. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293-294. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 141. Sethophormidinae – Riedel &amp; Campbell 1952: 669 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D124. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 130; 1986: 133. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S294. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 141.Theophormididae – Campbell 1954: D132. Theophormidinae – Campbell 1954: D132.Enneaphormidinae Petrushevskaya, 1981: 127-128; 1986: 132. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S294. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 141-142. Theophormidae [sic] – Nishimura 1990: 105 (sensu emend.) (= Theophormididae). TYPE GENUS. — Theophormis Haeckel, 1882: 436 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D132): Theophormis callipilium Haeckel, 1887: 1367]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Enneaphormis Haeckel, 1882: 432. — Theophormis Haeckel, 1882: 436 (= Astrophormisn. syn.). — Velicucullus Riedel &amp; Campbell, 1952: 669. INVALID NAME. — Leptarachnium. NOMINA DUBIA. — Octophormis, Sethophormis, Tetraphormis. DIAGNOSIS. — A two-segmented, flat shell with a significantly large basal ring that is completely merged, becoming part of the shell’s skeletal frame. A cephalic wall with an arch-like meshwork is observed. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, D-, V-, double L-, and Ax-rods. The double l-rod is absent while the MB is very short or partly degraded. The A-rod is very short, keeping the cephalic wall flat. The V-rod is absent in some members. The D-, V- and double L-rods are horizontally situated, and are near the same height level as MB. Likewise, the basal ring is also horizontally situated close to the MB’s height level. The presence or absence of MB and V-rod limits the number of pores in the basal ring; three collar pores by direct connection to the D- and double L-rods (Enneaphormis), or four collar pores by direct connection with D-, V- and double L-rods (Theophormis and Velicucullus). This results in a three- or four-leafed clover outline. In the case of three collar pores, three rods are arranged at 120 degree-intervals and four rods cross each other orthogonally at angles of 90 degrees. The endoplasm transparent, very small, and is situated within the basal ring. Algal symbionts are found near or within the space inside the basal ring in Theophormis but no algal symbionts are detected in Enneaphormis. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-Living.REMARKS The cephalic initial spicular system of all known three genera was photographed for Enneaphormis (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 46, figs 4a-5b; Yeh &amp; Cheng 1990: pl. 4, fig. 5; Sugiyama 1998: pl. 3, figs 5; O’Connor 1999: pl. 3, figs 1-4), Theophormis (Nishimura 1990: figs 21.1, 21.2; Takahashi 1991: pl. 32, fig.10, 12; Sugiyama 1994: pl.1, fig.7), and Velicucullus (Nishimura 1992: pl. 3, fig. 7; O’Connor 1999: pl. 3, figs 1-4). The interpretation of Nishimura (1992: pl. 3, fig. 7) indicated the presence of an MB, double L- and an un-coded rod, but this should be necessary reinterpreted as a D-rod instead of an MB and an un-coded rod instead of a V-rod if we refer to Sugiyama (1994: pl. 1, fig. 7). “Living” and protoplasm images were observed in Enneaphormis (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015; fig. 8.11.30) and Theophormis (Zhang et al. 2018: 10, figs 2.34-2.37). VALIDITY OF GENERATheophormisAstrophormis was classified into “Sethophormidinae of the Sethophormididae within subsuperfamily Sethopiliilae”, and Theophormis was classified into “Theophormidinae of the Theophormididae within subsuperfamily Theopiliilae” sensu Campbell (1954). Sethophormididae and Theophormididae are both defined by the presence of four to nine or more radial apophyses (Campbell 1954: D124 for the former and D132 for the latter). Both have the same basal shell mouth open (Campbell 1954: D124 for the former and D132 for the latter).Thus, the major difference between the genera Astrophormis and Theophormis is at the subsuperfamily level.“Sethopiliilae” is defined by the division of its shell by a transverse stricture into the cephalis and thorax (Campbell 1954: D122), whereas the “Theopiliilae” shell is divided by two transverse strictures into the cephalis, thorax, and abdomen (Campbell 1954: D129). The supporting illustration of Theophormis shows a thorax that resembles a gown with a very wide skirt (Nishimura &amp;Yamauchi 1984: pl. 26, fig. 5), which suggests later growth in the typeillustration. According to Campbell (1954), Astrophormis has 12 to 20 or more radial ribs on a flat, nearly discoidal thorax and the absence of an apical horn (Campbell 1954: D124). Theophormis has a flat, dilated abdomen with an open mouth and numerous radial ribs (Campbell 1954: D132). The typeillustrations and supporting images for Theophormis and Astrophormis demonstrate their very similar appearance. The name Theophormis was used earlier than Astrophormis. Superfamily THEOPILIOIDEA Haeckel, 1882 n. stat. sensu Suzuki emend. herein Theopilida Haeckel, 1882: 435 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1313, 1315 [as a subfamily].Theopiliilae – Campbell 1954: D129 [as a subsuperfamily]. — Nakaseko 1957: 27 [as a subsuperfamily].Neosciadiocapsaceae O’Dogherty, 1994: 227 [as a superfamily].DIAGNOSIS. — Skeleton having a very shallow hat-shaped to hatshaped shell with two segments. The thoracic pore frames of the thorax are systematically distributed in both longitudinal and lateral directions. The distal end of the thorax is associated with a velum, a latticed frame, many feet and other ornaments.REMARKS This superfamily consists of the Anthocyrtididae and Theopiliidae. The taxonomic position of the Theopilioidea is based on the molecular phylogenetic position of Eucecryphalus (Lineage III, Sandin et al. 2019). They correspond to nassellarians characterized by a very shallow hat-shaped shells, classified into family Anthocyrtididae (= Neosciadiocapsidae in De Wever et al. 2001: 233-235) or Theopiliidae (De Wever et al. 2001: 238-239). However, molecular phylogenetic data placed a close related morphological group, the Cycladophoridae (based on Cycladophora) into Lineage IV (Sandin et al. 2019). At that time, it was impossible to conceptualize a higher classification position for the Anthocyrtididae. The Lampromitridae may also belong to this superfamily (see remarks for Lampromitridae).</p> <p>sensu Sandin et al. (2019)</p> <p>Archipilida Haeckel, 1882: 427 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1133, 1134 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Trissopilida Haeckel, 1882: 427 [nomen dubium, below a tribe].</p> <p>Archipiliidae – Campbell 1954: D117. — Petrushevskaya 1986: 132. — Kozlova 1999: 108. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S291. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 138.</p> <p>Archipiliinae – Campbell 1954: D117. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S291. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 138.</p> <p>Archipilinae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 62 (= Archipiliinae); 1945: 33. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 38. — Chediya 1959: 188. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 247-248.</p> <p>Nothotripodiscinidae Deflandre, 1972: 231.</p> <p>Archipilidiae [sic] – Sandin et al. 2019: 201 (= Archipiliidae).</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Archipilium Haeckel, 1882: 427 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D117): Archipilium orthopterum Haeckel, 1887: 1139].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENUS. — Archipilium Haeckel, 1882: 427 (= Nothotripodiscinus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 584).</p> <p>NOMEN DUBIUM. — Trissopilium.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Archipiliidae are identified by having only one segment, three feet, and short skirt extension. A three-pointed star rod system and a significant circular frame around the aperture. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of A-, D-, double L- and Ax-rods. The MB is very short or partly degraded. Double l-rod and V-rod are absent. The basal ring is large and significant. It is directly connected to the D- and double L-rods forming three collar pores. These three rods develop into external feet. The basal ring completely merges with the shell’s pore frame. One bifurcated rod may emerge from each of the basal ring’s A- and double L-rod connecting points. These rods form variable arches with other supplemental rods to create the pore frame of the cephalic wall in younger forms. The rods become completely embedded in the thick cephalic wall in fully grown forms. A short skirt-like frame develops and an endoplasm occupies the internal space of the shell. The A-rod, or a pointed MB, are sometimes missing or dissolved.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Oligocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The overall shape of the Archipiliidae is generally similar to that of genera with three feet, one segment, configurations such as Dimelissidae or Phaenocalpididae. However, Archipiliidae are different from these latter two families by the absence or near absence of an MB and the presence of a significant basal ring. The cephalis is covered by a thick wall in normal Archipilium - specimens but a mesh-like texture similar to the cephalic part of Enneaphormis appears in very young forms of Archipilium (Takahashi 1991: pl. 36, fig. 7; O’Connor 1999: fig. 4.K). A quality image of the cephalic initial spicular system was only published in Nishimura (1990: fig. 21.2) while a schematic illustration was shown in Sandin et al. (2019: supplement 1). A “Living” specimen of Archipilium was illustrated in Suzuki &amp; Not (2015: fig. 8.10.20).</p> <p>Family THEOPHORMIDIDAE Haeckel, 1882 sensu Suzuki emend. hereinTheophormida Haeckel, 1882: 436 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1313, 1366 [as a subfamily].Sethophormida Haeckel, 1882: 432 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 1192, 1242, 1243 [as a subfamily].Sethophorminae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 72 [nomen dubium] (= Sethophormidinae). — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 29. — Chediya 1959: 205. Sethophormidae [sic] – Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 29 (= Sethophormididae). — Nishimura 1990: 95 (sensu emend.). — Sugiyama 1994: 3-4. — van de Paverd 1995: 225. — Sugiyama 1998: 233. Theophorminae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 81 (= Theophormidinae); 1945: 43. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 47; 1944b: 31. — Chediya 1959: 217.Sethophormididae – Riedel &amp; Campbell 1952: 667, 669 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D124. — Petrushevskaya 1971a: 65- 66; 1971b: 988; 1981: 127; 1986: 133. — Dumitrica 1979: 28. — Takahashi 1991: 108. — Kozlova 1999: 118. — De Wever et al. 2001: 236. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293-294. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 141. Sethophormidinae – Riedel &amp; Campbell 1952: 669 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D124. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 130; 1986: 133. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S294. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 141.Theophormididae – Campbell 1954: D132. Theophormidinae – Campbell 1954: D132.Enneaphormidinae Petrushevskaya, 1981: 127-128; 1986: 132. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S294. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 141-142. Theophormidae [sic] – Nishimura 1990: 105 (sensu emend.) (= Theophormididae). TYPE GENUS. — Theophormis Haeckel, 1882: 436 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D132): Theophormis callipilium Haeckel, 1887: 1367]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Enneaphormis Haeckel, 1882: 432. — Theophormis Haeckel, 1882: 436 (= Astrophormisn. syn.). — Velicucullus Riedel &amp; Campbell, 1952: 669. INVALID NAME. — Leptarachnium. NOMINA DUBIA. — Octophormis, Sethophormis, Tetraphormis. DIAGNOSIS. — A two-segmented, flat shell with a significantly large basal ring that is completely merged, becoming part of the shell’s skeletal frame. A cephalic wall with an arch-like meshwork is observed. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, D-, V-, double L-, and Ax-rods. The double l-rod is absent while the MB is very short or partly degraded. The A-rod is very short, keeping the cephalic wall flat. The V-rod is absent in some members. The D-, V- and double L-rods are horizontally situated, and are near the same height level as MB. Likewise, the basal ring is also horizontally situated close to the MB’s height level. The presence or absence of MB and V-rod limits the number of pores in the basal ring; three collar pores by direct connection to the D- and double L-rods (Enneaphormis), or four collar pores by direct connection with D-, V- and double L-rods (Theophormis and Velicucullus). This results in a three- or four-leafed clover outline. In the case of three collar pores, three rods are arranged at 120 degree-intervals and four rods cross each other orthogonally at angles of 90 degrees. The endoplasm transparent, very small, and is situated within the basal ring. Algal symbionts are found near or within the space inside the basal ring in Theophormis but no algal symbionts are detected in Enneaphormis. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-Living.REMARKS The cephalic initial spicular system of all known three genera was photographed for Enneaphormis (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 46, figs 4a-5b; Yeh &amp; Cheng 1990: pl. 4, fig. 5; Sugiyama 1998: pl. 3, figs 5; O’Connor 1999: pl. 3, figs 1-4), Theophormis (Nishimura 1990: figs 21.1, 21.2; Takahashi 1991: pl. 32, fig.10, 12; Sugiyama 1994: pl.1, fig.7), and Velicucullus (Nishimura 1992: pl. 3, fig. 7; O’Connor 1999: pl. 3, figs 1-4). The interpretation of Nishimura (1992: pl. 3, fig. 7) indicated the presence of an MB, double L- and an un-coded rod, but this should be necessary reinterpreted as a D-rod instead of an MB and an un-coded rod instead of a V-rod if we refer to Sugiyama (1994: pl. 1, fig. 7). “Living” and protoplasm images were observed in Enneaphormis (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015; fig. 8.11.30) and Theophormis (Zhang et al. 2018: 10, figs 2.34-2.37). VALIDITY OF GENERATheophormisAstrophormis was classified into “Sethophormidinae of the Sethophormididae within subsuperfamily Sethopiliilae”, and Theophormis was classified into “Theophormidinae of the Theophormididae within subsuperfamily Theopiliilae” sensu Campbell (1954). Sethophormididae and Theophormididae are both defined by the presence of four to nine or more radial apophyses (Campbell 1954: D124 for the former and D132 for the latter). Both have the same basal shell mouth open (Campbell 1954: D124 for the former and D132 for the latter).Thus, the major difference between the genera Astrophormis and Theophormis is at the subsuperfamily level.“Sethopiliilae” is defined by the division of its shell by a transverse stricture into the cephalis and thorax (Campbell 1954: D122), whereas the “Theopiliilae” shell is divided by two transverse strictures into the cephalis, thorax, and abdomen (Campbell 1954: D129). The supporting illustration of Theophormis shows a thorax that resembles a gown with a very wide skirt (Nishimura &amp;Yamauchi 1984: pl. 26, fig. 5), which suggests later growth in the typeillustration. According to Campbell (1954), Astrophormis has 12 to 20 or more radial ribs on a flat, nearly discoidal thorax and the absence of an apical horn (Campbell 1954: D124). Theophormis has a flat, dilated abdomen with an open mouth and numerous radial ribs (Campbell 1954: D132). The typeillustrations and supporting images for Theophormis and Astrophormis demonstrate their very similar appearance. The name Theophormis was used earlier than Astrophormis. Superfamily THEOPILIOIDEA Haeckel, 1882 n. stat. sensu Suzuki emend. herein Theopilida Haeckel, 1882: 435 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1313, 1315 [as a subfamily].Theopiliilae – Campbell 1954: D129 [as a subsuperfamily]. — Nakaseko 1957: 27 [as a subsuperfamily].Neosciadiocapsaceae O’Dogherty, 1994: 227 [as a superfamily].DIAGNOSIS. — Skeleton having a very shallow hat-shaped to hatshaped shell with two segments. The thoracic pore frames of the thorax are systematically distributed in both longitudinal and lateral directions. The distal end of the thorax is associated with a velum, a latticed frame, many feet and other ornaments.REMARKS This superfamily consists of the Anthocyrtididae and Theopiliidae. The taxonomic position of the Theopilioidea is based on the molecular phylogenetic position of Eucecryphalus (Lineage III, Sandin et al. 2019). They correspond to nassellarians characterized by a very shallow hat-shaped shells, classified into family Anthocyrtididae (= Neosciadiocapsidae in De Wever et al. 2001: 233-235) or Theopiliidae (De Wever et al. 2001: 238-239). However, molecular phylogenetic data placed a close related morphological group, the Cycladophoridae (based on Cycladophora) into Lineage IV (Sandin et al. 2019). At that time, it was impossible to conceptualize a higher classification position for the Anthocyrtididae. The Lampromitridae may also belong to this superfamily (see remarks for Lampromitridae).</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Theophormida Haeckel, 1882: 436 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1313, 1366 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Sethophormida Haeckel, 1882: 432 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 1192, 1242, 1243 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Sethophorminae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 72 [nomen dubium] (= Sethophormidinae). — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 29. — Chediya 1959: 205.</p> <p>Sethophormidae [sic] – Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 29 (= Sethophormididae). — Nishimura 1990: 95 (sensu emend.). — Sugiyama 1994: 3-4. — van de Paverd 1995: 225. — Sugiyama 1998: 233.</p> <p>Theophorminae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 81 (= Theophormidinae); 1945: 43. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 47; 1944b: 31. — Chediya 1959: 217.</p> <p>Sethophormididae – Riedel &amp; Campbell 1952: 667, 669 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D124. — Petrushevskaya 1971a: 65- 66; 1971b: 988; 1981: 127; 1986: 133. — Dumitrica 1979: 28. — Takahashi 1991: 108. — Kozlova 1999: 118. — De Wever et al. 2001: 236. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293-294. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 141.</p> <p>Sethophormidinae – Riedel &amp; Campbell 1952: 669 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D124. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 130; 1986: 133. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S294. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 141.</p> <p>Theophormididae – Campbell 1954: D132.</p> <p>Theophormidinae – Campbell 1954: D132.</p> <p>Enneaphormidinae Petrushevskaya, 1981: 127-128; 1986: 132. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S294. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 141-142.</p> <p>Theophormidae [sic] – Nishimura 1990: 105 (sensu emend.) (= Theophormididae).</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Theophormis Haeckel, 1882: 436 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D132): Theophormis callipilium Haeckel, 1887: 1367].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Enneaphormis Haeckel, 1882: 432. — Theophormis Haeckel, 1882: 436 (= Astrophormis n. syn.). — Velicucullus Riedel &amp; Campbell, 1952: 669.</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Leptarachnium.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Octophormis, Sethophormis, Tetraphormis.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — A two-segmented, flat shell with a significantly large basal ring that is completely merged, becoming part of the shell’s skeletal frame. A cephalic wall with an arch-like meshwork is observed. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, D-, V-, double L-, and Ax-rods. The double l-rod is absent while the MB is very short or partly degraded. The A-rod is very short, keeping the cephalic wall flat. The V-rod is absent in some members. The D-, V- and double L-rods are horizontally situated, and are near the same height level as MB. Likewise, the basal ring is also horizontally situated close to the MB’s height level. The presence or absence of MB and V-rod limits the number of pores in the basal ring; three collar pores by direct connection to the D- and double L-rods (Enneaphormis), or four collar pores by direct connection with D-, V- and double L-rods (Theophormis and Velicucullus). This results in a three- or four-leafed clover outline. In the case of three collar pores, three rods are arranged at 120 degree-intervals and four rods cross each other orthogonally at angles of 90 degrees.</p> <p>The endoplasm transparent, very small, and is situated within the basal ring. Algal symbionts are found near or within the space inside the basal ring in Theophormis but no algal symbionts are detected in Enneaphormis.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The cephalic initial spicular system of all known three genera was photographed for Enneaphormis (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 46, figs 4a-5b; Yeh &amp; Cheng 1990: pl. 4, fig. 5; Sugiyama 1998: pl. 3, figs 5; O’Connor 1999: pl. 3, figs 1-4), Theophormis (Nishimura 1990: figs 21.1, 21.2; Takahashi 1991: pl. 32, fig.10, 12; Sugiyama 1994: pl.1, fig.7), and Velicucullus (Nishimura 1992: pl. 3, fig. 7; O’Connor 1999: pl. 3, figs 1-4). The interpretation of Nishimura (1992: pl. 3, fig. 7) indicated the presence of an MB, double L- and an un-coded rod, but this should be necessary reinterpreted as a D-rod instead of an MB and an un-coded rod instead of a V-rod if we refer to Sugiyama (1994: pl. 1, fig. 7). “Living” and protoplasm images were observed in Enneaphormis (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015; fig. 8.11.30) and Theophormis (Zhang et al. 2018: 10, figs 2.34-2.37).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Theophormis</p> <p>Astrophormis was classified into “Sethophormidinae of the Sethophormididae within subsuperfamily Sethopiliilae”, and Theophormis was classified into “Theophormidinae of the Theophormididae within subsuperfamily Theopiliilae” sensu Campbell (1954). Sethophormididae and Theophormididae are both defined by the presence of four to nine or more radial apophyses (Campbell 1954: D124 for the former and D132 for the latter). Both have the same basal shell mouth open (Campbell 1954: D124 for the former and D132 for the latter).Thus, the major difference between the genera Astrophormis and Theophormis is at the subsuperfamily level.“Sethopiliilae” is defined by the division of its shell by a transverse stricture into the cephalis and thorax (Campbell 1954: D122), whereas the “Theopiliilae” shell is divided by two transverse strictures into the cephalis, thorax, and abdomen (Campbell 1954: D129). The supporting illustration of Theophormis shows a thorax that resembles a gown with a very wide skirt (Nishimura &amp;Yamauchi 1984: pl. 26, fig. 5), which suggests later growth in the typeillustration. According to Campbell (1954), Astrophormis has 12 to 20 or more radial ribs on a flat, nearly discoidal thorax and the absence of an apical horn (Campbell 1954: D124). Theophormis has a flat, dilated abdomen with an open mouth and numerous radial ribs (Campbell 1954: D132). The typeillustrations and supporting images for Theophormis and Astrophormis demonstrate their very similar appearance. The name Theophormis was used earlier than Astrophormis.</p> <p>Superfamily THEOPILIOIDEA Haeckel, 1882 n. stat.</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Theopilida Haeckel, 1882: 435 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1313, 1315 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Theopiliilae – Campbell 1954: D129 [as a subsuperfamily]. — Nakaseko 1957: 27 [as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Neosciadiocapsaceae O’Dogherty, 1994: 227 [as a superfamily].</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Skeleton having a very shallow hat-shaped to hatshaped shell with two segments. The thoracic pore frames of the thorax are systematically distributed in both longitudinal and lateral directions. The distal end of the thorax is associated with a velum, a latticed frame, many feet and other ornaments.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This superfamily consists of the Anthocyrtididae and Theopiliidae. The taxonomic position of the Theopilioidea is based on the molecular phylogenetic position of Eucecryphalus (Lineage III, Sandin et al. 2019). They correspond to nassellarians characterized by a very shallow hat-shaped shells, classified into family Anthocyrtididae (= Neosciadiocapsidae in De Wever et al. 2001: 233-235) or Theopiliidae (De Wever et al. 2001: 238-239). However, molecular phylogenetic data placed a close related morphological group, the Cycladophoridae (based on Cycladophora) into Lineage IV (Sandin et al. 2019). At that time, it was impossible to conceptualize a higher classification position for the Anthocyrtididae. The Lampromitridae may also belong to this superfamily (see remarks for Lampromitridae).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFC8FE690690FF06FB504887	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFC8FE6905ECFBE5FE394887.text	038DDA73FFC8FE6905ECFBE5FE394887.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Archipiliicae	<div><p>Superfamily ARCHIPILIOIDEA Haeckel, 1882 sensu Sandin, Not &amp; Suzuki in Sandin et al. (2019)Archipilida Haeckel, 1882: 427 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1133, 1134 [as a subfamily].Archipiliicae – Campbell 1954: D117 [as a superfamily]. — Nakaseko 1957: 27 [as a superfamily]. — Dieci 1964: 185 [as a superfamily]. Archipiliilae – Campbell 1954: D117 [as a subsuperfamily]. — Nakaseko 1957: 27 [as a subsuperfamily]. — Dieci 1964: 185 [as a subsuperfamily].Archipiliacea – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 228 [as a superfamily].Archipilioidea – Afanasieva et al. 2005: S291. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 138. — Sandin, Not &amp; Suzuki in Sandin et al. 2019: 201. DIAGNOSIS. — Archipilioidea are composed of practically single segmented shell, although upper and lower parts may be recognized by the position of the MB. The initial spicular system is characterized by a very short or missing MB, forming a three-pointed initial spicular system and a significant basal ring that is completely merged with the shell wall as part of the pore frame. The cephalic wall includes many arches or an arch-like meshwork. REMARKS This superfamily consists of the Archipiliidae and the Theophormididae, and was established in consistency with the molecular phylogeny analyses of Sandin et al. (2019). These analyses documented 100% PhyML bootstrap values with 10000 replicates (BS) and&gt;0.99 posterior probabilities (PP). The morphological commonality between Archipilium and Enneaphormis is very limited.</p> <p>sensu Sandin, Not &amp; Suzuki in Sandin et al. (2019)</p> <p>Archipilida Haeckel, 1882: 427 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1133, 1134 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Archipiliicae – Campbell 1954: D117 [as a superfamily]. — Nakaseko 1957: 27 [as a superfamily]. — Dieci 1964: 185 [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Archipiliilae – Campbell 1954: D117 [as a subsuperfamily]. — Nakaseko 1957: 27 [as a subsuperfamily]. — Dieci 1964: 185 [as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Archipiliacea – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 228 [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Archipilioidea – Afanasieva et al. 2005: S291. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 138. — Sandin, Not &amp; Suzuki in Sandin et al. 2019: 201.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Archipilioidea are composed of practically single segmented shell, although upper and lower parts may be recognized by the position of the MB. The initial spicular system is characterized by a very short or missing MB, forming a three-pointed initial spicular system and a significant basal ring that is completely merged with the shell wall as part of the pore frame. The cephalic wall includes many arches or an arch-like meshwork.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This superfamily consists of the Archipiliidae and the Theophormididae, and was established in consistency with the molecular phylogeny analyses of Sandin et al. (2019). These analyses documented 100% PhyML bootstrap values with 10000 replicates (BS) and&gt;0.99 posterior probabilities (PP). The morphological commonality between Archipilium and Enneaphormis is very limited.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFC8FE6905ECFBE5FE394887	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFC9FE6805D5FF06FAD9487B.text	038DDA73FFC9FE6805D5FF06FAD9487B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sethophormididae Haeckel 1881	<div><p>Family THEOPHORMIDIDAE Haeckel, 1882 sensu Suzuki emend. hereinTheophormida Haeckel, 1882: 436 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1313, 1366 [as a subfamily].Sethophormida Haeckel, 1882: 432 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 1192, 1242, 1243 [as a subfamily].Sethophorminae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 72 [nomen dubium] (= Sethophormidinae). — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 29. — Chediya 1959: 205. Sethophormidae [sic] – Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 29 (= Sethophormididae). — Nishimura 1990: 95 (sensu emend.). — Sugiyama 1994: 3-4. — van de Paverd 1995: 225. — Sugiyama 1998: 233. Theophorminae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 81 (= Theophormidinae); 1945: 43. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 47; 1944b: 31. — Chediya 1959: 217.Sethophormididae – Riedel &amp; Campbell 1952: 667, 669 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D124. — Petrushevskaya 1971a: 65- 66; 1971b: 988; 1981: 127; 1986: 133. — Dumitrica 1979: 28. — Takahashi 1991: 108. — Kozlova 1999: 118. — De Wever et al. 2001: 236. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293-294. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 141. Sethophormidinae – Riedel &amp; Campbell 1952: 669 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D124. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 130; 1986: 133. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S294. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 141.Theophormididae – Campbell 1954: D132. Theophormidinae – Campbell 1954: D132.Enneaphormidinae Petrushevskaya, 1981: 127-128; 1986: 132. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S294. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 141-142. Theophormidae [sic] – Nishimura 1990: 105 (sensu emend.) (= Theophormididae). TYPE GENUS. — Theophormis Haeckel, 1882: 436 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D132): Theophormis callipilium Haeckel, 1887: 1367]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Enneaphormis Haeckel, 1882: 432. — Theophormis Haeckel, 1882: 436 (= Astrophormisn. syn.). — Velicucullus Riedel &amp; Campbell, 1952: 669. INVALID NAME. — Leptarachnium. NOMINA DUBIA. — Octophormis, Sethophormis, Tetraphormis. DIAGNOSIS. — A two-segmented, flat shell with a significantly large basal ring that is completely merged, becoming part of the shell’s skeletal frame. A cephalic wall with an arch-like meshwork is observed. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, D-, V-, double L-, and Ax-rods. The double l-rod is absent while the MB is very short or partly degraded. The A-rod is very short, keeping the cephalic wall flat. The V-rod is absent in some members. The D-, V- and double L-rods are horizontally situated, and are near the same height level as MB. Likewise, the basal ring is also horizontally situated close to the MB’s height level. The presence or absence of MB and V-rod limits the number of pores in the basal ring; three collar pores by direct connection to the D- and double L-rods (Enneaphormis), or four collar pores by direct connection with D-, V- and double L-rods (Theophormis and Velicucullus). This results in a three- or four-leafed clover outline. In the case of three collar pores, three rods are arranged at 120 degree-intervals and four rods cross each other orthogonally at angles of 90 degrees. The endoplasm transparent, very small, and is situated within the basal ring. Algal symbionts are found near or within the space inside the basal ring in Theophormis but no algal symbionts are detected in Enneaphormis. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-Living.REMARKS The cephalic initial spicular system of all known three genera was photographed for Enneaphormis (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 46, figs 4a-5b; Yeh &amp; Cheng 1990: pl. 4, fig. 5; Sugiyama 1998: pl. 3, figs 5; O’Connor 1999: pl. 3, figs 1-4), Theophormis (Nishimura 1990: figs 21.1, 21.2; Takahashi 1991: pl. 32, fig.10, 12; Sugiyama 1994: pl.1, fig.7), and Velicucullus (Nishimura 1992: pl. 3, fig. 7; O’Connor 1999: pl. 3, figs 1-4). The interpretation of Nishimura (1992: pl. 3, fig. 7) indicated the presence of an MB, double L- and an un-coded rod, but this should be necessary reinterpreted as a D-rod instead of an MB and an un-coded rod instead of a V-rod if we refer to Sugiyama (1994: pl. 1, fig. 7). “Living” and protoplasm images were observed in Enneaphormis (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015; fig. 8.11.30) and Theophormis (Zhang et al. 2018: 10, figs 2.34-2.37). VALIDITY OF GENERATheophormisAstrophormis was classified into “Sethophormidinae of the Sethophormididae within subsuperfamily Sethopiliilae”, and Theophormis was classified into “Theophormidinae of the Theophormididae within subsuperfamily Theopiliilae” sensu Campbell (1954). Sethophormididae and Theophormididae are both defined by the presence of four to nine or more radial apophyses (Campbell 1954: D124 for the former and D132 for the latter). Both have the same basal shell mouth open (Campbell 1954: D124 for the former and D132 for the latter).Thus, the major difference between the genera Astrophormis and Theophormis is at the subsuperfamily level.“Sethopiliilae” is defined by the division of its shell by a transverse stricture into the cephalis and thorax (Campbell 1954: D122), whereas the “Theopiliilae” shell is divided by two transverse strictures into the cephalis, thorax, and abdomen (Campbell 1954: D129). The supporting illustration of Theophormis shows a thorax that resembles a gown with a very wide skirt (Nishimura &amp;Yamauchi 1984: pl. 26, fig. 5), which suggests later growth in the typeillustration. According to Campbell (1954), Astrophormis has 12 to 20 or more radial ribs on a flat, nearly discoidal thorax and the absence of an apical horn (Campbell 1954: D124). Theophormis has a flat, dilated abdomen with an open mouth and numerous radial ribs (Campbell 1954: D132). The typeillustrations and supporting images for Theophormis and Astrophormis demonstrate their very similar appearance. The name Theophormis was used earlier than Astrophormis. Superfamily THEOPILIOIDEA Haeckel, 1882 n. stat. sensu Suzuki emend. herein Theopilida Haeckel, 1882: 435 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1313, 1315 [as a subfamily].Theopiliilae – Campbell 1954: D129 [as a subsuperfamily]. — Nakaseko 1957: 27 [as a subsuperfamily].Neosciadiocapsaceae O’Dogherty, 1994: 227 [as a superfamily].DIAGNOSIS. — Skeleton having a very shallow hat-shaped to hatshaped shell with two segments. The thoracic pore frames of the thorax are systematically distributed in both longitudinal and lateral directions. The distal end of the thorax is associated with a velum, a latticed frame, many feet and other ornaments.REMARKS This superfamily consists of the Anthocyrtididae and Theopiliidae. The taxonomic position of the Theopilioidea is based on the molecular phylogenetic position of Eucecryphalus (Lineage III, Sandin et al. 2019). They correspond to nassellarians characterized by a very shallow hat-shaped shells, classified into family Anthocyrtididae (= Neosciadiocapsidae in De Wever et al. 2001: 233-235) or Theopiliidae (De Wever et al. 2001: 238-239). However, molecular phylogenetic data placed a close related morphological group, the Cycladophoridae (based on Cycladophora) into Lineage IV (Sandin et al. 2019). At that time, it was impossible to conceptualize a higher classification position for the Anthocyrtididae. The Lampromitridae may also belong to this superfamily (see remarks for Lampromitridae).</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Theophormida Haeckel, 1882: 436 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1313, 1366 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Sethophormida Haeckel, 1882: 432 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 1192, 1242, 1243 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Sethophorminae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 72 [nomen dubium] (= Sethophormidinae). — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 29. — Chediya 1959: 205.</p> <p>Sethophormidae [sic] – Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 29 (= Sethophormididae). — Nishimura 1990: 95 (sensu emend.). — Sugiyama 1994: 3-4. — van de Paverd 1995: 225. — Sugiyama 1998: 233.</p> <p>Theophorminae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 81 (= Theophormidinae); 1945: 43. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 47; 1944b: 31. — Chediya 1959: 217.</p> <p>Sethophormididae – Riedel &amp; Campbell 1952: 667, 669 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D124. — Petrushevskaya 1971a: 65- 66; 1971b: 988; 1981: 127; 1986: 133. — Dumitrica 1979: 28. — Takahashi 1991: 108. — Kozlova 1999: 118. — De Wever et al. 2001: 236. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293-294. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 141.</p> <p>Sethophormidinae – Riedel &amp; Campbell 1952: 669 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D124. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 130; 1986: 133. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S294. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 141.</p> <p>Theophormididae – Campbell 1954: D132.</p> <p>Theophormidinae – Campbell 1954: D132.</p> <p>Enneaphormidinae Petrushevskaya, 1981: 127-128; 1986: 132. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S294. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 141-142.</p> <p>Theophormidae [sic] – Nishimura 1990: 105 (sensu emend.) (= Theophormididae).</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Theophormis Haeckel, 1882: 436 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D132): Theophormis callipilium Haeckel, 1887: 1367].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Enneaphormis Haeckel, 1882: 432. — Theophormis Haeckel, 1882: 436 (= Astrophormis n. syn.). — Velicucullus Riedel &amp; Campbell, 1952: 669.</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Leptarachnium.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Octophormis, Sethophormis, Tetraphormis.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — A two-segmented, flat shell with a significantly large basal ring that is completely merged, becoming part of the shell’s skeletal frame. A cephalic wall with an arch-like meshwork is observed. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, D-, V-, double L-, and Ax-rods. The double l-rod is absent while the MB is very short or partly degraded. The A-rod is very short, keeping the cephalic wall flat. The V-rod is absent in some members. The D-, V- and double L-rods are horizontally situated, and are near the same height level as MB. Likewise, the basal ring is also horizontally situated close to the MB’s height level. The presence or absence of MB and V-rod limits the number of pores in the basal ring; three collar pores by direct connection to the D- and double L-rods (Enneaphormis), or four collar pores by direct connection with D-, V- and double L-rods (Theophormis and Velicucullus). This results in a three- or four-leafed clover outline. In the case of three collar pores, three rods are arranged at 120 degree-intervals and four rods cross each other orthogonally at angles of 90 degrees.</p> <p>The endoplasm transparent, very small, and is situated within the basal ring. Algal symbionts are found near or within the space inside the basal ring in Theophormis but no algal symbionts are detected in Enneaphormis.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The cephalic initial spicular system of all known three genera was photographed for Enneaphormis (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 46, figs 4a-5b; Yeh &amp; Cheng 1990: pl. 4, fig. 5; Sugiyama 1998: pl. 3, figs 5; O’Connor 1999: pl. 3, figs 1-4), Theophormis (Nishimura 1990: figs 21.1, 21.2; Takahashi 1991: pl. 32, fig.10, 12; Sugiyama 1994: pl.1, fig.7), and Velicucullus (Nishimura 1992: pl. 3, fig. 7; O’Connor 1999: pl. 3, figs 1-4). The interpretation of Nishimura (1992: pl. 3, fig. 7) indicated the presence of an MB, double L- and an un-coded rod, but this should be necessary reinterpreted as a D-rod instead of an MB and an un-coded rod instead of a V-rod if we refer to Sugiyama (1994: pl. 1, fig. 7). “Living” and protoplasm images were observed in Enneaphormis (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015; fig. 8.11.30) and Theophormis (Zhang et al. 2018: 10, figs 2.34-2.37).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Theophormis</p> <p>Astrophormis was classified into “Sethophormidinae of the Sethophormididae within subsuperfamily Sethopiliilae”, and Theophormis was classified into “Theophormidinae of the Theophormididae within subsuperfamily Theopiliilae” sensu Campbell (1954). Sethophormididae and Theophormididae are both defined by the presence of four to nine or more radial apophyses (Campbell 1954: D124 for the former and D132 for the latter). Both have the same basal shell mouth open (Campbell 1954: D124 for the former and D132 for the latter).Thus, the major difference between the genera Astrophormis and Theophormis is at the subsuperfamily level.“Sethopiliilae” is defined by the division of its shell by a transverse stricture into the cephalis and thorax (Campbell 1954: D122), whereas the “Theopiliilae” shell is divided by two transverse strictures into the cephalis, thorax, and abdomen (Campbell 1954: D129). The supporting illustration of Theophormis shows a thorax that resembles a gown with a very wide skirt (Nishimura &amp;Yamauchi 1984: pl. 26, fig. 5), which suggests later growth in the typeillustration. According to Campbell (1954), Astrophormis has 12 to 20 or more radial ribs on a flat, nearly discoidal thorax and the absence of an apical horn (Campbell 1954: D124). Theophormis has a flat, dilated abdomen with an open mouth and numerous radial ribs (Campbell 1954: D132). The typeillustrations and supporting images for Theophormis and Astrophormis demonstrate their very similar appearance. The name Theophormis was used earlier than Astrophormis.</p> <p>Superfamily THEOPILIOIDEA Haeckel, 1882 n. stat.</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Theopilida Haeckel, 1882: 435 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1313, 1315 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Theopiliilae – Campbell 1954: D129 [as a subsuperfamily]. — Nakaseko 1957: 27 [as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Neosciadiocapsaceae O’Dogherty, 1994: 227 [as a superfamily].</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Skeleton having a very shallow hat-shaped to hatshaped shell with two segments. The thoracic pore frames of the thorax are systematically distributed in both longitudinal and lateral directions. The distal end of the thorax is associated with a velum, a latticed frame, many feet and other ornaments.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This superfamily consists of the Anthocyrtididae and Theopiliidae. The taxonomic position of the Theopilioidea is based on the molecular phylogenetic position of Eucecryphalus (Lineage III, Sandin et al. 2019). They correspond to nassellarians characterized by a very shallow hat-shaped shells, classified into family Anthocyrtididae (= Neosciadiocapsidae in De Wever et al. 2001: 233-235) or Theopiliidae (De Wever et al. 2001: 238-239). However, molecular phylogenetic data placed a close related morphological group, the Cycladophoridae (based on Cycladophora) into Lineage IV (Sandin et al. 2019). At that time, it was impossible to conceptualize a higher classification position for the Anthocyrtididae. The Lampromitridae may also belong to this superfamily (see remarks for Lampromitridae).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFC9FE6805D5FF06FAD9487B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFC9FE6B066EF88FFCFC4CDD.text	038DDA73FFC9FE6B066EF88FFCFC4CDD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Theopilioidea Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Superfamily THEOPILIOIDEA Haeckel, 1882 n. stat.</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Theopilida Haeckel, 1882: 435 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1313, 1315 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Theopiliilae – Campbell 1954: D129 [as a subsuperfamily]. — Nakaseko 1957: 27 [as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Neosciadiocapsaceae O’Dogherty, 1994: 227 [as a superfamily].</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Skeleton having a very shallow hat-shaped to hatshaped shell with two segments. The thoracic pore frames of the thorax are systematically distributed in both longitudinal and lateral directions. The distal end of the thorax is associated with a velum, a latticed frame, many feet and other ornaments.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This superfamily consists of the Anthocyrtididae and Theopiliidae. The taxonomic position of the Theopilioidea is based on the molecular phylogenetic position of Eucecryphalus (Lineage III, Sandin et al. 2019). They correspond to nassellarians characterized by a very shallow hat-shaped shells, classified into family Anthocyrtididae (= Neosciadiocapsidae in De Wever et al. 2001: 233-235) or Theopiliidae (De Wever et al. 2001: 238-239). However, molecular phylogenetic data placed a close related morphological group, the Cycladophoridae (based on Cycladophora) into Lineage IV (Sandin et al. 2019). At that time, it was impossible to conceptualize a higher classification position for the Anthocyrtididae. The Lampromitridae may also belong to this superfamily (see remarks for Lampromitridae).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFC9FE6B066EF88FFCFC4CDD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFCAFE6A05D6FC27FF064CA3.text	038DDA73FFCAFE6A05D6FC27FF064CA3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anthocyrtidae	<div><p>Family ANTHOCYRTIDIDAE Haeckel, 1882 sensu Caulet emend. hereinAnthocyrtida Haeckel, 1882: 430 [below tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 1192, 1241-1242 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1988 [as a family].Anthocyrtiden – Haecker 1907: 125-126 [as a family].Anthocyrtidae [sic] – Popofsky, 1908: 285 (= Anthocyrtididae);1913: 359. — Schröder 1914: 100. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 72; 1945: 38. — Dogiel &amp; Reshetnyak 1955: 48. — Chediya 1959: 205. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 280. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 172. — Nishimura 1990: 145 (sensu emend.). — Chen &amp;Tan 1996: 153. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 313. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 113, 155. — Chen et al. 2017: 198. Anthocyrtididae – Poche 1913: 221. Anthocyrtinae [sic] – Orlev 1959: 455 (= Anthocyrtidinae).Neosciadiocapsidae Pessagno, 1969: 392-394; 1976: 45-46; 1977b: 935. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 540. — Dumitrica 1979: 31-32. — De Wever 1982b: 284. —Kozur 1984: 65. — O’Dogherty 1994: 277. — Hollis 1997: 72. — O’Connor 1999: 13 (sensu emend.). — De Wever et al. 2001: 233, 235. Neosciodiocapsidae [sic] – Tochilina 1989b: 61 (= Neosciadiocapsidae). Neosciadiocapsinae – Afanasieva et al. 2005: S294. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 141. TYPE GENUS. — Anthocyrtis Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [type species by monotypy: Anthocyrtis mespilus Ehrenberg, 1847: 55]. INCLUDED GENERA (CENOZOIC ONLY). — Anthocyrtis Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Anthocyrtella with the same type species; Anthocyrtariumn. syn., Anthocyrtiumn. syn., Clathrocyclasn. syn., Clathrocyclian. syn., Coniforman. syn.). — Eurystomoskevos Caulet, 1991: 536. — Microsciadiocapsa Pessagno, 1969: 403 (= Lipmanium synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 152; Scyphiforma synonymized byPetrushevskaya 1981: 153; Squinabolella synonymized by O’Dogherty 1994: 227). DIAGNOSIS. — Anthocyrtididae can be viewed as Theopilioidea with a ventral tube or with a trace of it on the cephalis. The development status of the apical horn is variable among genera. The aperture is always open. The cephalic initial has MB, A-, V-, D-, double L-, and double l-rods. The Ax-rod may be present or absent by cause of an infra-species variation. The basal ring is completely merged with the shell wall, and in certain cases its inner edge is recognizable in the cephalis. The basal ring is directly connected with D-, V-, double L- and double l-rods. However, the arches (double Dl-arch) of the basal ring’s apical side are missing, partly merged with the shell wall, or completely merged on the shell wall as relatively large pores. This variation changes the number of visible collar pores from four to six. The D-rod extends downward while the V-rod rises up. The A-rod side of the basal ring is bended downward along the double l-rod, while the V-side of the basal ring is bended upwards along the double L-rod. The MB is extended from the center to the A-rod side of the cephalic cavity. The A-rod is free in the cephalic cavity and extends vertically relative to MB. The ventral tube opens below the V-rod. The D- and double L-rods form a rod-like wing in some members. The triple-branched terminal parts of the L- and l-rod are visible from the aperture view. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Berriasian-Late Oligocene.REMARKS It appears difficult distinguish the Anthocyrtididae from the Theopiliidae and Cycladophoridae due to homeomorphy. Differing from the Anthocyrtididae, both the Theopiliidae and Cycladophoridae lack a ventral tube or a semblance of its trace. The Anthocyrtididae are commonly found in the late Cretaceous while Cenozoic members are uncommon. The relationship among the three families is not yet fully understood. This can be attributed to the nearly identical cephalic structure between the Theopiliidae and Cycladophoridae, regardless of them being distant families at Lineage level (Sandin et al. 2019; See also remarks for Theopiliidae and Cycladophoridae). Tochilina &amp; Vasilenko (2015, 2018b) identified Anthocyrtididae’s overall resemblance to Cycladophoridae as opposed to the Theopiliidae. The cephalic structure was illustrated for Cretaceous “ Neosciadiocapsidae ” (Pessagno 1969: pl. 24, figs 1, 2, pl. 27, figs 1, 2, pl. 30, figs 1, 2, pl. 34, figs 1, 2, pl. 35, figs 1, 2, pl. 35, fig. 7, pl. 36, figs 1, 2, pl. 37, figs 3, 6, pl. 38, figs 1, 2), for Paleocene Anthocyrtis (Nishimura 1992: pl. 4, figs 6, 9) and for Eocene Anthocyrtis (O’Connor 1999: pl. 2, figs 12-22). Based on the stable position of the Ax-rod, the codes indicated by Pessagno (1969) may lead to confusion. The “a” in pl. 24, fig. 1 and “c” in pl. 30, figs 1 and 2 are V-rod. The cephalis and upper part of the thorax are covered by an imperforated thick siliceous wall in most Anthocyrtididae. In some Cenozoic members, these parts are not covered with a wall. In such cases, the double Dl-arch extends as a part of the thoracic pore frame (e.g., Nishimura 1992: pl. 4, figs 6b, 9b). VALIDITY OF GENERAAnthocyrtis The following genus combinations share the same type species: Anthocyrtis and Anthocyrtella, Anthocyrtium and Anthocyrtarium, and Clathrocyclas and Clathrocyclia. Like Astrophormis and Theophormis, Anthocyrtium and Anthocyrtis were classified into “Sethophormidinae of the Sethophormididae within subsu- perfamily Sethopiliilae” (Campbell 1954: D122, 124-126), whereas Clathrocyclas was classified into “Theophormidinae of the Theophormididae within subsuperfamily Teopiliilae” (Campbell 1954: D129, 132) sensu Campbell (1954). As discussed in detail, the taxa subsuperfamily, family, and subfamily are meaningless for these genera. Anthocyrtium is characterized by 12 or more feet (Campbell 1954: D125); Anthocyrtis has a distinctive cephalis from the thorax, and only 6 feet (Campbell 1954: D125-126); and Clathrocyclas features a conical shell and a single terminal corona of feet (Campbell 1954: D132). One difference among species is the prominence of the stricture between the cephalis and thorax; however, this difference is less distinctive at the genus level. The number of feet differs among genera, but the lectotype of Anthocyrtis mespilus, the type species of Anthocyrtis, does not have six feet. Although the number of feet has not been confirmed for other type species using real specimens, this difference is insufficient to distinguish specimens at the genus level. Coniforma is a late Cretaceous genus with a corona-like skirt and many very short feet, which are characteristics that are phylogenetically associated with Anthocyrtis. It is unnecessary to maintain Coniforma as an independent genus within this family. The oldest available name for these specimens is Anthocyrtis.</p> <p>sensu Caulet emend. herein</p> <p>Anthocyrtida Haeckel, 1882: 430 [below tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 1192, 1241-1242 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1988 [as a family].</p> <p>Anthocyrtiden – Haecker 1907: 125-126 [as a family].</p> <p>Anthocyrtidae [sic] – Popofsky, 1908: 285 (= Anthocyrtididae);1913: 359. — Schröder 1914: 100. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 72; 1945: 38. — Dogiel &amp; Reshetnyak 1955: 48. — Chediya 1959: 205. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 280. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 172. — Nishimura 1990: 145 (sensu emend.). — Chen &amp;Tan 1996: 153. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 313. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 113, 155. — Chen et al. 2017: 198.</p> <p>Anthocyrtididae – Poche 1913: 221.</p> <p>Anthocyrtinae [sic] – Orlev 1959: 455 (= Anthocyrtidinae).</p> <p>Neosciadiocapsidae Pessagno, 1969: 392-394; 1976: 45-46; 1977b: 935. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 540. — Dumitrica 1979: 31-32. — De Wever 1982b: 284. —Kozur 1984: 65. — O’Dogherty 1994: 277. — Hollis 1997: 72. — O’Connor 1999: 13 (sensu emend.). — De Wever et al. 2001: 233, 235.</p> <p>Neosciodiocapsidae [sic] – Tochilina 1989b: 61 (= Neosciadiocapsidae).</p> <p>Neosciadiocapsinae – Afanasieva et al. 2005: S294. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 141.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Anthocyrtis Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [type species by monotypy: Anthocyrtis mespilus Ehrenberg, 1847: 55].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA (CENOZOIC ONLY). — Anthocyrtis Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Anthocyrtella with the same type species; Anthocyrtarium n. syn., Anthocyrtium n. syn., Clathrocyclas n. syn., Clathrocyclia n. syn., Coniforma n. syn.). — Eurystomoskevos Caulet, 1991: 536. — Microsciadiocapsa Pessagno, 1969: 403 (= Lipmanium synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 152; Scyphiforma synonymized byPetrushevskaya 1981: 153; Squinabolella synonymized by O’Dogherty 1994: 227). DIAGNOSIS. — Anthocyrtididae can be viewed as Theopilioidea with a ventral tube or with a trace of it on the cephalis. The development status of the apical horn is variable among genera. The aperture is always open. The cephalic initial has MB, A-, V-, D-, double L-, and double l-rods. The Ax-rod may be present or absent by cause of an infra-species variation. The basal ring is completely merged with the shell wall, and in certain cases its inner edge is recognizable in the cephalis. The basal ring is directly connected with D-, V-, double L- and double l-rods. However, the arches (double Dl-arch) of the basal ring’s apical side are missing, partly merged with the shell wall, or completely merged on the shell wall as relatively large pores. This variation changes the number of visible collar pores from four to six. The D-rod extends downward while the V-rod rises up. The A-rod side of the basal ring is bended downward along the double l-rod, while the V-side of the basal ring is bended upwards along the double L-rod. The MB is extended from the center to the A-rod side of the cephalic cavity. The A-rod is free in the cephalic cavity and extends vertically relative to MB. The ventral tube opens below the V-rod. The D- and double L-rods form a rod-like wing in some members. The triple-branched terminal parts of the L- and l-rod are visible from the aperture view.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Berriasian-Late Oligocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>It appears difficult distinguish the Anthocyrtididae from the Theopiliidae and Cycladophoridae due to homeomorphy. Differing from the Anthocyrtididae, both the Theopiliidae and Cycladophoridae lack a ventral tube or a semblance of its trace. The Anthocyrtididae are commonly found in the late Cretaceous while Cenozoic members are uncommon. The relationship among the three families is not yet fully understood. This can be attributed to the nearly identical cephalic structure between the Theopiliidae and Cycladophoridae, regardless of them being distant families at Lineage level (Sandin et al. 2019; See also remarks for Theopiliidae and Cycladophoridae). Tochilina &amp; Vasilenko (2015, 2018b) identified Anthocyrtididae’s overall resemblance to Cycladophoridae as opposed to the Theopiliidae. The cephalic structure was illustrated for Cretaceous “ Neosciadiocapsidae ” (Pessagno 1969: pl. 24, figs 1, 2, pl. 27, figs 1, 2, pl. 30, figs 1, 2, pl. 34, figs 1, 2, pl. 35, figs 1, 2, pl. 35, fig. 7, pl. 36, figs 1, 2, pl. 37, figs 3, 6, pl. 38, figs 1, 2), for Paleocene Anthocyrtis (Nishimura 1992: pl. 4, figs 6, 9) and for Eocene Anthocyrtis (O’Connor 1999: pl. 2, figs 12-22). Based on the stable position of the Ax-rod, the codes indicated by Pessagno (1969) may lead to confusion. The “a” in pl. 24, fig. 1 and “c” in pl. 30, figs 1 and 2 are V-rod. The cephalis and upper part of the thorax are covered by an imperforated thick siliceous wall in most Anthocyrtididae. In some Cenozoic members, these parts are not covered with a wall. In such cases, the double Dl-arch extends as a part of the thoracic pore frame (e.g., Nishimura 1992: pl. 4, figs 6b, 9b).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Anthocyrtis</p> <p>The following genus combinations share the same type species: Anthocyrtis and Anthocyrtella, Anthocyrtium and Anthocyrtarium, and Clathrocyclas and Clathrocyclia. Like Astrophormis and Theophormis, Anthocyrtium and Anthocyrtis were classified into “Sethophormidinae of the Sethophormididae within subsu- perfamily Sethopiliilae” (Campbell 1954: D122, 124-126), whereas Clathrocyclas was classified into “Theophormidinae of the Theophormididae within subsuperfamily Teopiliilae” (Campbell 1954: D129, 132) sensu Campbell (1954). As discussed in detail, the taxa subsuperfamily, family, and subfamily are meaningless for these genera. Anthocyrtium is characterized by 12 or more feet (Campbell 1954: D125); Anthocyrtis has a distinctive cephalis from the thorax, and only 6 feet (Campbell 1954: D125-126); and Clathrocyclas features a conical shell and a single terminal corona of feet (Campbell 1954: D132). One difference among species is the prominence of the stricture between the cephalis and thorax; however, this difference is less distinctive at the genus level. The number of feet differs among genera, but the lectotype of Anthocyrtis mespilus, the type species of Anthocyrtis, does not have six feet. Although the number of feet has not been confirmed for other type species using real specimens, this difference is insufficient to distinguish specimens at the genus level. Coniforma is a late Cretaceous genus with a corona-like skirt and many very short feet, which are characteristics that are phylogenetically associated with Anthocyrtis. It is unnecessary to maintain Coniforma as an independent genus within this family. The oldest available name for these specimens is Anthocyrtis.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFCAFE6A05D6FC27FF064CA3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFCBFE6A0435FBC4FA9B49BD.text	038DDA73FFCBFE6A0435FBC4FA9B49BD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Theopiliinae	<div><p>Family THEOPILIIDAE Haeckel, 1882 sensu Caulet emend. hereinTheopilida Haeckel, 1882: 435 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1313, 1315 [as a subfamily]. Theopilinae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 80 (= Theopiliinae). — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 46; 1944b: 29. — Chediya 1959: 213. Theopiliidae – Campbell 1954: D130. — De Wever et al. 2001: 238, 239. — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 60. Theopiliinae – Campbell 1954: D130. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 134- 137; 1986: 134. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S294. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 141. TYPE GENUS. — Theopilium Haeckel, 1882: 435 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D130): Theopilium tricostatum Haeckel, 1887: 1322] = junior subjective synonym of Eucecryphalus Haeckel, 1861b: 836 [type species by subsequent designation (Haeckel 1887: 1221): Eucecryphalus gegenbauri Haeckel, 1861b: 836]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Clathrocycloma Haeckel, 1887: 1388. — Eucecryphalus Haeckel, 1861b: 836 (= Eucecryphalium with the same type species; Cecryphalium, Corocalyptra synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1971a; 146; Theopilium synonymized by Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1992: 31). NOMINA DUBIA. — Eucyrtomphalus, Theocalyptra. DIAGNOSIS. — Theopilioidea with two cephalic spines (rod-like apical and ventral horns). No feet are observed. The cephalis has pores. The thorax is constructed by a fragile, polygonal pore frame and it is generally conical with a straight outline. The thorax may or may not have a weak neck on its upper part. The width of the pore frames is equivalent to the bars between the adjacent pores as well as to the junction points among the pores. In some members, a velum or velum-like periphery develops around the thorax aperture. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, V-, D-, double L-rods. The double l-rod merges into the shell wall. The basal ring is absent. The MB is generally located at a similar height to the cephalic constriction and is horizontally or obliquely oriented. The length of the MB is one-third to one-half of the cephalis diameter. The A-rod is long, and rises almost vertically to penetrate the cephalic wall forming a rod-like apical horn. The V-rod is relatively long and forms a ventral horn. No ventral tube is observed. In some members, the D-rod extends almost horizontally to become a spine, outside the shell. The double L-rod extends relatively downward and protrudes as spine from the shell wall. In other cases, the distal part of the double L-rod has three branches on the cephalic wall, forming a part of the pore frame. The endoplasm is transparent to light amber in color. Its size is too small and it is located above the neckline on the upper part of the thorax. The terminal projection is visible but the axial projection is absent.STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — early Early Miocene-Living.REMARKS The cephalic initial spicular system was illustrated for both Clathrocycloma (Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 18, fig. 4) and Eucecryphalus (Nishimura 1990: figs 20.1, 26.4, 26.5; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 21, fig. 7). Matsuzaki et al. (2015: 60) documented the cephalic initial spicular system of the Eucecryphalus in detail. Sandin et al. (2019: supplement 1) drew a schematic image of this genus, although this schematic drawing omits the double l-rod. The presence of two apical spines and the absence of a ventral tube in Theopiliidae easily distinguish them from the Anthocyrtididae. Eucecryphalus was once grouped with Cycladophora (Cycladophoridae) due to similarity in their cephalic initial spicular system (Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 60), but this grouping was discarded by a distinctive separation in molecular phylogeny at the lineage level (Sandin et al. 2019). As highlighted in the remarks for the Cycladophoridae in this paper, significant differences between the Theopiliidae and Cycladophoridae have not yet been confirmed. Typical Theopiliidae are characterized by a fragile thorax with a conical straight outline and many polygonal pores with same width frames. On the other hand, the Cycladophoridae likely have a robust thorax with a smaller number of rounded pores whose frames tend to widen around the junction of three of more pores. Cycladophoridae also tend to have a well-necked upper thorax (“pedestal” by Popova 1989). This tendency, however, is not so clear and some of these features may simply be lacking at species level. Most species introduced by Lombari &amp; Lazarus (1988) seem to belong to Clathrocycloma. “Living” and protoplasm images were published for Eucecryphalus (Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: figs 11.8, 11.13, 11.19; Zhang et al. 2018: 17, fig. 7.13, p. 18, figs 7.13-7.16; Ichinohe et al. 2018: fig. 2.B, C).</p> <p>sensu Caulet emend. herein</p> <p>Theopilida Haeckel, 1882: 435 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1313, 1315 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Theopilinae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 80 (= Theopiliinae). — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 46; 1944b: 29. — Chediya 1959: 213.</p> <p>Theopiliidae – Campbell 1954: D130. — De Wever et al. 2001: 238, 239. — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 60.</p> <p>Theopiliinae – Campbell 1954: D130. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 134- 137; 1986: 134. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S294. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 141.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Theopilium Haeckel, 1882: 435 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D130): Theopilium tricostatum Haeckel, 1887: 1322] = junior subjective synonym of Eucecryphalus Haeckel, 1861b: 836 [type species by subsequent designation (Haeckel 1887: 1221): Eucecryphalus gegenbauri Haeckel, 1861b: 836].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Clathrocycloma Haeckel, 1887: 1388. — Eucecryphalus Haeckel, 1861b: 836 (= Eucecryphalium with the same type species; Cecryphalium, Corocalyptra synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1971a; 146; Theopilium synonymized by Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1992: 31).</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Eucyrtomphalus, Theocalyptra.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Theopilioidea with two cephalic spines (rod-like apical and ventral horns). No feet are observed. The cephalis has pores. The thorax is constructed by a fragile, polygonal pore frame and it is generally conical with a straight outline. The thorax may or may not have a weak neck on its upper part. The width of the pore frames is equivalent to the bars between the adjacent pores as well as to the junction points among the pores. In some members, a velum or velum-like periphery develops around the thorax aperture. The</p> <p>cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, V-, D-, double L-rods. The double l-rod merges into the shell wall. The basal ring is absent. The MB is generally located at a similar height to the cephalic constriction and is horizontally or obliquely oriented. The length of the MB is one-third to one-half of the cephalis diameter. The A-rod is long, and rises almost vertically to penetrate the cephalic wall forming a rod-like apical horn. The V-rod is relatively long and forms a ventral horn. No ventral tube is observed. In some members, the D-rod extends almost horizontally to become a spine, outside the shell. The double L-rod extends relatively downward and protrudes as spine from the shell wall. In other cases, the distal part of the double L-rod has three branches on the cephalic wall, forming a part of the pore frame.</p> <p>The endoplasm is transparent to light amber in color. Its size is too small and it is located above the neckline on the upper part of the thorax. The terminal projection is visible but the axial projection is absent.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — early Early Miocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The cephalic initial spicular system was illustrated for both Clathrocycloma (Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 18, fig. 4) and Eucecryphalus (Nishimura 1990: figs 20.1, 26.4, 26.5; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 21, fig. 7). Matsuzaki et al. (2015: 60) documented the cephalic initial spicular system of the Eucecryphalus in detail. Sandin et al. (2019: supplement 1) drew a schematic image of this genus, although this schematic drawing omits the double l-rod. The presence of two apical spines and the absence of a ventral tube in Theopiliidae easily distinguish them from the Anthocyrtididae. Eucecryphalus was once grouped with Cycladophora (Cycladophoridae) due to similarity in their cephalic initial spicular system (Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 60), but this grouping was discarded by a distinctive separation in molecular phylogeny at the lineage level (Sandin et al. 2019). As highlighted in the remarks for the Cycladophoridae in this paper, significant differences between the Theopiliidae and Cycladophoridae have not yet been confirmed. Typical Theopiliidae are characterized by a fragile thorax with a conical straight outline and many polygonal pores with same width frames. On the other hand, the Cycladophoridae likely have a robust thorax with a smaller number of rounded pores whose frames tend to widen around the junction of three of more pores. Cycladophoridae also tend to have a well-necked upper thorax (“pedestal” by Popova 1989). This tendency, however, is not so clear and some of these features may simply be lacking at species level. Most species introduced by Lombari &amp; Lazarus (1988) seem to belong to Clathrocycloma. “Living” and protoplasm images were published for Eucecryphalus (Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: figs 11.8, 11.13, 11.19; Zhang et al. 2018: 17, fig. 7.13, p. 18, figs 7.13-7.16; Ichinohe et al. 2018: fig. 2.B, C).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFCBFE6A0435FBC4FA9B49BD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFCBFE550667F8C9FE4D4E9C.text	038DDA73FFCBFE550667F8C9FE4D4E9C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Stichopilioidea Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Superfamily STICHOPILIOIDEA Haeckel, 1882 n. stat.</p> <p>Stichopilida Haeckel, 1882: 439 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1435, 1436 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Triacartilae – Campbell 1954: D136 [as a subsuperfamily]. — Nakaseko 1957: 27 [as a subsuperfamily]. — Dieci 1964: 188 [as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Same as the family.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Sandin et al. (2019) placed Ectotoxon (originally Extotoxon [sic]) in the same clade as the Artostrobiidae. However, this placement is wrong due to a misidentification. Thus, there is no molecular support to determine the higher classification position of the Stichopiliidae and the independency of the superfamily Stichopilioidea.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFCBFE550667F8C9FE4D4E9C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFF4FE5505C2FDE7FC164B9F.text	038DDA73FFF4FE5505C2FDE7FC164B9F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Stichopiliidae Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Family STICHOPILIIDAE Haeckel, 1882 sensu Petrushevskaya (1986)Stichopilida Haeckel, 1882: 439 [as a tribe]; Haeckel, 1887: 1435, 1436 [as a subfamily].Artopilida Haeckel, 1882: 437 [as a tribe].Stichopilinae [sic] – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944b: 36 (= Stichopiliinae). — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 31. — Chediya 1959: 226.Stichopiliidae – Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 31. — Petrushevskaya 1986: 133. Triacartidae Campbell, 1954: D136.Triacartinae Campbell, 1954: D136.</p> <p>sensu Petrushevskaya (1986)</p> <p>Stichopilida Haeckel, 1882: 439 [as a tribe]; Haeckel, 1887: 1435, 1436 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Artopilida Haeckel, 1882: 437 [as a tribe].</p> <p>Stichopilinae [sic] – Campbell &amp; Clark 1944b: 36 (= Stichopiliinae). — Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 31. — Chediya 1959: 226.</p> <p>Stichopiliidae – Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 31. — Petrushevskaya 1986: 133.</p> <p>Triacartidae Campbell, 1954: D136.</p> <p>Triacartinae Campbell, 1954: D136.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Stichopilium Haeckel, 1882: 439 [type species by subsequent designation (Frizzell &amp; Middour 1951: 32): Stichopilium bicorne Haeckel, 1887: 1437].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Artopilium Haeckel, 1882: 437 (= Trictenartus with the same type species). — Ectotoxon Sugiyama, 1994: 6. — Lophoconus Haeckel, 1887: 1403. — Stichopilium Haeckel, 1882: 439 (= Triacartus with the same type species).</p> <p>HOMONYM. — Pterocorythium Haeckel, 1887 (= Artopilium, synonymized by Campbell 1954: D136) nec Haeckel, 1882.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Stichopiliidae consist of two or three segments, with or without discrete wings. An additional undulated extension might be present in some members. The shell wall is thin, fragile and consists of a very fine grid-like structure. Two significant apical horns with a similar development and three wings are observed. Two of the three wings extend parallelly to these two significant horns and the remaining wing extends vertically. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, V-, D- and double L-rods. The double l-rod and cephalic basal ring absent. These rods are so robust and straight that MB, A- and V-rods are well visible under light microscopy. The MB is generally parallel to the segment boundary. The small endoplasm is located in the cephalon-thoracic part. A single, very long pseudopodium (axial projection) extends more than eight times the total length of the shell. A bundle of pseudopodia forms a cone shape. No algal symbionts are reported.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Oligocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The cephalic initial spicular system was illustrated for Artopilium (Nishimura 1990: figs 18.1, 18.2; Sugiyama 1994: pl. 3, fig. 5), Ectotoxon (Sugiyama 1994: pl. 3, fig. 4, pl. 4, figs 1, 2) and Stichopilium (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 35, fig. 14; Sugiyama 1998: pl. 6, fig. 2). All genera belonging to the Stichopiliidae were not treated by De Wever et al. (2001). The arches of the cephalic initial spicular system seem to be different at the genus or species level. The Mesozoic families Foremanellinidae Dumitrica 1982a and Cuniculiformidae De Wever 1982a are similar to the Stichopiliidae except for the presence of double l-rods in the Mesozoic families. These families both have two significant apical horns related to the A- and V-rods and also share a similarity in the segmentation or undulation patterns associated with Stichopiliidae. If these families are phylogenetically connected to the Stichopiliidae, fossil records from the Berriasian (Early Cretaceous) to the early Oligocene are missing. A “Living” image has been illustrated for “ Dictyocodon ” prometheus by Sugiyama et al. (2008: figs 2, 8) but no appropriate genus name currently exists for this species. The evolution of the Stichopiliidae has not been studied, probably due to many undescribed species (e.g., Lazarus 1992: pl. 9, figs 9-17).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Artopilium</p> <p>Campbell (1954: D136) incorrectly validated Trictenartus as an objective synonym of Artopilium. Nigrini (pers. comm.) left notes indicating that Campbell (1954: D136) had designated Artopilium elegans Haeckel, 1887 as the type species of Trictenartus solely by the inference of Artopilium. Therefore, we consider the type species designation of Artopilium to date from Chediya (1959: 226).</p> <p>Stichopilium</p> <p>Campbell (1954: D136) validated Triacartus as an objective synonym of Stichopilium. However, Frizzell &amp; Middour (1951: 31-32) had already validated Stichopilium, but not Triacartus. Therefore, following the first reviser rule, Stichopilium is the valid genus name.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFF4FE5505C2FDE7FC164B9F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFF4FE57065FFAE9FEDF4EDD.text	038DDA73FFF4FE57065FFAE9FEDF4EDD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Plagiacanthoidea Hertwig 1879	<div><p>Superfamily PLAGIACANTHOIDEA Hertwig, 1879</p> <p>Plagiacanthiden [sic] Hertwig, 1879: 200-202 (= Plagiacanthidae) [as a family].</p> <p>Cystidiicae [sic] – Campbell 1954: D103 (= Cystidioidea) [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Plagoniicae [sic] – Campbell 1954: D103 [nomen dubium] (= Plagonioidea) [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Sethopiliilae Campbell, 1954: D122 [nomen dubium, as a subsuperfamily]. — Nakaseko 1957: 27 [as a subsuperfamily]. — Dieci 1964: 187 [as a subsuperfamily].</p> <p>Plagoniacea [sic] – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 227 [nomen dubium] (= Plagonioidea) [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Plagiacanthoidea – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 57-65; 1971b: 988; 1975: 589; 1981: 61-62; 1986: 132. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 534. — Goll 1979: 379 (sensu emend.). — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 42. — Sandin &amp; Suzuki in Sandin et al. 2019: 201 (sensu emend.).</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Plagiacanthoidea having one or two segments and several arches. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, V-, double L- and Ax-rods. The double l-rods are generally absent. The V-rod may be degraded in intra-genera or infra-ge-</p> <p>nus variations. The presence or absence of other main rods of the cephalic initial spicular system, as well as the presence of arches is highly variable depends on taxa within this superfamily. These cephalic arches may be free inside the cephalic cavity, embedded in the cephalic wall, or both.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Plagiacanthoidea consist of the Ceratocyrtidae, Dictyocryphalidae Suzuki, n. fam., Dimelissidae, Phaenocalpididae, Plagiacanthidae, Pseudodictyophimidae Suzuki, n. fam., Tripodisciidae and Ximolzidae Dumitrica, nom. nov. The taxonomic position of all families, except the Tripodisciidae, is based on molecular phylogeny analyses ofSandin et al. (2019). The taxon names at family-, genus- and species-levels for Plagiacanthoidea are the most difficult to determine among Nassellaria. This is due to several problems: a) the different published schematic drawings of the cephalic initial spicular system for the same genus, or even for the same species; b) the technical difficulties to identify the representatives of this superfamily under transmitted light microscopy; and c) the existence of many undescribed genera and species in this superfamily.</p> <p>The evolution of nassellarians through time has shown the importance of the cephalic initial spicular system for the classification at the family rank. However, this principle does not apply to the Plagiacanthoidea. The principal distinguishing feature of Plagiacanthoidea at the genus level is the presence or absence of rods and/or arches of the cephalic initial spicular system (Petrushevskaya 1971a; Sugiyama 1992a, 1993, 1994; O’Connor 1997b). Essentially, this difference requires that rods and/or arches must vary amongst genera, leading to the logical conclusion that the cephalic initial spicular system is unstable at the genus level in the Plagiacanthoidea. This was written in several papers (e.g., Funakawa 1995a, b; O’Connor 1997 a, b, 1999). Furthermore, detailed studies indicate that the architecture and combination of the arches are variable within the same genus (Funakawa 1994, 2000).</p> <p>Several papers published very different schematic drawings for the same genus or even the same species, proning the users to confusion. Sugiyama (1998) mentioned that several papers erroneously drew a combination of cephalic initial spicular systems. Thus, the evidence images must be carefully examined by the users. This discrepancy can be partially explained by the differences among major studies of Funakawa, O’Connor and Sugiyama. Sugiyama focused on identifying the commonalities in the cephalic initial spicular system at the genus level, whereas Funakawa concentrated on the differences at the species or intra-species level. The methodology followed by O’Connor is a combination of both approach of Japanese researchers. Nishimura (1990) occasionally observed nearly invisible rods of the cephalic initial spicular system and hypothesized that some of these were buried in the cephalic wall during the ontogenesis. This hypothesis should be treated carefully as few to no objective evidence was presented in many cases.</p> <p>Most taxonomic studies on Plagiacanthoidea were based on scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images; hence the problem for identification of Plagiacanthoidea under transmitted light microscopy. Funakawa and Sugiyama, specialists of the Plagiacanthoidea, explained the process of identifying the specimens to one of the authors (N.S.). They stressed that the identification of the Plagiacanthoidea at species and genus levels is in fact possible under a light microscope (see for example the new taxa described in the Southern Ocean by Renaudie &amp; Lazarus 2012; 2013; 2015; 2016).</p> <p>Even if it is possible to identify Plagiacanthoidea under a light microscope, anatomical knowledge is essential in understanding their taxonomy. An accurate taxonomy for the Plagiacanthoidea should consider the following aspects: 1) the collar stricture between cephalis and thorax which is independently determined from the position of MB; 2) the presence of a cephalic wall; 3) a cephalic initial spicular system consisting of MB, A-, D-, V-, double L-, double l-, Ax-rods, and several arches; 4) the presence/absence of rods and arches, and their development, which are also important in identifying similar genera but not as critical in many cases due to preexisting knowledge of infra-generic variation; 5) the overall similarity among species that may lead to critical misidentifications; 6) the spinules on each rod that are coded as (a) “ a ”, “ m ” and “ g ” on A-rod from the near end of MB, (b) “ j ” and “ f ” on V-rod from the near end of MB, (c) “ p ” and “ d ” on L-rod from the near end of MB, (d) “ c ” on D-rod, and (e) “ t ” on l-rod; 7) the name of the arch can be coded with major rods names (e.g., AV-arch) when the exact position is not necessary to be signaled; however, if the exact position of the arch is needed, the arch must be coded with the code of spinules (e.g., aj -arch but not AV-arch); 8) the presence of additional arches, occasionally developed on other arches; and 9) stress the differences between “primary arch” (if both ends of the arch arise from the coded rods) from “secondary arch” (if only one end is arising from the coded spinules) and “third arch” (if neither of the two ends are arising from any coded spinules).</p> <p>This superfamily was ranked at the family level (Petrushevskaya 1971a; Sugiyama 1994; 1998; Funakawa 1994). This group was also raised at the superfamily level to include Mesozoic member (Petrushevskaya 1981). Later, this superfamily was disassembled again (De Wever et al. 2001). Molecular phylogenetic results (Sandin et al. 2019) classified one distinctive group as Clade G (100% PhyML bootstrap values with 10000 replicates (BS) and&gt;0.99 posterior probabilities) including Archiscenium (Phaenocalpididae), Ceratocyrtis and Lipmanella (Ceratocyrtidae), Archiperidium, Peromelissa and Lithomelissa (Dimelissidae), Dictyocryphalus and Pseudodictyophimus (Pseudodictyophimidae Suzuki, n. fam.), Protoscenium (Ximolzidae Dumitrica, nom. nov.), and Pseudocubus (Plagiacanthidae). The aforementioned genera cannot be separated within Clade G due to the small values in BS or PP. This indicates that the morphological differences are larger than the molecular difference for the complete 18S and partial 28S sequences (D1-D2 region). This suggests that (a) these genera should be regarded as a single group and that (b) an approach with morphological differences should be prioritized for the Clade G. Clade G is assigned to the superfamily level in consideration of taxonomic hierarchy consistency for Mesozoic families of Nassellaria.</p> <p>Plagiacanthoidea are the most diversified Nassellaria in both environmental DNA (Sandin et al. 2019) and relative year-round abundance (Motoyama et al. 2005; Ikenoue et al. 2015) at every latitude (Boltovskoy et al. 2010) and depth (Boltovskoy 2017). Despite this diversity and abundance, the establishment of a taxonomic framework has not been completed yet.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFF4FE57065FFAE9FEDF4EDD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFF6FE5705ABFE27FB124BE3.text	038DDA73FFF6FE5705ABFE27FB124BE3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ceratocyrtidae Petrushevskaya 1981	<div><p>Family CERATOCYRTIDAE Petrushevskaya, 1981 n. stat.</p> <p>sensu Caulet emend. herein</p> <p>Ceratocyrtinae Petrushevskaya, 1981: 108-109. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S295. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 143-144.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Ceratocyrtis Bütschli, 1882: 536 [type species by subsequent designation (Petrushevskaya 1971a: 98): Cornutella ? cucullaris Ehrenberg, 1874: 221].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Ceratocyrtis Bütschli, 1882: 536 (= Bathrocalpis synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1971a: 98; Helotholus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 587). — Entepipedus Sugiyama, 1994: 6. — Gomisterna Sugiyama, 1994: 8. — Gondwanaria Petrushevskaya, 1975: 584. — Lipmanella Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1961: 226. —? Periarachnium Haeckel, 1882: 430. —? Phlebarachnium Haeckel, 1882: 430.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYM. — Dictyoceras Haeckel, 1862 (= Lipmanella) nec Eichwald, 1860.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Ceratocyrtidae are described as Plagiacanthoidea with a very small cephalis and a large thorax or relevant shell. Apical horn and wings may be present or absent. No feet are observed. The collar stricture is located above the MB’s level. The MB generally rises to the apical side with the double L-rod that extends horizontally. The double l-rod is present in most members. The double AL-arch forms part of the collar stricture or appears as a horizontal line near the bottom of the cephalic wall. The architecture of the cephalic initial spicular system is variable within the family: a crowned ring above MB, made of double VL- and AL-arches is present in Ceratocyrtis, Gomisterna and Gondwanaria; while a basal ring, made of double LV- and Ll-arches, is found free from the shell wall in Lipmanella. The transparent to colored endoplasm forms long lobes below the cephalis. A gelatinous matter covers the shell in Phlebarachnium. No algal symbionts are found in Ceratocyrtis and Lipmanella, while plenty of algal symbionts surround the shell of Phlebarachnium.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>All the genera, except for Ceratocyrtis, were not treated in De Wever et al. (2001). Petrushevskaya (1981) established the subfamily “Ceratocyrtinae” with the following members Antarctissa, Ceratocyrtis, Gondwanaria, Periarachnium, Phlebarachnium and Pseudodictyophimus. Antarctissa and Pseudodictyophimus were excluded herein based on the different architecture of their cephalic initial spicular system. In contrast, Entepipedus, Gomisterna and Lipmanella with double l-rod or double AL-arch that form a horizontal line in the lower part of the cephalis were included.</p> <p>The cephalic initial spicular system has been well documented in Ceratocyrtis (Petrushevskaya 1986: pl. 1, fig. 1; Sugiyama 1993: figs 20.4-20.6, 23.1; Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 18, fig. 6; pl. 20, fig. 2; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 15, figs 2-3; Funakawa 1994: fig. 7.1; 1995a; pl. 1, figs 4, 5), Entepipedus (Sugiyama 1994: pl. 4, fig. 4), Gomisterna (Sugiyama 1994: pl. 5, fig. 1), Gondwanaria (Nishimura 1990: fig. 17.4-17.6; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 21, fig. 9; Funakawa 2000: pl. 1, figs 1-3; pl. 2, figs 1-3), Lipmanella (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 35, fig. 3; Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 17, fig. 1; Funakawa 2000: pls 3-6), and Periarachnium (Aita et al. 2009: pl. 5, fig. 7c). Entepipedus has a very particular cephalic initial spicular system, thus, its exact taxonomic position is unknown. “Living” or protoplasmic images were reported for Ceratocyrtis (Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: fig. 12.9; Zhang et al. 2018: 15, fig. 3?, 4), Lipmanella (Matsuoka et al. 2001: pl. 1, fig. 3; Matsuoka 2007: fig. 5c; Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: fig. 11.3; Suzuki &amp; Aita 2011: fig. 5O; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: figs 8.4.2, 8.10.6; Zhang et al. 2018: 15, fig. 15, p. 21, fig. 7, p. 23, fig. 12), and Phlebarachnium (Aita et al. 2009: pl. 30, figs 5a-5d, p. 32, fig. 4; Zhang et al. 2018: 21, fig. 13).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENUS</p> <p>Ceratocyrtis</p> <p>The taxonomic confusion problem between Bathrocalpis, Ceratocyrtis and Helotholus sometimes arises in questions. The discussion in Matsuzaki et al. (2015) was based on the “ lectotype ” of Helotholus histricosus by Dolven et al. (2014). This “ lectotype ” was different from the type-illustration ofJØrgensen (1905) because it lacks a neck at cephalis position.An important Southern Ocean species, “ Helotholus vema ”, does not belong to Helotholus or Ceratocyrtis but is similar to Steganocubus. Sugiyama (1993: 69) had already noticed the necessity of further studies to resolve these taxonomic inconsistencies.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFF6FE5705ABFE27FB124BE3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFF6FE51064BFB04FA7C4EBC.text	038DDA73FFF6FE51064BFB04FA7C4EBC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dictyocryphalidae Suzuki & Caulet & Dumitrica 2021	<div><p>Family DICTYOCRYPHALIDAE Suzuki, n. fam.</p> <p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: C897A495-6E6C-4149-84CE-1324AF0AF58C</p> <p>Lophophaenida Haeckel, 1882: 430 [nomen dubium, below tribe].</p> <p>Lithobotryida Haeckel, 1887: 1107, 1111-1112 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1983 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].</p> <p>Lithobotryidae Poche, 1913: 222 [nomen dubium]. — Schröder 1914: 143. — Chediya 1959: 186. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 295. — Chen et al. 2017: 173.</p> <p>Lophophaenidae – Campbell 1954: D128 [nomen dubium]. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 534. — Dumitrica 1979: 30. — Blueford 1988: 246. — Nishimura 1990: 85, 87 (sensu emend.). — Sugiyama 1993: 51. — Dumitrica 1995: 28. — van de Paverd 1995: 217. — Sugiyama 1998: 233. — De Wever et al. 2001: 224, 226. — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 42.</p> <p>Lophophaeninae – Campbell 1954: D128 [nomen dubium]. — Dieci 1964: 187. — Petrushevskaya 1971a: 86-91; 1971b: 989; 1981: 87-88. — Takahashi 1991: 96. — Hollis 1997: 55. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S292. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 139.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Dictyocryphalus Haeckel, 1887: 1308 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D128): Cornutella ? obtusa Ehrenberg, 1844a: 77].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Antarctissa Petrushevskaya, 1967: 85. — Botryopera Haeckel, 1887: 1108 (= Trisulcus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 591). — Dictyocryphalus Haeckel, 1887: 1308 (=? Cephaluspinus n. syn.). — Nomina dubia. — Lithobotrys, Lophophaena, Lophophaenoma, Lophophaenula.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYMS. — Dictyocephalus Ehrenberg, 1861 (= Dictyocryphalus, Ehrenberg 1861b) nec Leidy, 1859; Discocephalus Ehrenberg, 1861 (= Dictyocryphalus, Ehrenberg 1861b) nec Ehrenberg in Hemprich &amp; Ehrenberg, 1829.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Dictyocryphalidae Suzuki, n. fam. are two segment- ed Plagiacanthoidea. The thoracic part with a neck or a suture is generally present. No feet and rarely three spinule-like wing rods from A- and double L-rods are present. The shell is subdivided at variable degrees into a post-lobe on the most apical side of the A-rod, a eucephalic lobe in the space between the A- and V-rods, and an ante-lobe on the more ventral side of the V-rod. In well-developed specimens, the eucephalic lobe is bounded by two arches from both the post- and ante-lobes. The level of the neck and the boundary of the eucephalic lobe are always located above the MB’s level. Both post- and ante-lobes usually develops between the MB and the thoracic part. The cephalic spicular system consists of MB, A-, V-, D-, double L- and Ax-rods. The double l-rod is generally absent. The MB is very short or degrades, becoming a pointed connection (PC) with D- and double L-rods. The PC (or MB) is located in the center of the cephalic cavity. The V-rod is rarely absent at genus or species levels. A basal ring does not exist. Instead, a cephalic basal ring-like structure is connected by the A-rod, V-rod, and several supplemental connecting rods that arise from both the double L-rod and D-rod. Due to the development of basal ring-like structure, true double AL- and double LV-arches are absent. In this case, the arches are coded as A’, double L’, l’-rod. This basal ring-like structure is isolated from the cephalic wall that is joined by many rods around the basal ring. The Ax-rod is very short, except for in the case of Antarctissa. No tubes are found on the cephalis. A-rod is merged to the cephalis. It may also be partly or fully free in the cephalic cavity. If the AL’- and L’V-arches are merged with the shell wall, sutures form on both sides of the eucephalic lobe.</p> <p>The protoplasm was examined in Dictyocryphalus. The endoplasm is transparent or brown, yields multi nuclei, and occupies the cephalis, and part of the thorax depending on specimens. If present, algal symbionts are scattered outside the shell. No axopodial projection was found so far.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — early Middle Eocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Except for Dictyocryphalus, the genera of the Dictyocryphalidae Suzuki, n. fam. have stable, cephalic initial spicular and arch system components. The Dictyocryphalidae Suzuki, n. fam. are characterized by the presence of a basal-ring like structure and a retrograding MB or three-pointed AC. Dictyocryphalus has variable systems at the species or infra-species level with the presence of a basal ring that is directly connected with the D- and double L-rods, - the presence of double Al- and double DL-arches, - the presence of double VL-arch instead of DL-arch, - the rare presence of an l-rod, - or the absence of lobes. Some unstable characters found in Dictyocryphalus are also observed in representatives of Dimelissidae. The Dictyocryphalidae Suzuki, n. fam. is easily distinguished from the Pseudodictyophimidae Suzuki, n. fam. by the absence of three feet.</p> <p>There was some confusion among the genera of the Dictyocryphalidae Suzuki, n. fam., and between the Dimelissidae and the Dictyocryphalidae Suzuki, n. fam. (e.g., Dictyocryphalus vs Lithomelissa; Botryopera vs Amphimelissa). Rapid examinations of the presence of a cephalic basal-ring structure and an absence of AL- and DL-arches are unrealistic. The A-rod is not free in the cephalic cavity of Dictyocryphalus whereas it is free in the cephalic cavity of Lithomelissa (Dimelissidae). Three lobate cephalis are similar in Botryopera and in Amphimelissa (Pylobotrydidae). Differing from Botryopera, Amphimelissa develops a double l-rod and a multicamerate cephalis that is larger than the thorax. As with the Dimelissidae, all the genus members of the Dictyocryphalidae Suzuki, n. fam. except Antarctissa (Petrushevskaya 1986) remain unconfirmed by the stratigraphic distribution of these genera and species. Moreover, many genera and species remain undescribed.</p> <p>The cephalic initial spicular system was documented in Antarctissa (Petrushevskaya 1986: pl. 1, fig. 9), Botryopera (Sugiyama 1993: figs 14-17), Dictyocryphalus (Caulet 1974: pl. 9, figs 4-6?; Nishimura 1990: figs 17.1-17.3, 18.3?; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 16, figs 6, 7; Sugiyama 1993: fig. 23.2; 1994: pl. 5, figs 3, 4?; Funakawa 1994: figs 8.1, 8.2, 8.4; 2000: pl. 1, fig. 4 [wrong plate number is indicated on the true plate 1]; Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 32, fi. 6; O’Connor 1997a: pl. 6, figs 6, 7, 8?, 9). Living or protoplasm images were illustrated for Dictyocryphalus (Matsuoka 1993a: fig. 2.6; Ogane et al. 2010: figs 1.6, 1.7; Suzuki &amp; Aita 2011: fig. 5L; Matsuoka 2017: fig. 22; Matsuoka et al. 2017: appendix B; Zhang et al. 2018: 10, figs 6, 8, p. 19, fig. 28).</p> <p>The taxonomic validity of the “ Lophophaenidae ” involves very complex problems which include the (A) validity of the type species of Dictyocryphalus Haeckel 1887; the (B) validity of the type species of Lophophaena Ehrenberg 1847; and (C) the possible designation of a neotype for Lophophaena. The type species of Dictyocryphalus is Cornutella ? obtusa Ehrenberg 1844a designated as such by Campbell (1954: D128) as an objective synonym of Dictyocephalus. The name-bearing specimen was first published by Ehrenberg (1854c: pl. 22, fig. 40). The type locality of D. obtusus (Ehrenberg) is Caltanisetta, West of Sicily (Ehrenberg 1844a: 77), and thus the type specimens were expected to be preserved in Ehrenberg’s slide tray K28B06 (Suzuki et al. 2009c: 88) in the Ehrenberg collection. The slide series of “Caltanisetta” (K28B06) was highly damaged and many slides of the Caltanisetta are missing. For this reason, Suzuki et al. (2009c) examined all the pieces of the slides, including two-millimeter fragments, and took photographs of all the encountered radiolarian specimens, published in pls 1-21 of Suzuki et al. (2009c). Following this observation, the type specimens appear to be completely missing. Instead, the most similar morphotypes are illustrated in pl. 20, figs 13b-14 of Suzuki et al. (2009c), but their designation of neotype was unlikely because the slides in K28B06 almost completely missing. No raw samples are archived in NfM. The sample locality information is noted in Ehrenberg (1839: 78), but the specification of the locality was unhelpful. Some papers illustrated radiolarians from Sicily (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1978b; Sanfilippo et al. 1978, 1985; Cortese &amp; BjØrklund 1999). The morphotype that most closely resembles D. obtusus from Caltanisetta was illustrated in Cortese &amp; BjØrklund (1999: figs 21.P-21.R). If we compare pls 1-21 of Suzuki et al. (2009c) with the figures 20-22 of Cortese &amp; BjØrklund (1999), the fauna appears to be nearly identical, and it may be tentatively concluded that figs 21.P-21.R of Cortese &amp; BjØrklund (1999) represent the true D. obutsus as a potential neotype.</p> <p>A second encountered problem is the type species of Lophophaena. The genus Lophophaena was established by Ehrenberg (1847) without any included species, and the first assigned species was “ Lophophaena Galea Orci ” as a monotype (Ehrenberg 1854b: 245). Thus, this species automatically becomes the type species of Lophophaena. The name-bearing specimen was noted as “Ex abysso 12000 ped” in the description (Ehrenberg 1854b), meaning “from 12,000 fathoms in deep”. The fact that the sample information written in Ehrenberg (1854a: table) is noted as 8160’ and not 12000’ is bizarre. The mismatch of type locality is another new problem. Putting aside a sample mismatch, the exact sample locality for “ Lophophaena Galea Orci ” are the samples from “ 42 41’N, 24 35’W, 18 July, 1360 Fath-6480’” or “ 54 17’N, 22 33’W 22 Aug. 2000 Fath-12000’” (Ehrenberg 1854a: 60). Based on these disparate localities, a new problem arises.Following these papers as well as the internal documents in NfM, potential type series could be found in “Meersgrund II (K27B02)” or “Meersgrund II (K27B03)” (Suzuki et al. 2009c: 90). All the specimens assigned by Ehrenberg himself are photographed on pl. 30 for K27B02 and pls 31-36 for K27B03 in Suzuki et al. (2009c). The exact sample information is specified on these trays (K27B02 and K27B03). Congruently, any typebearing specimens for “ Lophophaena Galea Orci ” could not be found in the slides. An additional problem stems from the publication. Campbell (1954: D128) falsely indicates “ Lophophaena galea Ehrenberg, 1854a ” as the subsequent type species of Lophophaena. This species has not been formally described and is therefore a nomen nudum. Some papers cite pl. 8, figs 12 of Ehrenberg (1876) as “ Lophophaena galea ” but the name on the plate explanation is “ Lophophaena ? galeata ” which was first described by Ehrenberg (1874: 242-243). In addition, the specimen illustrated in Ehrenberg (1876: pl. 8, fig. 12) is from Barbados and it is not from the true locality of “ L. Galea Orci.” Thus, the correct name-bearing specimen has not been illustrated and has not been preserved in the Ehrenberg collection, resulting in the assigned status as nomen dubium.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Dictyocryphalus</p> <p>The translated diagnosis from the original Spanish for Cephaluspinus follows. “ Shell campanulate sub-divided into cephalis and thorax. Surface perforated by sub-circular pores of different size and irregularly distributed. Cephalis with many spines, some larger than others, some of which are apparently broken in the analyzed specimen. The other part of the shell is smooth, except for the basal part, which has spines, or feet, that are in fact externally prolonged terminations of the pore frames. These feet are numerous, approximately 20, and shorter than the cephalic spines. ” Petrushevskaya (1981: 90) considered Cephaluspinus a subjective synonym of Lophophaena because its morphological characteristics correspond entirely to that of Lophophaena. As Lophophaena (sensu Petrushevskaya 1981) corresponds to Dictyocryphalus under the strict ruling under the Code (see the remarks in the Dictyocryphalidae Suzuki, n. fam.), the synonymy has been simply replaced by Dictyocryphalus. However, this synonymy cannot be precisely determined because the initial spicular system of Cephaluspinus is unknown.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFF6FE51064BFB04FA7C4EBC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFF0FE500669FDC6FAC4493D.text	038DDA73FFF0FE500669FDC6FAC4493D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dimelissidae Petrushevskaya 1981	<div><p>Family DIMELISSIDAE Petrushevskaya, 1981 n. stat.</p> <p>sensu Caulet emend. herein</p> <p>Dimelissinae Petrushevskaya, 1981: 82; 1986: 132. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S292. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 139.</p> <p>Sethopilida Haeckel, 1882: 431 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 1192, 1194, 1195 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Spongolarcida Haeckel, 1887: 606, 613 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 52 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Sethopilinae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 65 [nomen dubium] (= Sethopiliinae); Clark &amp; Campbell 1945: 37. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 41; 1944b: 23. — Chediya 1959: 199. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 274. — Chen et al. 2017: 182.</p> <p>Spongolarcinae – Campbell 1954: D96 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 152.</p> <p>Sethopiliidae – Campbell 1954: D122 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Sethopiliinae – Campbell 1954: D122 [nomen dubium]. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 74-75. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S292. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 139.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Dimelissa Campbell, 1951: 529 [type species by subsequent designation according toICZN 1999, art. 67.8 (Campbell 1951: 529): Lithomelissa thoracites Haeckel, 1861b: 836] = junior subjective synonym of Peromelissa Haeckel, 1882: 433 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D124): Peromelissa phalacra Haeckel, 1887: 1236].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Arachnocorys Haeckel, 1861b: 837 (= Arachnocoronium with the same type species; Acanthocoronium n. syn.). — Archiperidium Haeckel, 1882: 429. — Cryptogyrus Sugiyama, 1993: 65. — Lithomelissa Ehrenberg, 1847: 54 (= Acromelissa synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 592). — Peromelissa Haeckel, 1882: 433 (=? Dicorys synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 84;? Micromelissa Haeckel, 1882 nec Haeckel, 1887, Psilomelissa synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1971a: 133; Dimelissa synonymized by Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 44). — Phormacantha JØrgensen 1905: 132. — Plectacantha JØrgensen, 1905: 131.</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Amphicryphalus.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Acanthocorallium, Acanthocorythium, Acanthocorys, Amphicentria, Amphiplecta, Arachnocorallium, Arachnocorythium, Mitrocalpis, Peridarium, Peridium, Sethomelissa, Sethopilium, Spongolarcus.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYM. — Micromelissa Haeckel, 1887 (= Dimelissa) nec Haeckel, 1882.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Anatomically, Dimelissidae are two-segmented Plagiacanthoidea with a well-developed first segment (cephalis) and a less developed, sometimes absent, second segment (thorax). The cephalis, mono-chambered, is separated from the thorax and bears well-developed A, V, and double L-rod. No cephalic lobes develop. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, V-, D-, and double L-rods. The double l-rod is generally absent. The MB is very short or degraded at a pointed connection (PC). The PC tends to be located on the apical side of the test. The MB, if present, is located near the apical side. The D- and double L-rods are oriented at an even angle at 180 degrees from PC. The most constricted level (neck) of the shell is always located above the MB’s level. The A-rod merges into the cephalic wall, or may be partly or fully free in the cephalic cavity. Double AL- and double LV-arches are generally present. As both A- and V-rods are oriented upward, both double AL-arches and double LV-arches also rise upward. AL-arches and VL-arches merge with the cephalic wall or are freely located inside the cephalic cavity. However, these arches never form sutures on the cephalic wall. If AL-arches merged with the cephalic wall, they tend to form larger pores than other pores found on the shell. The Ax-rod is present. A basal ring rarely develops in some species and is directly connected with the D- and double L-rods to form three collar pores. In this case, the basal ring is located below the MB’s level.</p> <p>Protoplasm was observed in Arachnocorys, Cryptogyrus, Peromelissa and Plectacantha. The endoplasm is transparent to yellowish transparent and located within the cephalis (at variable degrees) and at least in the upper part of the thorax. In some species including Arachnocorys, multi nuclei are observed. Algal symbionts are present inside the cephalis of Arachnocorys, but no algal symbionts are found in Cryptogyrus, Peromelissa and Plectacantha.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — late Middle Eocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Differing from the Pseudodictyophimidae Suzuki, n. fam., the Dimelissidae lack a cephalic structure such as a basal ring. This family can be divided into three groups: In the first instance, the cephalis is well-developed, sometimes with an open upper part and an arachnoid wall (Arachnocorys, Archiperidium, Cryptogyrus, Phormacantha, Plectacantha). The cephalis also bears strong extensions of the main rods arising from MB. The thorax is short, considerably reduced, and mostly constituted by extensions of the D- and double L-rods. In the second, the cephalis is globular and closed, with a wall perforated by small circular pores (Lithomelissa, Peromelissa). No robust feet are present. A strong horn is inserted mostly laterally. The thorax is more developed, with pores and D- and double L-rods both present. Finally, the third instance included Archiperidium, Cryptogyrus and Phormacantha). It is extremely difficult to differentiate the Dimelissidae from the Pseudodictyophimidae Suzuki, n. fam. due to an extensive similarity in overall shape.True feet are not developed in Dimelissidae; however, this character is also observed in some genera of Pseudodictyophimidae Suzuki, n. fam. (Pseudodictyophimus and Tripodocyrtis). The most significant difference between the Dimelissidae and the Pseudodictyophimidae Suzuki, n. fam. is the absence of lobes in the cephalis. The Dimelissidae lack cephalic lobes. However, some lobes are absent or poorly developed in several genera of the Pseudodictyophimidae Suzuki, n. fam. (Steganocubus and Syscioscenium).</p> <p>The cephalic internal spicular system of many genera in this family was illustrated but the genus names used must be revised. This revision is necessary due to the complex internal structures, the wrongly recognized type-species, and the use of a genus name that was defined by un-illustrated type species. After our re-examination of the genus position, the cephalic internal spicular system of the following genera has been well illustrated: “ Amphicryphalus ” (Funakawa 1995a: pl. 1, figs 1-3), “ Amphiplecta ” (Nishimura 1990: fig.14.6-14.8, 19.4?; Funakawa 1994: figs 6, 7.2-7.3; Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 24, fig. 2), Archiperidium (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 23, figs 1-3), Arachnocorys (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 24, figs 10, 11; Nishimura 1990: figs 14.1-14.4, 16.2, 16.3?, 16.4?; Takahashi 1991: pl. 26, fig. 6; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 18, fig. 4), Cryptogyrus (Sugiyama 1993: figs 19.1-19.5, 20.1-20.2), “ Helotholus histricosa ” (Dumitrica 1973a: pl. 12; Lazarus 1990: pl. 7, figs 1-5; Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 24, fig. 9), Lithomelissa (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 32, fig. 5; Nishimura 1990: figs 15.1, 15.2, 15.4-15.8, 16.1, 16.5?; Takahashi 1991: pl. 26, fig. 3?; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 17, fig. 1; Funakawa 1995b: figs 10.3, 10.4; O’Connor 1999: pl. 2, figs 23-27), “ Peridium ” (Funakawa 1994: fig. 11.1, 11.2; Nishimura 1990: fig.13.8-13.11; Takahashi 1991: pl.26, fig. 4; Funakawa 1995a: pl. 2, figs 1-4, pl. 3, figs 1-4), Peromelissa (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 24, fig. 7, pl. 32, fig. 4) and Plectacantha (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 22, figs 11-13). However, the generic combination of the Dimelissidae has not been supported by any form of objective phylogenetic evidence. Furthermore, molecular phylogenetic studies do not provide a sufficient resolution to resolve this issue, and as of yet, many genera remain undescribed. “Living” or protoplasm image were illustrated for Arachnocorys (Zhang et al. 2018: 9, figs 23, 24), Cryptogyrus (Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: figs 11.7, 11.16; Suzuki &amp; Aita 2011: fig. 5M; Zhang et al. 2018: 15, fig. 6, p. 19, fig. 18), Peromelissa (Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: figs 11.4, 12.10; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.11.9; Matsuoka 2017, fig. 21; Zhang et al. 2018: 15, figs 7, 17, 18, p. 21, figs 14-17), and Plectacantha (Suzuki et al. 2009b: figs 2K, 2L). Lithomelissa may be infected with Marine Alveolata Group I (Ikenoue et al. 2016).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Arachnocorys</p> <p>Arachnocorys is characterized by a shell enveloped by a weblike network (Campbell 1954: D126), whereas the Acanthocoronium shell is enveloped by a simple network (Campbell 1954: D125). A web-like network around the cephalis is not always present in Arachnocorys specimens, which indicates intraspecific variation in ontogenetic growth. Arachnocorys is the oldest available name among all synonyms.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFF0FE500669FDC6FAC4493D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFF1FE5306BDF946FA8D487E.text	038DDA73FFF1FE5306BDF946FA8D487E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Phaenocalpididae Haeckel 1887	<div><p>Family PHAENOCALPIDIDAE Haeckel, 1887 sensu Caulet emend. hereinPhaenocalpida Haeckel, 1887: 1133, 1157-1158 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1984 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 179 [as a family].?Archiperida Haeckel, 1882: 429 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1133, 1134, 1146 [as a subfamily]. — Wisniowski 1889: 686 [as a subfamily].Phaenocalpididae – Poche 1913: 220. Phaenocalpidae [sic] – Popofsky 1913: 331 (= Phaenocalpididae). — Schröder 1914: 91. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 64; 1945: 34. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 39; 1944b: 21. — Dogiel &amp; Reshetnyak 1955: 47. — Chediya 1959: 192. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 291. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 113, 120. — Chen et al. 2017: 178.?Archiperinae – Campbell 1954: D118. — Chediya 1959: 190.Clathromitrinae Petrushevskaya, 1971a: 69-71; 1981: 63. — Funakawa 1995b: 211. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S291-292. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 138.Clathromitridae – Petrushevskaya 1981: 62-63. TYPE GENUS. — Phaenocalpis Haeckel, 1887: 1173 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D120): Phaenocalpis petalospyris Haeckel, 1887: 1173]. INCLUDED GENERA. —? Archipera Haeckel, 1887: 1155. — Archiscenium Haeckel, 1882: 429 (= Eusceniumn. syn.; Euscenariumn. syn., Plectoscenium; n. syn.). — Clathromitra Haeckel, 1882: 431. — Conicavus Takahashi, 1991: 117. — Genetrix Sugiyama, 1994: 5. — Periplecta Haeckel, 1882: 424. — Phaenocalpis Haeckel, 1887: 1173. — Pteroscenium Haeckel, 1882: 429 (= Verticillata synonymized by Nishimura 1990: 114). — Spongomelissa Haeckel, 1887: 1209. — Tripophaenoscenium Campbell &amp; Clark, 1944a: 38. NOMINA DUBIA. — Cladoscenium, Dictyocircus, Euscenidium, Phaenoscenium. DIAGNOSIS. — The Phaenocalpididae consist of a pyramidal one-segmented shell with a single, long apical horn and three long, robust feet. The cephalis is latticed with several arches emerging from the cephalic initial spicular system or is exclusively made of these arches. Each double AL-arch forms a regular suture or a deep-depression suture on the cephalis. Another vertical suture is visible from the apical horn side view that corresponds to the AD-arch. In some members, (e.g., Tripophaenoscenium), double Al- and AD-arches extend outside the cephalic wall. The A-rod directly arises from the MB to form a straight, free, apical spine on the cephalis. The V-rod forms a significant ventral spine outside the cephalis or may extend horizontally or downwardly. In the latter cases, the extended V-rod forms a short foot or another external spine. Certain members develop more arches. The basal ring directly connects to the D- and double L-rods. These three rods are oriented downward placing the basal ring below the MB. A skirt-like thorax with or without several feet develop in some members, but these feet are generally disconnected from the basal ring. The endoplasm is transparent and located in a space surrounded by the double AL-arch and the basal ring. No algal symbionts have yet been observed in the examined specimens. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-Living.REMARKS This family name substitutes the commonly used family name “Clathromitridae”. The genus composition of the Phaenocalpididae differs drastically between references. The family characters mainly refer to Clathromitra and not Phaenocalpis due to limited availability of information for the latter genus. Petrushevskaya (1971a: 69-70) established a new subfamily “Clathromitrinae” with members of Archiscenium, Clathromitra, Pteroscenium (= Verticillata in original) and Tripophaenoscenium. Later, Petrushevskaya (1981: 63-72) further added several valid Mesozoic genera (not shown here) and genera such as Corythomelissa, Euscenium, Tripodiscium (originally Tripodisculus and Tripodiscinus), Phaenocalpis and Spongomelissa. De Wever et al. (2001: 236-238) included “ Clathromitra joergenseni ” among the figures included for the family Sethoperidae (De Wever et al. 2001: figs 151.1, 151.6); however, the genus name was not included in list of genera included in Sethoperidae. In addition, all the genera assigned by Petrushevskaya (1971a, 1981), except Pteroscenium, were excluded from the list of genera by De Wever et al. (2001). This could mean that Clathromitra was not a member of the Sethoperidae sensu De Wever et al. (2001) and, thus, the “Clathromitridae” sensu Petrushevskaya (1981) was eliminated from the list of De Wever et al. (2001). Petrushevskaya (1971a, 1981) documented the characteristics of the Phaenocalpididae in detail but did not indicate arches on the figures, thereby not confirming them. The cephalic initial spicular system was shown for Clathromitra (Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: fig. 11.14), the Euscenarium -form of Archiscenium (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 24, fig. 6; Nishimura 1990: figs 23.3-23.5; Takahashi 1991: pl. 24, figs 1-4; Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 18, fig. 1; Sugiyama et al. 1992; pl. 15, figs 6, 7; Funakawa 1994: fig. 15.1, 15.2; Sugiyama 1994: pl. 2, figs 4, 5, 7, 8), Genetrix (Sugiyama 1994: pl. 3, figs 1-3), Tripophaenoscenium (Funakawa 1994: fig. 15.3), Periplecta (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 24, fig. 3), and the Verticillata -form of Pteroscenium (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 29, figs 1-8; Nishimura 1990: figs 24.3-24.5). Referring to these photos, some explanations of Petrushevskaya (1981) need to be changed in order to convey an accurate interpretation. The protoplasm was seen in Archiscenium (Zhang et al. 2018: 19, fig. 7.17), Clathromitra (Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: fig. 11.14) and in the Verticillata -form of Pteroscenium (Zhang et al. 2018: 18, figs 7.5?, 7.17). Considering these cephalic structures, Conicavus may belong to the Ceratocyrtidae. However, no detailed information regarding this issue has been provided. Except for critical cases, the Phaenocalpididae can be distinguished from the Sethoperidae by the presence of sutures on the cephalis, a ventral rod extending from the cephalis, the absence of a wired screen on cephalis and thorax, and by not having three wing extensions. Euscenarium, Periplecta and Pteroscenium are sometimes misidentified as a member of the Sethoperidae. They can be differentiated from the member of the Sethoperidae by the presence of a double AL-arch and the absence of straight a -spinules on the A-rod as well as the presence of secondary arches along A- and double L-rods. VALIDITY OF GENERAArchiscenium The initial spicular system is the same among Archiscenium, Euscenium, and Euscenarium. Their differences include the form of the arches connecting the initial spicules, which can resemble A-, double L-, or D-rods, with sizes varying among genera. The exact synonymy requires further study. Archiscenium is the oldest available name among these genera. Family PLAGIACANTHIDAE Hertwig, 1879 sensu Dumitrica (2004) Plagiacanthiden [sic] Hertwig, 1879: 200-202 (= Plagiacanthidae) [as a family]. Triplagida Haeckel, 1882: 423 [as a tribe];1887: 908 [as a subfamily].Plagonida Haeckel, 1882: 423 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]; 1887: 906-908 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1975 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].Tetraplagida Haeckel, 1882: 423 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]:1887: 908, 911 [as a subfamily].Plectanida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [as a subfamily];1887: 906, 919-921 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].Polyplagida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 908, 917 [as a subfamily].Polyplectida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [as a tribe]; 1887: 921, 929 [as a subfamily].Tetraplectida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [nomen dubium, as a tribe];1887: 921, 923 [as a subfamily].Triplectida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 921 [as a subfamily].Cystidina [sic] – Haeckel 1884: 30 (= Cystidiidae) [as a family].Nassellida Haeckel, 1887: 896 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].Hexaplagida Haeckel, 1887: 908, 915 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].Hexaplectida Haeckel, 1887: 921, 927 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]. Nasselida [sic] – Bütschli 1889: 1975 (= Nassellidae) [as a family]. Plectanidae – Popofsky 1908: 262; 1913: 277. — Schröder 1914: 72. — Wailes 1937: 12. — Chediya 1959: 166. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 269. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 268. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 81. Plagoniidae – Poche 1913: 219 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D103. — Riedel 1967b: 295 (sensu emend.); 1971: 655- 656. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1973: 529. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 173. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 129. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 869-870. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 97. — Anderson 1983: 40. — Boltovskoy 1998: 33. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1005. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 140. Plagonidae [sic] – Popofsky 1908: 262 [nomen dubium] (= Plagoniidae). — Schröder 1914: 72. — Chediya 1959: 164. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 291 (sensu emend.). Nassellidae – Poche 1913: 219 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 163. Plagoniinae – Campbell 1954: D103 [nomen dubium]. Cystidiidae – Campbell 1954: D103. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 98. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 140.Triplagiinae – Campbell 1954: D104.Plectaniidae – Campbell 1954: D104. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 152. — Chen et al. 2017: 164.Plectaniinae – Campbell 1954: D104. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 72. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S292. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 139.Tetraplagiinae – Campbell 1954: D104 [nomen dubium].Tetraplectinae – Campbell 1954: D104 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 166. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 304-305. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 140.Triplectinae – Campbell 1954: D104 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 166. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 269.Enneaplegmatinae Campbell, 1954: D105.Triplaginae – Chediya 1959: 164.Hexaplaginae – Chediya 1959: 165 [nomen dubium].Polyplaginae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 165 [nomen dubium] (= Polyplagiidae).Polyplectinae – Chediya 1959: 167.Hexaplectinae – Chediya 1959: 167 [nomen dubium].Plagiacanthidae – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 69 (sensu emend.);1971b: 988-989 (sensu emend.); 1981: 73-74; 1986: 132. — Dumitrica 1979: 28, 30; 2004: 198-199 (sensu emend.). — Goll 1979: 383 (sensu emend.). — Takahashi 1991: 92. — Hollis 1997: 55. — Sugiyama 1998: 233. — Kozlova 1999: 104. — De Wever et al. 2001: 219. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S268 (sensu emend.). — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 100. Plagiacanthinae – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 147-149; 1971b: 990; 1981: 91-92. — Takahashi 1991: 92. — De Wever et al. 2001: 219, 221. — Dumitrica 2004: 216. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S269. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 102. Plagiacanthida [sic] – Nishimura 1990: 81 (= Plagiacanthidae) (sensu emend.). TYPE GENUS. — Plagiacantha Claparède in Müller, 1856: 500 [type species by monotypy: Acanthometra arachnoides Claparède, 1855: 675]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Arachnocalpis Haeckel, 1882: 427. — Cystidium Hertwig, 1879: 214 (= Paracystidiumn. syn.). — Dumetum Popofsky, 1908: 264 (= Pentaplagia synonymized by Dumitrica 2004: 216). — Enneaplegma Haeckel, 1882: 424 (= Polyplecta with the same type species). — Jeanpierria Dumitrica, 2004: 217. — Neosemantis Popofsky, 1913: 298 (= Deflandrella synonymized by Dumitrica 1978: 240). — Plagiacantha Claparède in Müller, 1856: 500 (= Plagoniscusn. syn.; Triplagia synonymized by Dumitrica 2004: 199; Triplagiacantha synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 96). — Plectagonidium Cachon &amp; Cachon, 1969: 236. — Plectanium Haeckel, 1882: 424 (= Plectaniscusn. syn.). — Pseudocubus Haeckel, 1887: 1010 (=? Drepotadium n. syn.; Rhizoplecta synonymized by Dumitrica 1973a: 836; Talariscus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1971a: 149). INVALID NAME. — Hexaplecta. NOMINA DUBIA. — Hexaplagia, Hexaplegma, Nassella, Plagonidium, Plagonium, Plectophorina, Polyplagia, Tetraplagia, Tetraplecta, Triplecta. JUNIOR HOMONYMS. — Campylacantha JØrgensen, 1905 (= Neosemantis) nec Scudder, 1897; Obeliscus Popofsky, 1913 (= Talariscus) nec Beck, 1837; Plectophora Haeckel, 1882: 424 (= Plectophorina) nec Gray 1834: captions for pl. 42, fig. 2. DIAGNOSIS. — The skeleton is exclusively made of bladed, initial spicules. No arch develops between A- and V-rods (e.g., AV-arch) Sagittal ring is absent, unlike other genera of Acanthodesmioidea. Protoplasm was observed in Cystidium, Neosemantis, Plagiacantha and Pseudocubus. The yellowish to brown endoplasm is located within the spicules’ area. In fully grown specimens, the endoplasm extends beyond this area. Except for Cystidium, no algal symbionts are observed in any known genera. Fine pseudopodia radiate around the endoplasm in Cystidium and Neosemantis. The terminal cone is visible from the base of the Pseudocubus’ cephalic part. No axial projection is observed. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — late Middle Eocene-Living.REMARKS This taxon is rarely illustrated in references. However, the spicular system of the following genera is examinable in references:? Dumetum (Sugiyama 1992a: pl. 1, fig. 5), Neosemantis (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 22, figs 7, 10; Nishimura 1990: fig. 13.1, 13.2, 12.4, 12.6; Takahashi 1991: pl. 27, fig. 12; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 20, fig. 2), Plagiacantha (Nishimura 1990: fig. 13.3?), and Pseudocubus (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 18, figs 1-3; Sugiyama 1993: figs 7.1-7.3, 8.1; Funakawa 1995a: pl. 4, figs 1-3, pl. 5, figs 1-3). The shell is too small and too transparent to observe in seawater, as such Plagiacanthidae can only be identified at higher magnifications (40x or 60x objective lens) with a phase-contrast microscope or a Nomarski differential interference contrast microscope. Under such constraints, “living images” were illustrated for Cystidium (Anderson 1977: pl. 1, figs 1, 2; Probert et al. 2014: S1, SES 28), Neosemantis (Matsuoka 2017: fig. 17), Plagiacantha (Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: fig. 11.18; Suzuki et al. 2009b: figs 3A, 3B; Zhang et al. 2018: 13, fig. 25), and Pseudocubus (Sashida &amp; Uematsu 1994: figs 3.8, 3.9; Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: fig. 12.12; Matsuoka 2007: fig. 4d; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.11.11; Zhang et al. 2018: 15, fig. 19). Algal symbionts of Cystidium were identified as Brandtodinium nutricula by Probert et al. (2014). Ultrafine cellular structure was documented for Cystidium (Anderson 1977). VALIDITY OF GENERACystidium The original French description for Paracystidium is translated as follows: “ Paracystidium has all the characteristics of Cystidium, except for the occurrence of a very small spicule, free in the protoplasm surrounding the central capsule and located at its aboral pole. ” Cystidium is a type of naked Nassellaria; the differences specified in its description are minor and could indicate either different ontogenetic stages or different species. The name Cystidium is older than Paracystidium. Plagiacantha According to the type-illustrations, Plagiacantha (Claparède &amp; Lachmann 1858: pl. 22, fig.9), Triplagia (Haeckel 1887: pl. 91, fig.2), and Triplagiacantha (Hertwig 1879: pl. 7, fig. 6) appear to have only three robust rods, but as the supporting image for Plagiacantha (Dumitrica 1973b: pl. 22, figs 2, 4) shows, the main rods are identified as A-, D-, and double L-rods; thus, these genera have four rods in principle. It is likely that a short D-rod was overlooked in these type-illustrations. Triplagia and Triplagiacantha have been synonymized with Plagiacantha in previous studies. The architecture of Plagoniscus is identical to that of Plagiacantha, except for a long D-rod that has variable length among species. Plagiacantha is the oldest available name among these genera. PlectaniumPlectanium has six radial spines that arise in two opposite groups from poles of the common central rod (Campbell 1954: D104). Plectaniscus has four radial spines that arise from the common central point, and its apical spine differs from three basal spines (Campbell 1954: D104-105). Specimens identifiable as Plectanium (the supporting image for Plectanium in the Atlas) possess four bladed rods, not six. It is unnecessary to differentiate these groups at the genus level. If the type-illustration (Haeckel 1887: pl. 91, fig. 11) is accurate, then the two opposite groups arising from poles of the common central rod illustrated in Haeckel (1887) appear similar to the initial spicular system of the conjoined individuals shown in Dumitrica (2013b: fig. 2.2). The name Plectanium is older than Plectaniscus.</p> <p>sensu Caulet emend. herein</p> <p>Phaenocalpida Haeckel, 1887: 1133, 1157-1158 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1984 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 179 [as a family].</p> <p>?Archiperida Haeckel, 1882: 429 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1133, 1134, 1146 [as a subfamily]. — Wisniowski 1889: 686 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Phaenocalpididae – Poche 1913: 220.</p> <p>Phaenocalpidae [sic] – Popofsky 1913: 331 (= Phaenocalpididae). — Schröder 1914: 91. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 64; 1945: 34. —</p> <p>Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 39; 1944b: 21. — Dogiel &amp; Reshetnyak 1955: 47. — Chediya 1959: 192. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 291. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 113, 120. — Chen et al. 2017: 178.</p> <p>?Archiperinae – Campbell 1954: D118. — Chediya 1959: 190.</p> <p>Clathromitrinae Petrushevskaya, 1971a: 69-71; 1981: 63. — Funakawa 1995b: 211. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S291-292. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 138.</p> <p>Clathromitridae – Petrushevskaya 1981: 62-63.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Phaenocalpis Haeckel, 1887: 1173 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D120): Phaenocalpis petalospyris Haeckel, 1887: 1173].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. —? Archipera Haeckel, 1887: 1155. — Archiscenium Haeckel, 1882: 429 (= Euscenium n. syn.; Euscenarium n. syn., Plectoscenium; n. syn.). — Clathromitra Haeckel, 1882: 431. — Conicavus Takahashi, 1991: 117. — Genetrix Sugiyama, 1994: 5. — Periplecta Haeckel, 1882: 424. — Phaenocalpis Haeckel, 1887: 1173. — Pteroscenium Haeckel, 1882: 429 (= Verticillata synonymized by Nishimura 1990: 114). — Spongomelissa Haeckel, 1887: 1209. — Tripophaenoscenium Campbell &amp; Clark, 1944a: 38.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Cladoscenium, Dictyocircus, Euscenidium, Phaenoscenium.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — The Phaenocalpididae consist of a pyramidal one-segmented shell with a single, long apical horn and three long, robust feet. The cephalis is latticed with several arches emerging from the cephalic initial spicular system or is exclusively made of these arches. Each double AL-arch forms a regular suture or a deep-depression suture on the cephalis. Another vertical suture is visible from the apical horn side view that corresponds to the AD-arch. In some members, (e.g., Tripophaenoscenium), double Al- and AD-arches extend outside the cephalic wall. The A-rod directly arises from the MB to form a straight, free, apical spine on the cephalis. The V-rod forms a significant ventral spine outside the cephalis or may extend horizontally or downwardly. In the latter cases, the extended V-rod forms a short foot or another external spine. Certain members develop more arches. The basal ring directly connects to the D- and double L-rods. These three rods are oriented downward placing the basal ring below the MB. A skirt-like thorax with or without several feet develop in some members, but these feet are generally disconnected from the basal ring. The endoplasm is transparent and located in a space surrounded by the double AL-arch and the basal ring. No algal symbionts have yet been observed in the examined specimens.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This family name substitutes the commonly used family name “Clathromitridae”. The genus composition of the Phaenocalpididae differs drastically between references. The family characters mainly refer to Clathromitra and not Phaenocalpis due to limited availability of information for the latter genus. Petrushevskaya (1971a: 69-70) established a new subfamily “Clathromitrinae” with members of Archiscenium, Clathromitra, Pteroscenium (= Verticillata in original) and Tripophaenoscenium. Later, Petrushevskaya (1981: 63-72) further added several valid Mesozoic genera (not shown here) and genera such as Corythomelissa, Euscenium, Tripodiscium (originally Tripodisculus and Tripodiscinus), Phaenocalpis and Spongomelissa. De Wever et al. (2001: 236-238) included “ Clathromitra joergenseni ” among the figures included for the family Sethoperidae (De Wever et al. 2001: figs 151.1, 151.6); however, the genus name was not included in list of genera included in Sethoperidae. In addition, all the genera assigned by Petrushevskaya (1971a, 1981), except Pteroscenium, were excluded from the list of genera by De Wever et al. (2001). This could mean that Clathromitra was not a member of the Sethoperidae sensu De Wever et al. (2001) and, thus, the “Clathromitridae” sensu Petrushevskaya (1981) was eliminated from the list of De Wever et al. (2001). Petrushevskaya (1971a, 1981) documented the characteristics of the Phaenocalpididae in detail but did not indicate arches on the figures, thereby not confirming them. The cephalic initial spicular system was shown for Clathromitra (Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: fig. 11.14), the Euscenarium -form of Archiscenium (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 24, fig. 6; Nishimura 1990: figs 23.3-23.5; Takahashi 1991: pl. 24, figs 1-4; Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 18, fig. 1; Sugiyama et al. 1992; pl. 15, figs 6, 7; Funakawa 1994: fig. 15.1, 15.2; Sugiyama 1994: pl. 2, figs 4, 5, 7, 8), Genetrix (Sugiyama 1994: pl. 3, figs 1-3), Tripophaenoscenium (Funakawa 1994: fig. 15.3), Periplecta (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 24, fig. 3), and the Verticillata -form of Pteroscenium (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 29, figs 1-8; Nishimura 1990: figs 24.3-24.5). Referring to these photos, some explanations of Petrushevskaya (1981) need to be changed in order to convey an accurate interpretation. The protoplasm was seen in Archiscenium (Zhang et al. 2018: 19, fig. 7.17), Clathromitra (Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: fig. 11.14) and in the Verticillata -form of Pteroscenium (Zhang et al. 2018: 18, figs 7.5?, 7.17). Considering these cephalic structures, Conicavus may belong to the Ceratocyrtidae. However, no detailed information regarding this issue has been provided.</p> <p>Except for critical cases, the Phaenocalpididae can be distinguished from the Sethoperidae by the presence of sutures on the cephalis, a ventral rod extending from the cephalis, the absence of a wired screen on cephalis and thorax, and by not having three wing extensions. Euscenarium, Periplecta and Pteroscenium are sometimes misidentified as a member of the Sethoperidae. They can be differentiated from the member of the Sethoperidae by the presence of a double AL-arch and the absence of straight a -spinules on the A-rod as well as the presence of secondary arches along A- and double L-rods.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Archiscenium</p> <p>The initial spicular system is the same among Archiscenium, Euscenium, and Euscenarium. Their differences include the form of the arches connecting the initial spicules, which can resemble A-, double L-, or D-rods, with sizes varying among genera. The exact synonymy requires further study. Archiscenium is the oldest available name among these genera.</p> <p>Family PLAGIACANTHIDAE Hertwig, 1879 sensu Dumitrica (2004) Plagiacanthiden [sic] Hertwig, 1879: 200-202 (= Plagiacanthidae) [as a family]. Triplagida Haeckel, 1882: 423 [as a tribe];1887: 908 [as a subfamily].Plagonida Haeckel, 1882: 423 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]; 1887: 906-908 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1975 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].Tetraplagida Haeckel, 1882: 423 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]:1887: 908, 911 [as a subfamily].Plectanida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [as a subfamily];1887: 906, 919-921 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].Polyplagida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 908, 917 [as a subfamily].Polyplectida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [as a tribe]; 1887: 921, 929 [as a subfamily].Tetraplectida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [nomen dubium, as a tribe];1887: 921, 923 [as a subfamily].Triplectida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 921 [as a subfamily].Cystidina [sic] – Haeckel 1884: 30 (= Cystidiidae) [as a family].Nassellida Haeckel, 1887: 896 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].Hexaplagida Haeckel, 1887: 908, 915 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].Hexaplectida Haeckel, 1887: 921, 927 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]. Nasselida [sic] – Bütschli 1889: 1975 (= Nassellidae) [as a family]. Plectanidae – Popofsky 1908: 262; 1913: 277. — Schröder 1914: 72. — Wailes 1937: 12. — Chediya 1959: 166. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 269. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 268. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 81. Plagoniidae – Poche 1913: 219 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D103. — Riedel 1967b: 295 (sensu emend.); 1971: 655- 656. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1973: 529. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 173. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 129. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 869-870. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 97. — Anderson 1983: 40. — Boltovskoy 1998: 33. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1005. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 140. Plagonidae [sic] – Popofsky 1908: 262 [nomen dubium] (= Plagoniidae). — Schröder 1914: 72. — Chediya 1959: 164. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 291 (sensu emend.). Nassellidae – Poche 1913: 219 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 163. Plagoniinae – Campbell 1954: D103 [nomen dubium]. Cystidiidae – Campbell 1954: D103. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 98. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 140.Triplagiinae – Campbell 1954: D104.Plectaniidae – Campbell 1954: D104. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 152. — Chen et al. 2017: 164.Plectaniinae – Campbell 1954: D104. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 72. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S292. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 139.Tetraplagiinae – Campbell 1954: D104 [nomen dubium].Tetraplectinae – Campbell 1954: D104 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 166. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 304-305. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 140.Triplectinae – Campbell 1954: D104 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 166. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 269.Enneaplegmatinae Campbell, 1954: D105.Triplaginae – Chediya 1959: 164.Hexaplaginae – Chediya 1959: 165 [nomen dubium].Polyplaginae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 165 [nomen dubium] (= Polyplagiidae).Polyplectinae – Chediya 1959: 167.Hexaplectinae – Chediya 1959: 167 [nomen dubium].Plagiacanthidae – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 69 (sensu emend.);1971b: 988-989 (sensu emend.); 1981: 73-74; 1986: 132. — Dumitrica 1979: 28, 30; 2004: 198-199 (sensu emend.). — Goll 1979: 383 (sensu emend.). — Takahashi 1991: 92. — Hollis 1997: 55. — Sugiyama 1998: 233. — Kozlova 1999: 104. — De Wever et al. 2001: 219. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S268 (sensu emend.). — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 100. Plagiacanthinae – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 147-149; 1971b: 990; 1981: 91-92. — Takahashi 1991: 92. — De Wever et al. 2001: 219, 221. — Dumitrica 2004: 216. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S269. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 102. Plagiacanthida [sic] – Nishimura 1990: 81 (= Plagiacanthidae) (sensu emend.). TYPE GENUS. — Plagiacantha Claparède in Müller, 1856: 500 [type species by monotypy: Acanthometra arachnoides Claparède, 1855: 675]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Arachnocalpis Haeckel, 1882: 427. — Cystidium Hertwig, 1879: 214 (= Paracystidiumn. syn.). — Dumetum Popofsky, 1908: 264 (= Pentaplagia synonymized by Dumitrica 2004: 216). — Enneaplegma Haeckel, 1882: 424 (= Polyplecta with the same type species). — Jeanpierria Dumitrica, 2004: 217. — Neosemantis Popofsky, 1913: 298 (= Deflandrella synonymized by Dumitrica 1978: 240). — Plagiacantha Claparède in Müller, 1856: 500 (= Plagoniscusn. syn.; Triplagia synonymized by Dumitrica 2004: 199; Triplagiacantha synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 96). — Plectagonidium Cachon &amp; Cachon, 1969: 236. — Plectanium Haeckel, 1882: 424 (= Plectaniscusn. syn.). — Pseudocubus Haeckel, 1887: 1010 (=? Drepotadium n. syn.; Rhizoplecta synonymized by Dumitrica 1973a: 836; Talariscus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1971a: 149). INVALID NAME. — Hexaplecta. NOMINA DUBIA. — Hexaplagia, Hexaplegma, Nassella, Plagonidium, Plagonium, Plectophorina, Polyplagia, Tetraplagia, Tetraplecta, Triplecta. JUNIOR HOMONYMS. — Campylacantha JØrgensen, 1905 (= Neosemantis) nec Scudder, 1897; Obeliscus Popofsky, 1913 (= Talariscus) nec Beck, 1837; Plectophora Haeckel, 1882: 424 (= Plectophorina) nec Gray 1834: captions for pl. 42, fig. 2. DIAGNOSIS. — The skeleton is exclusively made of bladed, initial spicules. No arch develops between A- and V-rods (e.g., AV-arch) Sagittal ring is absent, unlike other genera of Acanthodesmioidea. Protoplasm was observed in Cystidium, Neosemantis, Plagiacantha and Pseudocubus. The yellowish to brown endoplasm is located within the spicules’ area. In fully grown specimens, the endoplasm extends beyond this area. Except for Cystidium, no algal symbionts are observed in any known genera. Fine pseudopodia radiate around the endoplasm in Cystidium and Neosemantis. The terminal cone is visible from the base of the Pseudocubus’ cephalic part. No axial projection is observed. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — late Middle Eocene-Living.REMARKS This taxon is rarely illustrated in references. However, the spicular system of the following genera is examinable in references:? Dumetum (Sugiyama 1992a: pl. 1, fig. 5), Neosemantis (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 22, figs 7, 10; Nishimura 1990: fig. 13.1, 13.2, 12.4, 12.6; Takahashi 1991: pl. 27, fig. 12; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 20, fig. 2), Plagiacantha (Nishimura 1990: fig. 13.3?), and Pseudocubus (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 18, figs 1-3; Sugiyama 1993: figs 7.1-7.3, 8.1; Funakawa 1995a: pl. 4, figs 1-3, pl. 5, figs 1-3). The shell is too small and too transparent to observe in seawater, as such Plagiacanthidae can only be identified at higher magnifications (40x or 60x objective lens) with a phase-contrast microscope or a Nomarski differential interference contrast microscope. Under such constraints, “living images” were illustrated for Cystidium (Anderson 1977: pl. 1, figs 1, 2; Probert et al. 2014: S1, SES 28), Neosemantis (Matsuoka 2017: fig. 17), Plagiacantha (Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: fig. 11.18; Suzuki et al. 2009b: figs 3A, 3B; Zhang et al. 2018: 13, fig. 25), and Pseudocubus (Sashida &amp; Uematsu 1994: figs 3.8, 3.9; Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: fig. 12.12; Matsuoka 2007: fig. 4d; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.11.11; Zhang et al. 2018: 15, fig. 19). Algal symbionts of Cystidium were identified as Brandtodinium nutricula by Probert et al. (2014). Ultrafine cellular structure was documented for Cystidium (Anderson 1977). VALIDITY OF GENERACystidium The original French description for Paracystidium is translated as follows: “ Paracystidium has all the characteristics of Cystidium, except for the occurrence of a very small spicule, free in the protoplasm surrounding the central capsule and located at its aboral pole. ” Cystidium is a type of naked Nassellaria; the differences specified in its description are minor and could indicate either different ontogenetic stages or different species. The name Cystidium is older than Paracystidium. Plagiacantha According to the type-illustrations, Plagiacantha (Claparède &amp; Lachmann 1858: pl. 22, fig.9), Triplagia (Haeckel 1887: pl. 91, fig.2), and Triplagiacantha (Hertwig 1879: pl. 7, fig. 6) appear to have only three robust rods, but as the supporting image for Plagiacantha (Dumitrica 1973b: pl. 22, figs 2, 4) shows, the main rods are identified as A-, D-, and double L-rods; thus, these genera have four rods in principle. It is likely that a short D-rod was overlooked in these type-illustrations. Triplagia and Triplagiacantha have been synonymized with Plagiacantha in previous studies. The architecture of Plagoniscus is identical to that of Plagiacantha, except for a long D-rod that has variable length among species. Plagiacantha is the oldest available name among these genera. PlectaniumPlectanium has six radial spines that arise in two opposite groups from poles of the common central rod (Campbell 1954: D104). Plectaniscus has four radial spines that arise from the common central point, and its apical spine differs from three basal spines (Campbell 1954: D104-105). Specimens identifiable as Plectanium (the supporting image for Plectanium in the Atlas) possess four bladed rods, not six. It is unnecessary to differentiate these groups at the genus level. If the type-illustration (Haeckel 1887: pl. 91, fig. 11) is accurate, then the two opposite groups arising from poles of the common central rod illustrated in Haeckel (1887) appear similar to the initial spicular system of the conjoined individuals shown in Dumitrica (2013b: fig. 2.2). The name Plectanium is older than Plectaniscus.</p> <p>sensu Dumitrica (2004)</p> <p>Plagiacanthiden [sic] Hertwig, 1879: 200-202 (= Plagiacanthidae) [as a family].</p> <p>Triplagida Haeckel, 1882: 423 [as a tribe];1887: 908 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Plagonida Haeckel, 1882: 423 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]; 1887: 906-908 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1975 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].</p> <p>Tetraplagida Haeckel, 1882: 423 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]:1887: 908, 911 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Plectanida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [as a subfamily];1887: 906, 919-921 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].</p> <p>Polyplagida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 908, 917 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Polyplectida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [as a tribe]; 1887: 921, 929 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Tetraplectida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [nomen dubium, as a tribe];1887: 921, 923 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Triplectida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 921 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Cystidina [sic] – Haeckel 1884: 30 (= Cystidiidae) [as a family].</p> <p>Nassellida Haeckel, 1887: 896 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].</p> <p>Hexaplagida Haeckel, 1887: 908, 915 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Hexaplectida Haeckel, 1887: 921, 927 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Nasselida [sic] – Bütschli 1889: 1975 (= Nassellidae) [as a family].</p> <p>Plectanidae – Popofsky 1908: 262; 1913: 277. — Schröder 1914: 72. — Wailes 1937: 12. — Chediya 1959: 166. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 269. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 268. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 81.</p> <p>Plagoniidae – Poche 1913: 219 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D103. — Riedel 1967b: 295 (sensu emend.); 1971: 655- 656. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1973: 529. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 173. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 129. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 869-870. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 97. — Anderson 1983: 40. — Boltovskoy 1998: 33. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1005. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 140.</p> <p>Plagonidae [sic] – Popofsky 1908: 262 [nomen dubium] (= Plagoniidae). — Schröder 1914: 72. — Chediya 1959: 164. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 291 (sensu emend.).</p> <p>Nassellidae – Poche 1913: 219 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 163.</p> <p>Plagoniinae – Campbell 1954: D103 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Cystidiidae – Campbell 1954: D103. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 98. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 140.</p> <p>Triplagiinae – Campbell 1954: D104.</p> <p>Plectaniidae – Campbell 1954: D104. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 152. — Chen et al. 2017: 164.</p> <p>Plectaniinae – Campbell 1954: D104. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 72. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S292. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 139.</p> <p>Tetraplagiinae – Campbell 1954: D104 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Tetraplectinae – Campbell 1954: D104 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 166. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 304-305. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 140.</p> <p>Triplectinae – Campbell 1954: D104 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 166. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 269.</p> <p>Enneaplegmatinae Campbell, 1954: D105.</p> <p>Triplaginae – Chediya 1959: 164.</p> <p>Hexaplaginae – Chediya 1959: 165 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Polyplaginae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 165 [nomen dubium] (= Polyplagiidae).</p> <p>Polyplectinae – Chediya 1959: 167.</p> <p>Hexaplectinae – Chediya 1959: 167 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Plagiacanthidae – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 69 (sensu emend.);1971b: 988-989 (sensu emend.); 1981: 73-74; 1986: 132. — Dumitrica 1979: 28, 30; 2004: 198-199 (sensu emend.). — Goll 1979: 383 (sensu emend.). — Takahashi 1991: 92. — Hollis 1997: 55. — Sugiyama 1998: 233. — Kozlova 1999: 104. — De Wever et al. 2001: 219. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S268 (sensu emend.). — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 100.</p> <p>Plagiacanthinae – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 147-149; 1971b: 990; 1981: 91-92. — Takahashi 1991: 92. — De Wever et al. 2001: 219, 221. — Dumitrica 2004: 216. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S269. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 102.</p> <p>Plagiacanthida [sic] – Nishimura 1990: 81 (= Plagiacanthidae) (sensu emend.).</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Plagiacantha Claparède in Müller, 1856: 500 [type species by monotypy: Acanthometra arachnoides Claparède, 1855: 675].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Arachnocalpis Haeckel, 1882: 427. — Cystidium Hertwig, 1879: 214 (= Paracystidium n. syn.). — Dumetum Popofsky, 1908: 264 (= Pentaplagia synonymized by Dumitrica 2004: 216). — Enneaplegma Haeckel, 1882: 424 (= Polyplecta with the same type species). — Jeanpierria Dumitrica, 2004: 217. — Neosemantis Popofsky, 1913: 298 (= Deflandrella synonymized by Dumitrica 1978: 240). — Plagiacantha Claparède in Müller, 1856: 500 (= Plagoniscus n. syn.; Triplagia synonymized by Dumitrica 2004: 199; Triplagiacantha synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 96). — Plectagonidium Cachon &amp; Cachon, 1969: 236. — Plectanium Haeckel, 1882: 424 (= Plectaniscus n. syn.). — Pseudocubus Haeckel, 1887: 1010 (=? Drepotadium n. syn.; Rhizoplecta synonymized by Dumitrica 1973a: 836; Talariscus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1971a: 149).</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Hexaplecta.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Hexaplagia, Hexaplegma, Nassella, Plagonidium, Plagonium, Plectophorina, Polyplagia, Tetraplagia, Tetraplecta, Triplecta.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYMS. — Campylacantha JØrgensen, 1905 (= Neosemantis) nec Scudder, 1897; Obeliscus Popofsky, 1913 (= Talariscus) nec Beck, 1837; Plectophora Haeckel, 1882: 424 (= Plectophorina) nec Gray 1834: captions for pl. 42, fig. 2.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — The skeleton is exclusively made of bladed, initial spicules. No arch develops between A- and V-rods (e.g., AV-arch) Sagittal ring is absent, unlike other genera of Acanthodesmioidea. Protoplasm was observed in Cystidium, Neosemantis, Plagiacantha and Pseudocubus. The yellowish to brown endoplasm is located within the spicules’ area. In fully grown specimens, the endoplasm extends beyond this area. Except for Cystidium, no algal symbionts are observed in any known genera. Fine pseudopodia radiate around the endoplasm in Cystidium and Neosemantis. The terminal cone is visible from the base of the Pseudocubus’ cephalic part. No axial projection is observed.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — late Middle Eocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This taxon is rarely illustrated in references. However, the spicular system of the following genera is examinable in references:? Dumetum (Sugiyama 1992a: pl. 1, fig. 5), Neosemantis (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 22, figs 7, 10; Nishimura 1990: fig. 13.1, 13.2, 12.4, 12.6; Takahashi 1991: pl. 27, fig. 12; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 20, fig. 2), Plagiacantha (Nishimura 1990: fig. 13.3?), and Pseudocubus (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 18, figs 1-3; Sugiyama 1993: figs 7.1-7.3, 8.1; Funakawa 1995a: pl. 4, figs 1-3, pl. 5, figs 1-3). The shell is too small and too transparent to observe in seawater, as such Plagiacanthidae can only be identified at higher magnifications (40x or 60x objective lens) with a phase-contrast microscope or a Nomarski differential interference contrast microscope. Under such constraints, “living images” were illustrated for Cystidium (Anderson 1977: pl. 1, figs 1, 2; Probert et al. 2014: S1, SES 28), Neosemantis (Matsuoka 2017: fig. 17), Plagiacantha (Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: fig. 11.18; Suzuki et al. 2009b: figs 3A, 3B; Zhang et al. 2018: 13, fig. 25), and Pseudocubus (Sashida &amp; Uematsu 1994: figs 3.8, 3.9; Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: fig. 12.12; Matsuoka 2007: fig. 4d; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.11.11; Zhang et al. 2018: 15, fig. 19). Algal symbionts of Cystidium were identified as Brandtodinium nutricula by Probert et al. (2014). Ultrafine cellular structure was documented for Cystidium (Anderson 1977).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Cystidium</p> <p>The original French description for Paracystidium is translated as follows: “ Paracystidium has all the characteristics of Cystidium, except for the occurrence of a very small spicule, free in the protoplasm surrounding the central capsule and located at its aboral pole. ” Cystidium is a type of naked Nassellaria; the differences specified in its description are minor and could indicate either different ontogenetic stages or different species. The name Cystidium is older than Paracystidium.</p> <p>Plagiacantha</p> <p>According to the type-illustrations, Plagiacantha (Claparède &amp; Lachmann 1858: pl. 22, fig.9), Triplagia (Haeckel 1887: pl. 91, fig.2), and Triplagiacantha (Hertwig 1879: pl. 7, fig. 6) appear to have only three robust rods, but as the supporting image for Plagiacantha (Dumitrica 1973b: pl. 22, figs 2, 4) shows, the main rods are identified as A-, D-, and double L-rods; thus, these genera have four rods in principle. It is likely that a short D-rod was overlooked in these type-illustrations. Triplagia and Triplagiacantha have been synonymized with Plagiacantha in previous studies. The architecture of Plagoniscus is identical to that of Plagiacantha, except for a long D-rod that has variable length among species. Plagiacantha is the oldest available name among these genera.</p> <p>Plectanium</p> <p>Plectanium has six radial spines that arise in two opposite groups from poles of the common central rod (Campbell 1954: D104). Plectaniscus has four radial spines that arise from the common central point, and its apical spine differs from three basal spines (Campbell 1954: D104-105). Specimens identifiable as Plectanium (the supporting image for Plectanium in the Atlas) possess four bladed rods, not six. It is unnecessary to differentiate these groups at the genus level. If the type-illustration (Haeckel 1887: pl. 91, fig. 11) is accurate, then the two opposite groups arising from poles of the common central rod illustrated in Haeckel (1887) appear similar to the initial spicular system of the conjoined individuals shown in Dumitrica (2013b: fig. 2.2). The name Plectanium is older than Plectaniscus.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFF1FE5306BDF946FA8D487E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFF2FE5D06BAF888FB4E4D7D.text	038DDA73FFF2FE5D06BAF888FB4E4D7D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Plagiacanthidae Hertwig 1879	<div><p>Family PLAGIACANTHIDAE Hertwig, 1879 sensu Dumitrica (2004) Plagiacanthiden [sic] Hertwig, 1879: 200-202 (= Plagiacanthidae) [as a family]. Triplagida Haeckel, 1882: 423 [as a tribe];1887: 908 [as a subfamily].Plagonida Haeckel, 1882: 423 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]; 1887: 906-908 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1975 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].Tetraplagida Haeckel, 1882: 423 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]:1887: 908, 911 [as a subfamily].Plectanida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [as a subfamily];1887: 906, 919-921 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].Polyplagida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 908, 917 [as a subfamily].Polyplectida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [as a tribe]; 1887: 921, 929 [as a subfamily].Tetraplectida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [nomen dubium, as a tribe];1887: 921, 923 [as a subfamily].Triplectida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 921 [as a subfamily].Cystidina [sic] – Haeckel 1884: 30 (= Cystidiidae) [as a family].Nassellida Haeckel, 1887: 896 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].Hexaplagida Haeckel, 1887: 908, 915 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].Hexaplectida Haeckel, 1887: 921, 927 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]. Nasselida [sic] – Bütschli 1889: 1975 (= Nassellidae) [as a family]. Plectanidae – Popofsky 1908: 262; 1913: 277. — Schröder 1914: 72. — Wailes 1937: 12. — Chediya 1959: 166. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 269. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 268. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 81. Plagoniidae – Poche 1913: 219 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D103. — Riedel 1967b: 295 (sensu emend.); 1971: 655- 656. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1973: 529. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 173. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 129. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 869-870. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 97. — Anderson 1983: 40. — Boltovskoy 1998: 33. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1005. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 140. Plagonidae [sic] – Popofsky 1908: 262 [nomen dubium] (= Plagoniidae). — Schröder 1914: 72. — Chediya 1959: 164. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 291 (sensu emend.). Nassellidae – Poche 1913: 219 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 163. Plagoniinae – Campbell 1954: D103 [nomen dubium]. Cystidiidae – Campbell 1954: D103. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 98. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 140.Triplagiinae – Campbell 1954: D104.Plectaniidae – Campbell 1954: D104. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 152. — Chen et al. 2017: 164.Plectaniinae – Campbell 1954: D104. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 72. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S292. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 139.Tetraplagiinae – Campbell 1954: D104 [nomen dubium].Tetraplectinae – Campbell 1954: D104 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 166. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 304-305. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 140.Triplectinae – Campbell 1954: D104 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 166. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 269.Enneaplegmatinae Campbell, 1954: D105.Triplaginae – Chediya 1959: 164.Hexaplaginae – Chediya 1959: 165 [nomen dubium].Polyplaginae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 165 [nomen dubium] (= Polyplagiidae).Polyplectinae – Chediya 1959: 167.Hexaplectinae – Chediya 1959: 167 [nomen dubium].Plagiacanthidae – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 69 (sensu emend.);1971b: 988-989 (sensu emend.); 1981: 73-74; 1986: 132. — Dumitrica 1979: 28, 30; 2004: 198-199 (sensu emend.). — Goll 1979: 383 (sensu emend.). — Takahashi 1991: 92. — Hollis 1997: 55. — Sugiyama 1998: 233. — Kozlova 1999: 104. — De Wever et al. 2001: 219. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S268 (sensu emend.). — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 100. Plagiacanthinae – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 147-149; 1971b: 990; 1981: 91-92. — Takahashi 1991: 92. — De Wever et al. 2001: 219, 221. — Dumitrica 2004: 216. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S269. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 102. Plagiacanthida [sic] – Nishimura 1990: 81 (= Plagiacanthidae) (sensu emend.). TYPE GENUS. — Plagiacantha Claparède in Müller, 1856: 500 [type species by monotypy: Acanthometra arachnoides Claparède, 1855: 675]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Arachnocalpis Haeckel, 1882: 427. — Cystidium Hertwig, 1879: 214 (= Paracystidiumn. syn.). — Dumetum Popofsky, 1908: 264 (= Pentaplagia synonymized by Dumitrica 2004: 216). — Enneaplegma Haeckel, 1882: 424 (= Polyplecta with the same type species). — Jeanpierria Dumitrica, 2004: 217. — Neosemantis Popofsky, 1913: 298 (= Deflandrella synonymized by Dumitrica 1978: 240). — Plagiacantha Claparède in Müller, 1856: 500 (= Plagoniscusn. syn.; Triplagia synonymized by Dumitrica 2004: 199; Triplagiacantha synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 96). — Plectagonidium Cachon &amp; Cachon, 1969: 236. — Plectanium Haeckel, 1882: 424 (= Plectaniscusn. syn.). — Pseudocubus Haeckel, 1887: 1010 (=? Drepotadium n. syn.; Rhizoplecta synonymized by Dumitrica 1973a: 836; Talariscus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1971a: 149). INVALID NAME. — Hexaplecta. NOMINA DUBIA. — Hexaplagia, Hexaplegma, Nassella, Plagonidium, Plagonium, Plectophorina, Polyplagia, Tetraplagia, Tetraplecta, Triplecta. JUNIOR HOMONYMS. — Campylacantha JØrgensen, 1905 (= Neosemantis) nec Scudder, 1897; Obeliscus Popofsky, 1913 (= Talariscus) nec Beck, 1837; Plectophora Haeckel, 1882: 424 (= Plectophorina) nec Gray 1834: captions for pl. 42, fig. 2. DIAGNOSIS. — The skeleton is exclusively made of bladed, initial spicules. No arch develops between A- and V-rods (e.g., AV-arch) Sagittal ring is absent, unlike other genera of Acanthodesmioidea. Protoplasm was observed in Cystidium, Neosemantis, Plagiacantha and Pseudocubus. The yellowish to brown endoplasm is located within the spicules’ area. In fully grown specimens, the endoplasm extends beyond this area. Except for Cystidium, no algal symbionts are observed in any known genera. Fine pseudopodia radiate around the endoplasm in Cystidium and Neosemantis. The terminal cone is visible from the base of the Pseudocubus’ cephalic part. No axial projection is observed. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — late Middle Eocene-Living.REMARKS This taxon is rarely illustrated in references. However, the spicular system of the following genera is examinable in references:? Dumetum (Sugiyama 1992a: pl. 1, fig. 5), Neosemantis (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 22, figs 7, 10; Nishimura 1990: fig. 13.1, 13.2, 12.4, 12.6; Takahashi 1991: pl. 27, fig. 12; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 20, fig. 2), Plagiacantha (Nishimura 1990: fig. 13.3?), and Pseudocubus (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 18, figs 1-3; Sugiyama 1993: figs 7.1-7.3, 8.1; Funakawa 1995a: pl. 4, figs 1-3, pl. 5, figs 1-3). The shell is too small and too transparent to observe in seawater, as such Plagiacanthidae can only be identified at higher magnifications (40x or 60x objective lens) with a phase-contrast microscope or a Nomarski differential interference contrast microscope. Under such constraints, “living images” were illustrated for Cystidium (Anderson 1977: pl. 1, figs 1, 2; Probert et al. 2014: S1, SES 28), Neosemantis (Matsuoka 2017: fig. 17), Plagiacantha (Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: fig. 11.18; Suzuki et al. 2009b: figs 3A, 3B; Zhang et al. 2018: 13, fig. 25), and Pseudocubus (Sashida &amp; Uematsu 1994: figs 3.8, 3.9; Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: fig. 12.12; Matsuoka 2007: fig. 4d; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.11.11; Zhang et al. 2018: 15, fig. 19). Algal symbionts of Cystidium were identified as Brandtodinium nutricula by Probert et al. (2014). Ultrafine cellular structure was documented for Cystidium (Anderson 1977). VALIDITY OF GENERACystidium The original French description for Paracystidium is translated as follows: “ Paracystidium has all the characteristics of Cystidium, except for the occurrence of a very small spicule, free in the protoplasm surrounding the central capsule and located at its aboral pole. ” Cystidium is a type of naked Nassellaria; the differences specified in its description are minor and could indicate either different ontogenetic stages or different species. The name Cystidium is older than Paracystidium. Plagiacantha According to the type-illustrations, Plagiacantha (Claparède &amp; Lachmann 1858: pl. 22, fig.9), Triplagia (Haeckel 1887: pl. 91, fig.2), and Triplagiacantha (Hertwig 1879: pl. 7, fig. 6) appear to have only three robust rods, but as the supporting image for Plagiacantha (Dumitrica 1973b: pl. 22, figs 2, 4) shows, the main rods are identified as A-, D-, and double L-rods; thus, these genera have four rods in principle. It is likely that a short D-rod was overlooked in these type-illustrations. Triplagia and Triplagiacantha have been synonymized with Plagiacantha in previous studies. The architecture of Plagoniscus is identical to that of Plagiacantha, except for a long D-rod that has variable length among species. Plagiacantha is the oldest available name among these genera. PlectaniumPlectanium has six radial spines that arise in two opposite groups from poles of the common central rod (Campbell 1954: D104). Plectaniscus has four radial spines that arise from the common central point, and its apical spine differs from three basal spines (Campbell 1954: D104-105). Specimens identifiable as Plectanium (the supporting image for Plectanium in the Atlas) possess four bladed rods, not six. It is unnecessary to differentiate these groups at the genus level. If the type-illustration (Haeckel 1887: pl. 91, fig. 11) is accurate, then the two opposite groups arising from poles of the common central rod illustrated in Haeckel (1887) appear similar to the initial spicular system of the conjoined individuals shown in Dumitrica (2013b: fig. 2.2). The name Plectanium is older than Plectaniscus.</p> <p>sensu Dumitrica (2004)</p> <p>Plagiacanthiden [sic] Hertwig, 1879: 200-202 (= Plagiacanthidae) [as a family].</p> <p>Triplagida Haeckel, 1882: 423 [as a tribe];1887: 908 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Plagonida Haeckel, 1882: 423 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]; 1887: 906-908 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1975 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].</p> <p>Tetraplagida Haeckel, 1882: 423 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]:1887: 908, 911 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Plectanida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [as a subfamily];1887: 906, 919-921 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].</p> <p>Polyplagida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 908, 917 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Polyplectida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [as a tribe]; 1887: 921, 929 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Tetraplectida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [nomen dubium, as a tribe];1887: 921, 923 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Triplectida Haeckel, 1882: 424 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 921 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Cystidina [sic] – Haeckel 1884: 30 (= Cystidiidae) [as a family].</p> <p>Nassellida Haeckel, 1887: 896 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].</p> <p>Hexaplagida Haeckel, 1887: 908, 915 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Hexaplectida Haeckel, 1887: 921, 927 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Nasselida [sic] – Bütschli 1889: 1975 (= Nassellidae) [as a family].</p> <p>Plectanidae – Popofsky 1908: 262; 1913: 277. — Schröder 1914: 72. — Wailes 1937: 12. — Chediya 1959: 166. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 269. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 268. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 81.</p> <p>Plagoniidae – Poche 1913: 219 [nomen dubium]. — Campbell 1954: D103. — Riedel 1967b: 295 (sensu emend.); 1971: 655- 656. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1973: 529. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 173. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 129. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 869-870. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 97. — Anderson 1983: 40. — Boltovskoy 1998: 33. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1005. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 140.</p> <p>Plagonidae [sic] – Popofsky 1908: 262 [nomen dubium] (= Plagoniidae). — Schröder 1914: 72. — Chediya 1959: 164. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 291 (sensu emend.).</p> <p>Nassellidae – Poche 1913: 219 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 163.</p> <p>Plagoniinae – Campbell 1954: D103 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Cystidiidae – Campbell 1954: D103. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 98. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 140.</p> <p>Triplagiinae – Campbell 1954: D104.</p> <p>Plectaniidae – Campbell 1954: D104. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 152. — Chen et al. 2017: 164.</p> <p>Plectaniinae – Campbell 1954: D104. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 72. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S292. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 139.</p> <p>Tetraplagiinae – Campbell 1954: D104 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Tetraplectinae – Campbell 1954: D104 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 166. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 304-305. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 140.</p> <p>Triplectinae – Campbell 1954: D104 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 166. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 269.</p> <p>Enneaplegmatinae Campbell, 1954: D105.</p> <p>Triplaginae – Chediya 1959: 164.</p> <p>Hexaplaginae – Chediya 1959: 165 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Polyplaginae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 165 [nomen dubium] (= Polyplagiidae).</p> <p>Polyplectinae – Chediya 1959: 167.</p> <p>Hexaplectinae – Chediya 1959: 167 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Plagiacanthidae – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 69 (sensu emend.);1971b: 988-989 (sensu emend.); 1981: 73-74; 1986: 132. — Dumitrica 1979: 28, 30; 2004: 198-199 (sensu emend.). — Goll 1979: 383 (sensu emend.). — Takahashi 1991: 92. — Hollis 1997: 55. — Sugiyama 1998: 233. — Kozlova 1999: 104. — De Wever et al. 2001: 219. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S268 (sensu emend.). — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 100.</p> <p>Plagiacanthinae – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 147-149; 1971b: 990; 1981: 91-92. — Takahashi 1991: 92. — De Wever et al. 2001: 219, 221. — Dumitrica 2004: 216. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S269. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 102.</p> <p>Plagiacanthida [sic] – Nishimura 1990: 81 (= Plagiacanthidae) (sensu emend.).</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Plagiacantha Claparède in Müller, 1856: 500 [type species by monotypy: Acanthometra arachnoides Claparède, 1855: 675].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Arachnocalpis Haeckel, 1882: 427. — Cystidium Hertwig, 1879: 214 (= Paracystidium n. syn.). — Dumetum Popofsky, 1908: 264 (= Pentaplagia synonymized by Dumitrica 2004: 216). — Enneaplegma Haeckel, 1882: 424 (= Polyplecta with the same type species). — Jeanpierria Dumitrica, 2004: 217. — Neosemantis Popofsky, 1913: 298 (= Deflandrella synonymized by Dumitrica 1978: 240). — Plagiacantha Claparède in Müller, 1856: 500 (= Plagoniscus n. syn.; Triplagia synonymized by Dumitrica 2004: 199; Triplagiacantha synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 96). — Plectagonidium Cachon &amp; Cachon, 1969: 236. — Plectanium Haeckel, 1882: 424 (= Plectaniscus n. syn.). — Pseudocubus Haeckel, 1887: 1010 (=? Drepotadium n. syn.; Rhizoplecta synonymized by Dumitrica 1973a: 836; Talariscus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1971a: 149).</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Hexaplecta.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Hexaplagia, Hexaplegma, Nassella, Plagonidium, Plagonium, Plectophorina, Polyplagia, Tetraplagia, Tetraplecta, Triplecta.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYMS. — Campylacantha JØrgensen, 1905 (= Neosemantis) nec Scudder, 1897; Obeliscus Popofsky, 1913 (= Talariscus) nec Beck, 1837; Plectophora Haeckel, 1882: 424 (= Plectophorina) nec Gray 1834: captions for pl. 42, fig. 2.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — The skeleton is exclusively made of bladed, initial spicules. No arch develops between A- and V-rods (e.g., AV-arch) Sagittal ring is absent, unlike other genera of Acanthodesmioidea. Protoplasm was observed in Cystidium, Neosemantis, Plagiacantha and Pseudocubus. The yellowish to brown endoplasm is located within the spicules’ area. In fully grown specimens, the endoplasm extends beyond this area. Except for Cystidium, no algal symbionts are observed in any known genera. Fine pseudopodia radiate around the endoplasm in Cystidium and Neosemantis. The terminal cone is visible from the base of the Pseudocubus’ cephalic part. No axial projection is observed.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — late Middle Eocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This taxon is rarely illustrated in references. However, the spicular system of the following genera is examinable in references:? Dumetum (Sugiyama 1992a: pl. 1, fig. 5), Neosemantis (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 22, figs 7, 10; Nishimura 1990: fig. 13.1, 13.2, 12.4, 12.6; Takahashi 1991: pl. 27, fig. 12; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 20, fig. 2), Plagiacantha (Nishimura 1990: fig. 13.3?), and Pseudocubus (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 18, figs 1-3; Sugiyama 1993: figs 7.1-7.3, 8.1; Funakawa 1995a: pl. 4, figs 1-3, pl. 5, figs 1-3). The shell is too small and too transparent to observe in seawater, as such Plagiacanthidae can only be identified at higher magnifications (40x or 60x objective lens) with a phase-contrast microscope or a Nomarski differential interference contrast microscope. Under such constraints, “living images” were illustrated for Cystidium (Anderson 1977: pl. 1, figs 1, 2; Probert et al. 2014: S1, SES 28), Neosemantis (Matsuoka 2017: fig. 17), Plagiacantha (Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: fig. 11.18; Suzuki et al. 2009b: figs 3A, 3B; Zhang et al. 2018: 13, fig. 25), and Pseudocubus (Sashida &amp; Uematsu 1994: figs 3.8, 3.9; Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: fig. 12.12; Matsuoka 2007: fig. 4d; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.11.11; Zhang et al. 2018: 15, fig. 19). Algal symbionts of Cystidium were identified as Brandtodinium nutricula by Probert et al. (2014). Ultrafine cellular structure was documented for Cystidium (Anderson 1977).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Cystidium</p> <p>The original French description for Paracystidium is translated as follows: “ Paracystidium has all the characteristics of Cystidium, except for the occurrence of a very small spicule, free in the protoplasm surrounding the central capsule and located at its aboral pole. ” Cystidium is a type of naked Nassellaria; the differences specified in its description are minor and could indicate either different ontogenetic stages or different species. The name Cystidium is older than Paracystidium.</p> <p>Plagiacantha</p> <p>According to the type-illustrations, Plagiacantha (Claparède &amp; Lachmann 1858: pl. 22, fig.9), Triplagia (Haeckel 1887: pl. 91, fig.2), and Triplagiacantha (Hertwig 1879: pl. 7, fig. 6) appear to have only three robust rods, but as the supporting image for Plagiacantha (Dumitrica 1973b: pl. 22, figs 2, 4) shows, the main rods are identified as A-, D-, and double L-rods; thus, these genera have four rods in principle. It is likely that a short D-rod was overlooked in these type-illustrations. Triplagia and Triplagiacantha have been synonymized with Plagiacantha in previous studies. The architecture of Plagoniscus is identical to that of Plagiacantha, except for a long D-rod that has variable length among species. Plagiacantha is the oldest available name among these genera.</p> <p>Plectanium</p> <p>Plectanium has six radial spines that arise in two opposite groups from poles of the common central rod (Campbell 1954: D104). Plectaniscus has four radial spines that arise from the common central point, and its apical spine differs from three basal spines (Campbell 1954: D104-105). Specimens identifiable as Plectanium (the supporting image for Plectanium in the Atlas) possess four bladed rods, not six. It is unnecessary to differentiate these groups at the genus level. If the type-illustration (Haeckel 1887: pl. 91, fig. 11) is accurate, then the two opposite groups arising from poles of the common central rod illustrated in Haeckel (1887) appear similar to the initial spicular system of the conjoined individuals shown in Dumitrica (2013b: fig. 2.2). The name Plectanium is older than Plectaniscus.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFF2FE5D06BAF888FB4E4D7D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFFCFE5C065CFD86FA704D5D.text	038DDA73FFFCFE5C065CFD86FA704D5D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudodictyophimidae Suzuki 2021	<div><p>Family PSEUDODICTYOPHIMIDAE Suzuki, n. fam.</p> <p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: B6589535-06A6-4E0B-84A1-7F4EC54DB8F2</p> <p>Tripocalpida Haeckel, 1882: 428 [nomen dubium, below tribe]; 1887: 1133-1135 [as a family]. — Wisniowski 1889: 686 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1983 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 178 [as a family]. — nec Cayeux 1894: 206, 2111.</p> <p>Tripocalpidae – Popofsky 1908: 271 [nomen dubium]; 1913: 327. — Schröder 1914: 91. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 62; 1945: 33. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 38. — Chediya 1959: 188. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 273. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 169. — Nishimura 1990: 107 (sensu emend.). — van de Paverd 1995: 212. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 153. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 288. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 113, 114. — Chen et al. 2017: 173.</p> <p>Tripocalpididae – Poche 1913: 220 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Pseudodictyophimus Petrushevskaya, 1971a: 91 [type species by monotypy: Dictyophimus gracilipes Bailey, 1856: 4].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. —? Chitascenium Sugiyama, 1994: 4. —? Corythomelissa Campbell 1951: 529. — Pseudodictyophimus Petrushevskaya, 1971a: 91. — Steganocubus Sugiyama, 1993: 56 (= Marimoum n. syn.). — Syscioscenium Sugiyama, 1992c: 216. — Tripodocyrtis Funakawa, 1994: 473.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Dictyophimus, Pterocanium, Tripocalpis, Tripodoconus, Tripodonium.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYM. — Sethomelissa Haeckel, 1887 (= Corythomelissa) nec Haeckel, 1882.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Anatomically, Pseudodictyophimidae Suzuki, n. fam. are practically two-segmented Plagiacanthoidea with a well-developed first segment (cephalis) and a developed, sometimes lacking, second segment (thorax). A large part of the cephalis is the eucephalic lobe located between the A- and V-rods. The postcephalic lobe and antecephalic lobe are located between the lowest part of the eucephalic lobe and the middle to lower part of the thorax. The suture and boundary of the eucephalic lobe are always situated above the MB’s level. The cephalic spicular system consists of MB, A-, V-, D-, double L- and Ax-rods. The double l-rod is generally absent. The MB is very short or retrogrades to become a pointed connection (PC) with the D- and double L-rods. The PC (or MB) is located at the center of the cephalic cavity. The V-rod is rarely absent at the genus or species levels. An anatomical basal ring composed of LL- and double AL- (or AD-) arches is present. All these arches convex upward to form a suture between the cephalis and the thorax. A large part of LL- and double AL- (or AD-) arches merges with the shell wall or is located very close to the shell wall. The Ax-rod is very short. No tubes are present on the cephalis. The feet that are directly connected to the D- and double L-rods may be present. The A-rod is merged to the cephalis. The cephalis may also be partly or fully free in the cephalic cavity. The sutures and the most constricted part of the shell are always located above the MB or PC.</p> <p>A protoplasm was observed in Pseudodictyophimus. The endoplasm is transparent and located inside the cephalis. Depending on specimens, the endoplasm may also be observed in part of the thorax. No algal symbionts are observed. No axopodial projection has been found as of yet.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Eocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The diagnosis given above excludes Steganocubus as this genus possesses a typical, but very small basal ring-like structure and does not have three feet. Poor development of connecting bars between the basal ring-like structure and shell wall in Steganocubus seem to regard it as an intermediate form, between the Dictyocryphalidae Suzuki, n. fam. and the Pseudodictyophimidae Suzuki, n. fam. The Pseudodictyophimidae Suzuki, n. fam. is distinguished from the Dictyocryphalidae Suzuki, n. fam. by the presence of an anatomical basal ring with the LL- and double AL-arches, instead of a basal ringlike structure.</p> <p>Differing from the Dimelissidae, no true arches directly connected to the D-rod exist. The overall appearance of Steganocubus is almost identical to Syscioscenium. However, the former possesses a typical but very small, basal ring-like structure whereas the latter develops LL- and double ADarches that merge with the shell wall. Both Chitascenium and Corythomelissa are difficult to distinguish from Archipilium (Archipiliidae), several genera belonging to the Phaenocalpididae, some genera in the Dimelissidae, and the Tripocyrtis - form of Clathrocanium (Sethoperidae). Sandin et al. (2019) considered Chitascenium a member of the Archipiliidae. The Phaenocalpididae can be distinguished from Chitascenium and Corythomelissa by the presence of a suture with the ADarch, a well-developed ventral spine and a true basal ring. The Dimelissidae differ from both these genera by the absence of the cephalic lobe, the eccentric position of the PC or short MB, the presence of a double LV-arch. The Tripocyrtis -form of Clathrocanium differs from Chitascenium and Corythomelissa by the presence of a true basal ring, several free arches in the cephalic cavity, no sutures related to the arches, and a very small ventral tube.</p> <p>The stratigraphic distribution of species belonging to Pseudodictyophimidae Suzuki, n. fam. is poorly documented; in addition, many genera and species remain undescribed. The cephalic initial spicular system is documented for Chitascenium (Sugiyama 1994: pl. 1, figs 4, 6), Corythomelissa (Funakawa 1994: fig. 14.1), Pseudodictyophimus (Caulet 1974: pl. 5, figs 3-6; Poluzzi 1982: pl. 24, fig. 9?; Nishimura 1990: fig. 16.6-16.10, 18.5; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 17, figs 2-4; Sugiyama 1993: fig. 23.3; Funakawa 1994: figs 12.1-12.3; 1995a: pl. 6, figs 1-2?, pl. 7, figs 2, 3, pl. 8, figs 1-6), Syscioscenium (Sugiyama 1992c: pl. 21, figs 1-4, pl. 22, figs 1-4; 1994: pl. 1, fig. 5), Steganocubus (Sugiyama 1992a: pl. 1, fig. 3?; 1993: figs 10-12; Funakawa 1994: figs 9.1-9.4; 1995a: pl. 9, figs 1-7, pl. 10, figs 1-4), and Tripodocyrtis (Nishimura 1990: fig.17.7; Funakawa 1994: figs 13.1, 13.2;1995a: pl. 10, figs 5, 6). “Living” or protoplasm images are illustrated for Pseudodictyophimus (Sashida &amp; Uematsu 1994: fig. 3.6; Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: fig. 11.5; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.11.7; Zhang et al. 2018: 19, fig. 19, p. 23, fig. 14).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA Steganocubus After these genera were published, the authors who named Steganocubus and Marimoum agree that these are the same genus (interview from Funakawa and Sugiyama by NS in 1995). The name Steganocubus is older than Marimoum.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFFCFE5C065CFD86FA704D5D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFFDFE5F0640FDA7FED34C3C.text	038DDA73FFFDFE5F0640FDA7FED34C3C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tripodisciidae Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Family TRIPODISCIIDAE Haeckel, 1882 n. stat.</p> <p>Tripodiscida Haeckel, 1882: 428 [below tribe].</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Tripodiscium Haeckel, 1882: 427 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D117): Tripodiscium tristylospyris Haeckel, 1887: 1143].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Tridictyopus Hertwig, 1879: 203. — Tripodiscium Haeckel, 1882: 427 (= Tripodiscinus with the same type species; Tripodisculus n. syn., Tristylospyrium n. syn.). —? Tristylocorys Haeckel, 1887: 1140.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — One segment with three feet and no apical horn.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This family is simply used to maintain Tripodiscium as a valid genus in this review; however, the consistency of Tripodisciidae needs to be confirmed by retrieving good specimens of the genera included in this family. Tridictyopus is very similar to Conicavus. Broken specimen of Periplecta (Phaenocalpididae) and the Tripocyrtis -form of Clathrocanium (Sethoperidae) are nearly identical to Tripodiscium.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Tripodiscium</p> <p>Although the type-illustrations of Tripodiscium (Haeckel 1887: pl. 52, fig. 22), Tripodisculus (Haeckel 1887: pl. 52, fig. 21), and Tristylospyrium (Haeckel 1887: pl. 52, fig. 23) are very similar, Campbell (1954) placed these genera within different superfamilies. Tristylospyrium was classified into “ Triospyridinae of the Triospyrididae within superfamily Triospyridicae ” (Campbell 1954: D112), whereas Tripodiscium and Tripodisculus were classified into “Archipiliinae of the Archipiliidae within subsuperfamily Archipiliilae within superfamily Archipiliicae ” (Campbell 1954: D117). Superfamily “ Triospyridicae ” is defined by a bilocular cephalis with sagittal constriction, whereas superfamily “ Archipiliicae ” is defined by a cephalis that is neither bilocular nor lobate; these morphological characters cannot be specified in the type-illustrations. Triospyrididae is defined by a shell composed of cephalis and its apophyses, without apical cupola or dome or thorax, but this definition is applicable to Tristylospyrium, Tripodiscium, and Tripodisculus. Strangely, “three basal feet” is used to identify the subfamily Triospyridinae but also to distinguish among different ranks within family Archipiliidae. Thus, these taxonomic ranks are meaningless among Tristylospyrium, Tripodiscium, and Tripodisculus. Subfamily “Archipiliinae” within family Archipiliidae is defined as having the basal shell mouth open, which is not included as a character for subfamily “Triopsyridinae” of the Triospyrididae in the superfamily “ Triospyridicae ”, which represents another direct contradiction. Differences among these three genera are definitely not related at the family or higher taxonomic rank; therefore, it is sufficient to consider their morphological characters directly at the genus level, even sensu Campbell (1954). Tristylospyrium is characterized by an apex without a horn, Tripodiscium by three unbranched solid feet, and Tripodisculus by branched or forked feet (Campbell 1954: D112, 117, and 118). However, the type-illustration of Tripodiscium has branched or forked feet, not unbranched solid feet (Haeckel 1887: pl. 52, fig. 22). Because the apex without horn and branched or forked feet are the only common features among these three genera, they need not be separated at the superfamily level. The oldest available name is Tripodiscium.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFFDFE5F0640FDA7FED34C3C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFFEFE5F067DFC67FB6849E3.text	038DDA73FFFEFE5F067DFC67FB6849E3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pylobotrydoidea Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Superfamily PYLOBOTRYDOIDEA Haeckel, 1882 n. stat.</p> <p>Pylobotrida Haeckel, 1882: 440 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Cannobotrydicae – Campbell 1954: D143 [nomen dubium, as a superfamily].</p> <p>Cannobotryoidea – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 154 [nomen dubium] (sensu emend.); 1971b: 988; 1975: 588; 1981: 307-309; 1986: 136. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 554. — Yeh 1987: 86 (sensu emend.). — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S303. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 153.</p> <p>Cannobotryoida [sic] – Amon 2000: 61 [nomen dubium] (= Cannobtrydoidea) [as an order].</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Monotype superfamily. See the diagnosis of the family Pylobotrydidae.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Pylobotrydidae (originally Cannobotryidae) are placed within the clade of the superfamily Plagiacanthoidea by molecular phylogenetic analysis, (Sandin et al. 2019). According to the hierarchy and consistency in Eukaryotes (Cavalier-Smith et al. 2018; Adl et al. 2019), the order rank for this taxon is unacceptable at the present time.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFFEFE5F067DFC67FB6849E3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFFEFE5F05D5FC44FAC94C1D.text	038DDA73FFFEFE5F05D5FC44FAC94C1D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ximolzidae Suzuki & Caulet & Dumitrica 2021	<div><p>Family XIMOLZIDAE Dumitrica, nom. nov.</p> <p>Ximolzasinae O’Dogherty, Carter, Dumitrica, Goričan, De Wever, Hungerbühler, Bandini &amp; Takemura, 2009b: 218 [nomen nudum, nomen correct act]. — O’Dogherty et al. 2011: 112. — Bragina 2016: 541.</p> <p>Zamolxinae Dumitrica, 1982b: 402-404 [unavailable name]; Dumitrica 2004: 205. — De Wever et al. 2001: 219. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S292. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 138-139.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Ximolzas Dumitrica, 2007: 207 [type species by original designation: Zamolxis corona Dumitrica, 1982b: 407].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA (CENOZOIC ONLY). — Daniplagia Dumitrica 2004: 208. — Protoscenium JØrgensen 1905: 133. — Rhabdolithis Ehrenberg 1847: 50 (= Xiphostylomma n. syn.).</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — The skeleton is exclusively made of massive, un-blad- ed, initial spicules.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Coniacian-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This newly designated family is simply conceived in order to validate the family name under the Code. This family name is derived from the genus name Ximolzas Dumitrica 2007, replacing the junior homonym name: Zamolxis Dumitrica, 1982 (Dumitrica 1982b). The family name “Ximolzasinae” appeared in O’Dogherty et al. (2009b, 2011) and Bragina (2016). The family name was published in O’Dogherty et al. (2009b: 218) as “ nomen correctum herein”; however, the nomen correctum act is not defined in the English versions of any historical codes (Blanchard et al. 1905; ICZN 1926, 1964, 1985, 1999; Schenk &amp; McMasters 1956) or previous rules of zoological nomenclature (Strickland 1878; Melville 1995). This word appeared in an instruction book as a “change of spelling, e.g., -somidae to -somatidae because of [an] incorrect spelling of [the] stem form” for “ nomen correctum ” act (e.g., Winston 1999:142, table 7.1). Thus, the “ nomen correct ” act cannot be read as “new replacement name” (or nomen novum). Legal acts for name published after 1999 is mentioned in Article 16 (“every new name published after 1999, including new replacement names (nomina nova), must be explicitly indicated as intentionally new”). In addition (Article 16.2), it requires, as an inevitable act, that “a new family-group name published after 1999 must be accompanied by citation of the name of the type genus.” Article 16 not only includes the “new family” but also the “ nomen novum ” (see Recommendation 16A”) the Article 16.2 also includes the “ nomen novum ” for family. The skeletal architecture of Neogene taxa belonging to the Ximolzidae Dumitrica, nom. nov. has only been illustrated for Protoscenium (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 23, fig. 6?; Sugiyama 1992c: pl. 22, fig. 5). The taxonomic position of Rhabdolithis is still in discussion.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Rhabdolithis</p> <p>Xiphostylomma is clearly the same genus as Rhabdolithis. Campbell (1954) did not consider Rhabdolithis.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFFEFE5F05D5FC44FAC94C1D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFFEFE5B06A1F904FCF04C7C.text	038DDA73FFFEFE5B06A1F904FCF04C7C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Calocyclas sensu emend.	<div><p>Family PYLOBOTRYDIDAE Haeckel, 1882 sensu Sugiyama (1998)Pylobotrida Haeckel, 1882: 440 [as a subfamily].Cannobotrida Haeckel, 1882: 440 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]. Pylobotryida – Haeckel 1887: 1107, 1119-1120 (sensu emend.) [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1983 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family]. Cannobotryida – Haeckel 1887: 1107-1108 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1982 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].Botryocellida Haeckel, 1887: 1112 [as a subfamily].Botryopylida Haeckel, 1887: 1112 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].Botryocampida Haeckel, 1887: 1120 [as a subfamily].Botryocyrtida Haeckel, 1887: 1120 [as a subfamily].Cannobotryidae [sic] – Poche 1913: 222 [nomen dubium] (= Cannobotrydidae). — Schröder 1914: 143. — Chediya 1959: 185. — Riedel 1967b: 296 (sensu emend.);1971: 657-658. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970: 536; 1971: 1601. — Petrushevskaya 1971a: 154-159; 1981: 315. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1973: 532. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 174. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 131. — Pessagno 1976: 54. — Dumitrica 1979: 35. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 295. —Sanfilippo et al. 1985: 704. — Yeh 1987: 86 (sensu emend.). — Nishimura 1990: 169 (sensu emend.). — Takahashi 1991: 133. — Boltovskoy 1998: 33-34. — Sugiyama 1998: 233. — Kozlova 1999: 133. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 282. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1018. — De Wever et al. 2001: 243-245. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 106. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S303-304. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 153. — Chen et al. 2017: 171, 233. Pylobotryidae [sic] – Poche 1913: 222 (= Pylobotrydidae). — Schröder 1914: 143. — Chediya 1959: 187. Acrobotrusidae Popofsky, 1913: 314 [nomen dubium].Neobotryisidae [sic] – Popofsky 1913: 319-400 (= Neobotrydidae).Cannobotrydidae – Campbell 1954: D143 [nomen dubium].Glycobotrydidae Campbell, 1954: D143. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 272. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 167; 2003: 108. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 283. Botryocampinae – Campbell 1954: D144. — Chediya 1959: 187.Pylobotrydidae – Campbell 1954: D144. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 168; 2003: 111. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 153. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 286. — Chen et al. 2017: 172. Pylobotrydinae [sic] – Campbell 1954: D144 (= Pylobotrydinae). — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 168. — Chen et al. 2017: 172.Botryocellinae – Chediya 1959: 186.Botryopylinae – Chediya 1959: 186 [nomen dubium].Botryocyrtinae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 187 (= Botryocyrtidinae).Cannobotrythidae [sic] – Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 879 [nomen dubium] (= Cannobotrydidae).Botryocyrtididae – Petrushevskaya 1981: 309. — Amon 2000: 61-62. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S303. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 153. TYPE GENUS. — Pylobotrys Haeckel, 1882: 440 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D144): Pylobotrys putealis Haeckel, 1887: 1121]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Amphimelissa JØrgensen, 1905: 136 (= Bisphaerocephalina synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1971a: 158; Bisphaerocephalus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1971a: 165;? Glycobotrysn. syn.). — Botryocampe Ehrenberg, 1861b: 829 (= Saccospyris synonymized by Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 59). — Botryocella Haeckel, 1887: 1116. — Botryocyrtis Ehrenberg, 1861b: 829 (=? Acanthobotrys synonymized by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 554). — Centrobotrys Petrushevskaya, 1965: 113. — Lithocorythium Ehrenberg, 1847: 54 (=? Phormobotrysn. syn.). — Monotubus Popofsky, 1913: 322. — Neobotrys Popofsky, 1913: 320 (= Xiphobotrysn. syn.). — Pylobotrys Haeckel, 1882: 440 (= Acrobotrissa n. syn., Ceratobotrys n. syn.; Acrobotrella synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 319). NOMINA DUBIA. — Acrobotrantha, Acrobotromma, Acrobotrusa, Acrobotrys, Botryopyle, Cannobotrys, Cannobotrantha, Cannobotrella, Cannobotrissa, Cannobotromma, Cannobotrusa, Diauletes. JUNIOR HOMONYMS. — Acrobotrissa Popofsky, 1913 (= Acrobotrissa) nec Haeckel, 1887; Lithobotrys Haeckel, 1887 (= Glycobotrys) nec Ehrenberg, 1844 (Ehrenberg 1844a). DIAGNOSIS. — Pylobotrydidae consist of two to three segments and a complex cephalis. The cephalic part is subdivided in ante-, eu-, and postcephalic lobes. The antecephalic lobe appears as an inflated part on the ventral side, between the V- and double L-rods; the eucephalic lobe is observed as an inflated space in the central part between the A- and V-rods, while the postcephalic lobe appears as an inflated space in the apical side, between the A- and D-rods. The eucephalic lobe is noticeably larger than the postcephalic lobe. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, V-, D-, double L-, double l-, and Ax-spines. Double l-rods are well developed and protrude as spines from the shell wall. The basal ring is developed. Double ap -arch (a kind of AL-arch) and double pj -arch (a kind of LV-arch) are both developed. A deep distinctive suture generally develops between the lobes and in some members, a flat divider made of arches is also visible between the postcephalic and eucephalic lobes. A tube located between the eu- and antecephalic lobes, is closely related to the V-rod. The arrangement of the protoplasm and algal symbionts, as well as the color of the endoplasm, are variable among genera. The ante- and postcephalic lobes are occupied by algal symbionts in Pylobotrys, Amphimelissa and Centrobotrys, whereas the algal symbionts are located on the distal end of the endoplasm in Botryocyrtis and Monotubus. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — late Middle Eocene-Living.REMARKS The definition of ante-, eu- and post-cephalic lobes is that employed by Sugiyama (1998: fig. 3). This family was originally called Cannobotrydidae. However, owing to the nomen dubium status of the type genus of Cannobotrydidae, it has been replaced with valid family name: Pylobotrydidae. The stem of the genitive singular of Pylobotrys is Pylobotryd-. According to Article 29.3.1, if the stem ends in -id, those letters may be elided before adding the family-group suffixes. Although the grammatic spelling of the family derived from Pylobotrys may be “ Pylobotryidae ”, prevailing usage “ Pylobotrydidae ” (Tan &amp; Su 2003: 111; Chen et al. 2017: 172) is hereby retained in accordance with Article 29.5 (maintenance of current spelling). Sugiyama (1998: 233) pointed out the morphological similarity of this family with Dimelissidae (= Lophophaenidae in original) due to the small size, the similar development of arches, and the similarity in the cephalic initial spicular system (concerning the presence or absence of the double l-rods). This view was supported by molecular phylogenic studies because Pylobotrys falls into the same clade as the Plagiacanthoidea, Clade G (Sandin et al. 2019). In fact, Entepipedus (Ceratocyrtidae) has an intermediate form which consists of the presence of double l-rods and the absence of cephalic lobes. A genus belonging to the Pylobotrydidae is identifiable by: 1) the recognition of the A- and V-rods; 2) the relative position between MB and the collar stricture development, defined by the position of the lobes; and 3) the spines and wings derived from the cephalic initial spicular system. A comprehensive examination of the Pylobotrydidae was conducted under light microscopy by Petrushevskaya (1964, 1965, 1968), and was partly confirmed in scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and through other observation methods. SEM images were provided for Pylobotrys (Nishimura 1990: figs 37.1-37.3), Amphimelissa (BjØrklund &amp; Swanberg 1987: figs 3, 4), Botryocella (O’Connor 1999: pl. 1, figs 21-24), Lithocorythium (Sugiyama 1994: pl. 5, fig. 2), and N e obotrys (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 41, fig. 3). The sutures between the lobes result from the position of the arches, although this is not well illustrated in these photos. “Living” and protoplasm images were published for Amphimelissa (Sashida &amp; Uematsu 1994: fig. 3.11?; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig.8.11.15), Pylobotrys (Zhang et al. 2018: 9, fig. 2.34), Botryocyrtis (Matsuoka 2017: fig. 30; Zhang et al. 2018: 9, fig. 2.35) and Monotubus (Zhang et al. 2018: 9, fig. 2.36). Little is known about the evolutionary history of this family, except for visual hypotheses of Centrobotrys (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1981: fig. 12.10) and the family’s genus level (Petrushevskaya 1968). VALIDITY OF GENERAAmphimelissa Large numbers of Amphimelissa setosa, the type species of this genus,have been illustrated from topotypic regions (BjØrklund&amp; Swanberg 1987; BjØrklund et al. 2015) to clarify the morphological variation within the genus. This species includes a morphotype with three or more rods derived from the initial spicular system (BjØrklund &amp; Swanberg 1987: figs 4.Q, 4.S, 4.W) and a tube or tube-like structure with a free V-rod (BjØrklund &amp; Swanberg 1987: figs 4.C, 4.W, 4.X). Petrushevskaya (1981: 326) revised the definition of Bisphaerocephalina as follows, translated using terminology from Sugiyama (1998):” Postcephalic lobe [note: lobe between A- and D-rods] slightly higher than the eucephalic lobe [note: lobe between A- and V-rods]; it may differentiate into a small tubule. Antecephalic lobe [note: lobe between V- and double L-rods] slightly differentiated [...] V-rod may be linked to a small tube [...] The apical horn and the appendages related to the D- and double L-rods may be well developed [...] ” These characters fall within the range of variation in Amphimelissa. The original description of Bisphaerocephalus by Popofsky (1908) is translated as follows: “ [...] Cephalis smooth, no horn, well differentiated from the thorax, which bears three laterally directed spines [note: spines directly connected from A- and double L-rods] in the collar area. Cephalis separated into two parts [note: postcephalic and eucephalic lobes] by a vertical stricture [...] From the upper part of the thorax to the lower part of the cephalis, the collar area is covered by a secondary mesh [note: antecephalic lobe,...] ”. Popofsky (1908) reported no apical horn, but Petrushevskaya (1965: figs 9.1-9.3) shows wide variety in the lengths of the apical horn and appendages (see supporting image for Bisphaerocephalus). These characters are also within the range of morphological variation in Amphimelissa. Glyco- botrys was proposed by Campbell (1951) to replace Lithobotrys Haeckel 1887 nec Ehrenberg 1844a, using the type species of Lithobotrys geminata. Campbell (1954: D143-144) explained that this genus has tubules and a fenestrated thorax. The topotype was identified in the Ehrenberg collection as L. geminata by Ehrenberg himself (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 19, figs 7a-c), and surely can be identified as this species in the modern sense. The description by Campbell (1954) does not match either this topotype or the type-illustration (Ehrenberg 1876: pl. 3, fig. 19). Foreman (1968: text-figs 11a-c) illustrated the cephalis structure of L. geminata. Based on these specimens, Glycobotrys lacks outcropped rods from the initial spicular system, except for the A-rod, but this genus has a larger postcephalic lobe than eucephalic lobe and a very small antecephalic lobe, as also seen in Amphimelissa at the genus level. Amphimelissa is the oldest available name among these genera. Lithocorythium The type-illustrations of both Lithocorythium (Ehrenberg1854c: pl. 22, fig. 29a, 29b) and Phormobotrys (Haeckel 1887: pl. 96, fig. 26) are in ventral view (showing V- and double L-rods), because the eucephalic lobe (smaller, between A- and V-rods) and postcephalic lobe (larger, between A- and D-rods) are both clearly visible. The first description was written in Latin by Ehrenberg (1847: 54) and is translated as follows: “ Shell with more than one stricture. Last segment whole. With no median appendages. Aperture latticed. ” The next description was written in German by Haeckel (1862: 330) and is translated as follows: “ Multi-segmented lattice shell, subdivided into three or more superposed irregular segments by two or more circular constrictions, with no lateral appendages and a constricted aperture covered by a lattice. ” The type-illustration of Lithocorythium demonstrates that these descriptions are incorrect: the postcephalic lobe is larger and without apical horn or appendages. The type-illustrations likely display the A-rod, which does not protrude from the cephalic wall, and D- and double L-rods, which are merged with the thoracic wall. The supporting image for Lithocorythium, cited by Sanfilippo et al. (1978: pl. 1, figs 4, 5), may not belong to Lithocorythium because the A-, D-, and double L-rods are extruded from the wall. The revised definition of Phormobotrys by Petrushevskaya (1981: 322) using the terminology ofSugiyama (1998) is translated as follows: “ Postcephalic lobe somewhat higher than the eucephalic lobe, with its length passing into a tube [...] No apparent apical horn or other appendages. Thorax well differentiated, but final segment rudimentary. Segments separated by deep internal septa. Aperture on the final segment enclosed by mesh. ” A comparison of the definition and type-illustrations of Lithocorythium and Phormobotrys shows that the only differences between these genera are the segments separated by deep internal septa and final segment rudimentary in the latter genus; however, both of these characters are inappropriate as genus criteria. Haeckel (1887: 1124), the author of Phormobotrys, mentioned the presence of a tube. As Lithocorythium does not appear to have a tube, their synonymy is in doubt. Phylogenetic studies are required to resolve this issue. The name Lithocorythium is older than Phormobotrys. Neobotrys Campbell (1954: D144) described Neobotrys as having an inner trellis consisting of a sagittal ring and appended spines. The sagittal ring is unusual; this description was probably derived from original remarks by Popofsky (1913: 320), whose definition of Neobotrys is translated as follows: “ Neobotrysidae with an inner spicule, composed of a sagittal ring supporting A-, D-, and double L-rods. The rods are enveloped by tubes [...] has two or three cephalic chambers. Based on these chambers, it should be related to the spyrids, after Haeckel [...] ”. As shown in specimens of the type species Neobotrys quadritubolosa (supporting image for Neobotrys in the Atlas), the sagittal ring sensu Popofsky (1913: pl. 30, fig. 4) corresponds to a deep constriction between the postcephalic lobe (between the A- and D-rods) and eucephalic lobe (between the A- and V-rods). The postcephalic and eucephalic lobes of the Pylobotrydidae have an A-rod, associated arches related with the A- and double L-rods, a double ap -arch that connects the L-rod and Al-arch within or attached to the wall (Sandin et al. 2019: supplement). The illustrated specimen provided inPopofsky (1913) is in slightly oblique right dorsal side view, which overlooks several arches within the cephalis, which probably led to the incorrect description of a sagittal ring supporting A-, D-, and double L-rods. Xiphobotrys has a significant apical spine and appendages that are similar to those of Neobotrys. Unlike Neobotrys, Xiphobotrys lacks tubes in association with the very long A-, D-, V-, and double L-rods. Considering the close phylogenetic relationship between these two genera, they should be synonymized as a single genus. The name Neobotrys is older than Xiphobotrys. Pylobotrys The genera synonymized with Pylobotrys differ in the size and development of the postcephalic lobe (between A-and D-rods), antecephalic lobe (between V- and double D-rods), and tubes or appendages in the suture between the postcephalic lobe and thorax (terminology from Sugiyama 1998). Petrushevskaya (1981: 319) synonymized Acrobotrella, Acrobotrissa, and Neobotrys with Acrobotrys, but they require re-interpretation because the validated Acrobotrys is nomen dubium, and the type species have not been illustrated. Acrobotrissa has two homonyms defined byHaeckel (1887: 1114; type species Acrobotrissa trisolenia) and Popofsky (1913: 321; type species Acrobotrissa cribrosa); their type images are documented in the Atlas. The validity of Acrobotrissa is discussed hereafter based on the former type species. Petrushevskaya (1981: 319-320) commented that Acrobotrys is a subjective synonym of Acrobotrissa because their characters are similar, and revised the definition of Acrobotrys, translated as follows: “[...] Postcephalic lobe with a long tube larger than the eucephalic lobe. Height of the eucephalic lobe with its own septa [...] Height of the antecephalic lobes slightly smaller than that of the eucephalic lobe, with a long tube on the ventral side. A rod crossing approx. the middle part of the postcephalic lobe. Collar structure differentiated, but not always very distinct. Tubes other than those of the A- and V-rods may be differentiated, i.e., tubes that are not connected to an internal spicule (in the suture between the postcephalic lobe and thorax) [...] ”. This description matches the type-illustration of Acrobotrissa (Haeckel 1887: pl. 96, fig. 8), and therefore is considered the practical description of Acrobotrissa. Unlike Acrobotrissa, Acrobotrella is defined by the presence of two divergent tubes (apical and sternal) (Haeckel 1887: 1114). This definition excludes morphospecies with a tube in the suture between the cephalic lobe and thorax (cf. type-illustration, Haeckel 1887: pl. 96, fig. 10). However, Acrobotrys trisolenia (Haeckel 1887: pl. 96, fig. 8) and Acrobotrys disolenia (Haeckel 1887: pl. 96, fig. 10) differ only in the presence of this tube. These two species presumably have a direct ancestral relationship; therefore, these genera should be merged into a single genus. The definition of Pylobotrys was revised by Petrushevskaya (1981: 320), translated as follows: “ The postcephalic lobe, and also the galea, are subdivided into upper and lower parts. If the antecephalic lobe is well developed, and if the eucephalic lobe is divided into a collar and an upper part, then the cephalis may appear to be composed of multiple chambers, as reflected in the Haeckelian description and name.” This description of multiple chambers is probably the result of the complex initial spicular system. Petrushevskaya (1981: 320) noted that Pylobotrys is differentiated from Acrobotrissa (originally Acrobotrys) in its shorter tubes and the structure of the cephalis, which is not separated from the thorax by a clear external constriction. Once Acrobotrella was synonymized with Acrobotrissa, the clear external constriction was removed as a genus criterion. The tube length is also insufficient for differentiating among these genera. Ceratobotrys was established according to differences from Acrobotrissa (originally Acrobotrys) including having apical and dorsal spines and two hollow latticed lateral spines, except for A-, D-, and double L-tubes (Nishimura 1990: 169). The presence of these distinctive tubes, which are probably related to double L-rods, clearly differs from Acrobotrissa; however, if this character is applied for genus classification, the taxonomy of the Pylobotrydidae becomes complex, requiring the definition of many new genera. These characters are similar to those of Neobotrys, but the fundamental difference is that Neobotrys has distinctive A-, D-, and double L-rods outside the test. This difference does not allow to synonymize Ceratobotrys with Neobotrys. A remaining concern is that according to Popofsky (1913), Acrobotrissa cribrosa can be classified into Pylobotrys, with one or no tube on the postcephalic lobe; thus, this junior homonym is a synonym of Pylobotrys. No known specimens of A. cribrosa have a tube on the postcephalic lobe; therefore, the absence of a tube on the postcephalic lobe is a stable character. However, Acrobotrys chelinobotrys, described by Takahashi (1991: pl. 45, figs 22-24), is very similar to Ceratobotrys riedeli, the type species of Ceratobotrys, except for a closed postcephalic lobe in A. chelinobotrys. Considering this species-level difference, it is unlikely that A. cribrosa represents a separate genus from Acrobotrissa. The oldest available genus among these groups is Pylobotrys, although the type species of Pylobotrys, P. putealis (Haeckel 1887: pl. 96, fig. 21), has not been seen and was illustrated based solely on its first description by Haeckel. Phylogenetic Molecular Lineage IV Sandin et al. (2019)DIAGNOSIS. — The shell is generally robust with a completely grown last segment (either abdomen or thorax), which is very large relative to the cephalic size. The collar stricture is easily observable.REMARKS Lineage IV includes four superfamilies Cycladophoroidea, Sethoperoidea, Lithochytridoidea, and Pterocorythoidea. For all superfamilies, not including the Sethoperoidea, the placement in the Lineage IV relies upon molecular phylogeny (Sandin et al. 2019), although PhyML bootstrap values (10 000 replicates, BS) and posterior probability (PP) score as&gt;90% and&gt;0.90, respectively. The diagnosis written above is mainly based on the common structures among the Cycladophoroidea, Lithochytridoidea and Pterocorythoidea, which are well recognized as members of a distinct molecular group.</p> <p>sensu Sugiyama (1998)</p> <p>Pylobotrida Haeckel, 1882: 440 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Cannobotrida Haeckel, 1882: 440 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Pylobotryida – Haeckel 1887: 1107, 1119-1120 (sensu emend.) [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1983 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].</p> <p>Cannobotryida – Haeckel 1887: 1107-1108 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1982 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 29 [as a family].</p> <p>Botryocellida Haeckel, 1887: 1112 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Botryopylida Haeckel, 1887: 1112 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Botryocampida Haeckel, 1887: 1120 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Botryocyrtida Haeckel, 1887: 1120 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Cannobotryidae [sic] – Poche 1913: 222 [nomen dubium] (= Cannobotrydidae). — Schröder 1914: 143. — Chediya 1959: 185. — Riedel 1967b: 296 (sensu emend.);1971: 657-658. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970: 536; 1971: 1601. — Petrushevskaya 1971a: 154-159; 1981: 315. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1973: 532. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 174. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 131. — Pessagno 1976: 54. — Dumitrica 1979: 35. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 295. —Sanfilippo et al. 1985: 704. — Yeh 1987: 86 (sensu emend.). — Nishimura 1990: 169 (sensu emend.). — Takahashi 1991: 133. — Boltovskoy 1998: 33-34. — Sugiyama 1998: 233. — Kozlova 1999: 133. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 282. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1018. — De Wever et al. 2001: 243-245. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 106. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S303-304. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 153. — Chen et al. 2017: 171, 233.</p> <p>Pylobotryidae [sic] – Poche 1913: 222 (= Pylobotrydidae). — Schröder 1914: 143. — Chediya 1959: 187.</p> <p>Acrobotrusidae Popofsky, 1913: 314 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Neobotryisidae [sic] – Popofsky 1913: 319-400 (= Neobotrydidae).</p> <p>Cannobotrydidae – Campbell 1954: D143 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Glycobotrydidae Campbell, 1954: D143. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 272. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 167; 2003: 108. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 283.</p> <p>Botryocampinae – Campbell 1954: D144. — Chediya 1959: 187.</p> <p>Pylobotrydidae – Campbell 1954: D144. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 168; 2003: 111. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 153. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 286. — Chen et al. 2017: 172.</p> <p>Pylobotrydinae [sic] – Campbell 1954: D144 (= Pylobotrydinae). — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 168. — Chen et al. 2017: 172.</p> <p>Botryocellinae – Chediya 1959: 186.</p> <p>Botryopylinae – Chediya 1959: 186 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Botryocyrtinae [sic] – Chediya 1959: 187 (= Botryocyrtidinae).</p> <p>Cannobotrythidae [sic] – Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 879 [nomen dubium] (= Cannobotrydidae).</p> <p>Botryocyrtididae – Petrushevskaya 1981: 309. — Amon 2000: 61-62. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S303. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 153.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Pylobotrys Haeckel, 1882: 440 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D144): Pylobotrys putealis Haeckel, 1887: 1121].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Amphimelissa JØrgensen, 1905: 136 (= Bisphaerocephalina synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1971a: 158; Bisphaerocephalus synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1971a: 165;? Glycobotrys n. syn.). — Botryocampe Ehrenberg, 1861b: 829 (= Saccospyris synonymized by Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 59). — Botryocella Haeckel, 1887: 1116. — Botryocyrtis Ehrenberg, 1861b: 829 (=? Acanthobotrys synonymized by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 554). — Centrobotrys Petrushevskaya, 1965: 113. — Lithocorythium Ehrenberg, 1847: 54 (=? Phormobotrys n. syn.). — Monotubus Popofsky, 1913: 322. — Neobotrys Popofsky, 1913: 320 (= Xiphobotrys n. syn.). — Pylobotrys Haeckel, 1882: 440 (= Acrobotrissa n. syn., Ceratobotrys n. syn.; Acrobotrella synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 319).</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Acrobotrantha, Acrobotromma, Acrobotrusa, Acrobotrys, Botryopyle, Cannobotrys, Cannobotrantha, Cannobotrella, Cannobotrissa, Cannobotromma, Cannobotrusa, Diauletes.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYMS. — Acrobotrissa Popofsky, 1913 (= Acrobotrissa) nec Haeckel, 1887; Lithobotrys Haeckel, 1887 (= Glycobotrys) nec Ehrenberg, 1844 (Ehrenberg 1844a).</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Pylobotrydidae consist of two to three segments and a complex cephalis. The cephalic part is subdivided in ante-, eu-, and postcephalic lobes. The antecephalic lobe appears as an inflated part on the ventral side, between the V- and double L-rods; the eucephalic lobe is observed as an inflated space in the central part between the A- and V-rods, while the postcephalic lobe appears as an inflated space in the apical side, between the A- and D-rods. The eucephalic lobe is noticeably larger than the postcephalic lobe. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, V-, D-, double L-, double l-, and Ax-spines. Double l-rods are well developed and protrude as spines from the shell wall. The basal ring is developed. Double ap -arch (a kind of AL-arch) and double pj -arch (a kind of LV-arch) are both developed. A deep distinctive suture generally develops between the lobes and in some members, a flat divider made of arches is also visible between the postcephalic and eucephalic lobes. A tube located between the eu- and antecephalic lobes, is closely related to the V-rod.</p> <p>The arrangement of the protoplasm and algal symbionts, as well as the color of the endoplasm, are variable among genera. The ante- and postcephalic lobes are occupied by algal symbionts in Pylobotrys, Amphimelissa and Centrobotrys, whereas the algal symbionts are located on the distal end of the endoplasm in Botryocyrtis and Monotubus.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — late Middle Eocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The definition of ante-, eu- and post-cephalic lobes is that employed by Sugiyama (1998: fig. 3). This family was originally called Cannobotrydidae. However, owing to the nomen dubium status of the type genus of Cannobotrydidae, it has been replaced with valid family name: Pylobotrydidae. The stem of the genitive singular of Pylobotrys is Pylobotryd-. According to Article 29.3.1, if the stem ends in -id, those letters may be elided before adding the family-group suffixes. Although the grammatic spelling of the family derived from Pylobotrys may be “ Pylobotryidae ”, prevailing usage “ Pylobotrydidae ” (Tan &amp; Su 2003: 111; Chen et al. 2017: 172) is hereby retained in accordance with Article 29.5 (maintenance of current spelling). Sugiyama (1998: 233) pointed out the morphological similarity of this family with Dimelissidae (= Lophophaenidae in original) due to the small size, the similar development of arches, and the similarity in the cephalic initial spicular system (concerning the presence or absence of the double l-rods). This view was supported by molecular phylogenic studies because Pylobotrys falls into the same clade as the Plagiacanthoidea, Clade G (Sandin et al. 2019). In fact, Entepipedus (Ceratocyrtidae) has an intermediate form which consists of the presence of double l-rods and the absence of cephalic lobes.</p> <p>A genus belonging to the Pylobotrydidae is identifiable by: 1) the recognition of the A- and V-rods; 2) the relative position between MB and the collar stricture development, defined by the position of the lobes; and 3) the spines and wings derived from the cephalic initial spicular system. A comprehensive examination of the Pylobotrydidae was conducted under light microscopy by Petrushevskaya (1964, 1965, 1968), and was partly confirmed in scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and through other observation methods. SEM images were provided for Pylobotrys (Nishimura 1990: figs 37.1-37.3), Amphimelissa (BjØrklund &amp; Swanberg 1987: figs 3, 4), Botryocella (O’Connor 1999: pl. 1, figs 21-24), Lithocorythium (Sugiyama 1994: pl. 5, fig. 2), and N e obotrys (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 41, fig. 3). The sutures between the lobes result from the position of the arches, although this is not well illustrated in these photos. “Living” and protoplasm images were published for Amphimelissa (Sashida &amp; Uematsu 1994: fig. 3.11?; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig.8.11.15), Pylobotrys (Zhang et al. 2018: 9, fig. 2.34), Botryocyrtis (Matsuoka 2017: fig. 30; Zhang et al. 2018: 9, fig. 2.35) and Monotubus (Zhang et al. 2018: 9, fig. 2.36). Little is known about the evolutionary history of this family, except for visual hypotheses of Centrobotrys (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1981: fig. 12.10) and the family’s genus level (Petrushevskaya 1968).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Amphimelissa</p> <p>Large numbers of Amphimelissa setosa, the type species of this genus,have been illustrated from topotypic regions (BjØrklund&amp; Swanberg 1987; BjØrklund et al. 2015) to clarify the morphological variation within the genus. This species includes a morphotype with three or more rods derived from the initial spicular system (BjØrklund &amp; Swanberg 1987: figs 4.Q, 4.S, 4.W) and a tube or tube-like structure with a free V-rod (BjØrklund &amp; Swanberg 1987: figs 4.C, 4.W, 4.X). Petrushevskaya (1981: 326) revised the definition of Bisphaerocephalina as follows, translated using terminology from Sugiyama (1998):” Postcephalic lobe [note: lobe between A- and D-rods] slightly higher than the eucephalic lobe [note: lobe between A- and V-rods]; it may differentiate into a small tubule. Antecephalic lobe [note: lobe between V- and double L-rods] slightly differentiated [...] V-rod may be linked to a small tube [...] The apical horn and the appendages related to the D- and double L-rods may be well developed [...] ” These characters fall within the range of variation in Amphimelissa. The original description of Bisphaerocephalus by Popofsky (1908) is translated as follows: “ [...] Cephalis smooth, no horn, well differentiated from the thorax, which bears three laterally directed spines [note: spines directly connected from A- and double L-rods] in the collar area. Cephalis separated into two parts [note: postcephalic and eucephalic lobes] by a vertical stricture [...] From the upper part of the thorax to the lower part of the cephalis, the collar area is covered by a secondary mesh [note: antecephalic lobe,...] ”. Popofsky (1908) reported no apical horn, but Petrushevskaya (1965: figs 9.1-9.3) shows wide variety in the lengths of the apical horn and appendages (see supporting image for Bisphaerocephalus). These characters are also within the range of morphological variation in Amphimelissa. Glyco- botrys was proposed by Campbell (1951) to replace Lithobotrys Haeckel 1887 nec Ehrenberg 1844a, using the type species of Lithobotrys geminata. Campbell (1954: D143-144) explained that this genus has tubules and a fenestrated thorax. The topotype was identified in the Ehrenberg collection as L. geminata by Ehrenberg himself (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 19, figs 7a-c), and surely can be identified as this species in the modern sense. The description by Campbell (1954) does not match either this topotype or the type-illustration (Ehrenberg 1876: pl. 3, fig. 19). Foreman (1968: text-figs 11a-c) illustrated the cephalis structure of L. geminata. Based on these specimens, Glycobotrys lacks outcropped rods from the initial spicular system, except for the A-rod, but this genus has a larger postcephalic lobe than eucephalic lobe and a very small antecephalic lobe, as also seen in Amphimelissa at the genus level. Amphimelissa is the oldest available name among these genera.</p> <p>Lithocorythium</p> <p>The type-illustrations of both Lithocorythium (Ehrenberg1854c: pl. 22, fig. 29a, 29b) and Phormobotrys (Haeckel 1887: pl. 96, fig. 26) are in ventral view (showing V- and double L-rods), because the eucephalic lobe (smaller, between A- and V-rods) and postcephalic lobe (larger, between A- and D-rods) are both clearly visible. The first description was written in Latin by Ehrenberg (1847: 54) and is translated as follows: “ Shell with more than one stricture. Last segment whole. With no median appendages. Aperture latticed. ” The next description was written in German by Haeckel (1862: 330) and is translated as follows: “ Multi-segmented lattice shell, subdivided into three or more superposed irregular segments by two or more circular constrictions, with no lateral appendages and a constricted aperture covered by a lattice. ” The type-illustration of Lithocorythium demonstrates that these descriptions are incorrect: the postcephalic lobe is larger and without apical horn or appendages. The type-illustrations likely display the A-rod, which does not protrude from the cephalic wall, and D- and double L-rods, which are merged with the thoracic wall. The supporting image for Lithocorythium, cited by Sanfilippo et al. (1978: pl. 1, figs 4, 5), may not belong to Lithocorythium because the A-, D-, and double L-rods are extruded from the wall. The revised definition of Phormobotrys by Petrushevskaya (1981: 322) using the terminology ofSugiyama (1998) is translated as follows: “ Postcephalic lobe somewhat higher than the eucephalic lobe, with its length passing into a tube [...] No apparent apical horn or other appendages. Thorax well differentiated, but final segment rudimentary. Segments separated by deep internal septa. Aperture on the final segment enclosed by mesh. ” A comparison of the definition and type-illustrations of Lithocorythium and Phormobotrys shows that the only differences between these genera are the segments separated by deep internal septa and final segment rudimentary in the latter genus; however, both of these characters are inappropriate as genus criteria. Haeckel (1887: 1124), the author of Phormobotrys, mentioned the presence of a tube. As Lithocorythium does not appear to have a tube, their synonymy is in doubt. Phylogenetic studies are required to resolve this issue. The name Lithocorythium is older than Phormobotrys.</p> <p>Neobotrys</p> <p>Campbell (1954: D144) described Neobotrys as having an inner trellis consisting of a sagittal ring and appended spines. The sagittal ring is unusual; this description was probably derived from original remarks by Popofsky (1913: 320), whose definition of Neobotrys is translated as follows: “ Neobotrysidae with an inner spicule, composed of a sagittal ring supporting A-, D-, and double L-rods. The rods are enveloped by tubes [...] has two or three cephalic chambers. Based on these chambers, it should be related to the spyrids, after Haeckel [...] ”. As shown in specimens of the type species Neobotrys quadritubolosa (supporting image for Neobotrys in the Atlas), the sagittal ring sensu Popofsky (1913: pl. 30, fig. 4) corresponds to a deep constriction between the postcephalic lobe (between the A- and D-rods) and eucephalic lobe (between the A- and V-rods). The postcephalic and eucephalic lobes of the Pylobotrydidae have an A-rod, associated arches related with the A- and double L-rods, a double ap -arch that connects the L-rod and Al-arch within or attached to the wall (Sandin et al. 2019: supplement). The illustrated specimen provided inPopofsky (1913) is in slightly oblique right dorsal side view, which overlooks several arches within the cephalis, which probably led to the incorrect description of a sagittal ring supporting A-, D-, and double L-rods. Xiphobotrys has a significant apical spine and appendages that are similar to those of Neobotrys. Unlike Neobotrys, Xiphobotrys lacks tubes in association with the very long A-, D-, V-, and double L-rods. Considering the close phylogenetic relationship between these two genera, they should be synonymized as a single genus. The name Neobotrys is older than Xiphobotrys.</p> <p>Pylobotrys</p> <p>The genera synonymized with Pylobotrys differ in the size and development of the postcephalic lobe (between A-and D-rods), antecephalic lobe (between V- and double D-rods), and tubes or appendages in the suture between the postcephalic lobe and thorax (terminology from Sugiyama 1998). Petrushevskaya (1981: 319) synonymized Acrobotrella, Acrobotrissa, and Neobotrys with Acrobotrys, but they require re-interpretation because the validated Acrobotrys is nomen dubium, and the type species have not been illustrated.</p> <p>Acrobotrissa has two homonyms defined byHaeckel (1887: 1114; type species Acrobotrissa trisolenia) and Popofsky (1913: 321; type species Acrobotrissa cribrosa); their type images are documented in the Atlas. The validity of Acrobotrissa is discussed hereafter based on the former type species. Petrushevskaya (1981: 319-320) commented that Acrobotrys is a subjective synonym of Acrobotrissa because their characters are similar, and revised the definition of Acrobotrys, translated as follows: “[...] Postcephalic lobe with a long tube larger than the eucephalic lobe. Height of the eucephalic lobe with its own septa [...] Height of the antecephalic lobes slightly smaller than that of the eucephalic lobe, with a long tube on the ventral side. A rod crossing approx. the middle part of the postcephalic lobe. Collar structure differentiated, but not always very distinct. Tubes other than those of the A- and V-rods may be differentiated, i.e., tubes that are not connected to an internal spicule (in the suture between the postcephalic lobe and thorax) [...] ”. This description matches the type-illustration of Acrobotrissa (Haeckel 1887: pl. 96, fig. 8), and therefore is considered the practical description of Acrobotrissa. Unlike Acrobotrissa, Acrobotrella is defined by the presence of two divergent tubes (apical and sternal) (Haeckel 1887: 1114). This definition excludes morphospecies with a tube in the suture between the cephalic lobe and thorax (cf. type-illustration, Haeckel 1887: pl. 96, fig. 10). However, Acrobotrys trisolenia (Haeckel 1887: pl. 96, fig. 8) and Acrobotrys disolenia (Haeckel 1887: pl. 96, fig. 10) differ only in the presence of this tube. These two species presumably have a direct ancestral relationship; therefore, these genera should be merged into a single genus.</p> <p>The definition of Pylobotrys was revised by Petrushevskaya (1981: 320), translated as follows: “ The postcephalic lobe, and also the galea, are subdivided into upper and lower parts. If the antecephalic lobe is well developed, and if the eucephalic lobe is divided into a collar and an upper part, then the cephalis may appear to be composed of multiple chambers, as reflected in the Haeckelian description and name.” This description of multiple chambers is probably the result of the complex initial spicular system. Petrushevskaya (1981: 320) noted that Pylobotrys is differentiated from Acrobotrissa (originally Acrobotrys) in its shorter tubes and the structure of the cephalis, which is not separated from the thorax by a clear external constriction. Once Acrobotrella was synonymized with Acrobotrissa, the clear external constriction was removed as a genus criterion. The tube length is also insufficient for differentiating among these genera.</p> <p>Ceratobotrys was established according to differences from Acrobotrissa (originally Acrobotrys) including having apical and dorsal spines and two hollow latticed lateral spines, except for A-, D-, and double L-tubes (Nishimura 1990: 169). The presence of these distinctive tubes, which are probably related to double L-rods, clearly differs from Acrobotrissa; however, if this character is applied for genus classification, the taxonomy of the Pylobotrydidae becomes complex, requiring the definition of many new genera. These characters are similar to those of Neobotrys, but the fundamental difference is that Neobotrys has distinctive A-, D-, and double L-rods outside the test. This difference does not allow to synonymize Ceratobotrys with Neobotrys. A remaining concern is that according to Popofsky (1913), Acrobotrissa cribrosa can be classified into Pylobotrys, with one or no tube on the postcephalic lobe; thus, this junior homonym is a synonym of Pylobotrys. No known specimens of A. cribrosa have a tube on the postcephalic lobe; therefore, the absence of a tube on the postcephalic lobe is a stable character. However, Acrobotrys chelinobotrys, described by Takahashi (1991: pl. 45, figs 22-24), is very similar to Ceratobotrys riedeli, the type species of Ceratobotrys, except for a closed postcephalic lobe in A. chelinobotrys. Considering this species-level difference, it is unlikely that A. cribrosa represents a separate genus from Acrobotrissa.</p> <p>The oldest available genus among these groups is Pylobotrys, although the type species of Pylobotrys, P. putealis (Haeckel 1887: pl. 96, fig. 21), has not been seen and was illustrated based solely on its first description by Haeckel.</p> <p>Phylogenetic Molecular Lineage IV Sandin et al. (2019)</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — The shell is generally robust with a completely grown last segment (either abdomen or thorax), which is very large relative to the cephalic size. The collar stricture is easily observable.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Lineage IV includes four superfamilies Cycladophoroidea, Sethoperoidea, Lithochytridoidea, and Pterocorythoidea. For all superfamilies, not including the Sethoperoidea, the placement in the Lineage IV relies upon molecular phylogeny (Sandin et al. 2019), although PhyML bootstrap values (10 000 replicates, BS) and posterior probability (PP) score as&gt;90% and&gt;0.90, respectively. The diagnosis written above is mainly based on the common structures among the Cycladophoroidea, Lithochytridoidea and Pterocorythoidea, which are well recognized as members of a distinct molecular group.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFFEFE5B06A1F904FCF04C7C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFFAFE5B043AFC84FDE44BC3.text	038DDA73FFFAFE5B043AFC84FDE44BC3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Suzuki Suzuki & Caulet & Dumitrica 2021	<div><p>Superfamily CYCLADOPHOROIDEA Suzuki in Sandin, Pillet, Biard, Poirier, Bigeard, Romac, Suzuki &amp; Not, 2019 n. stat. Cycladophoridae Suzuki in Sandin, Pillet, Biard, Poirier, Bigeard, Romac, Suzuki &amp; Not, 2019: 201-202.</p> <p>Suzuki in Sandin, Pillet, Biard, Poirier, Bigeard, Romac, Suzuki &amp; Not, 2019 n. stat.</p> <p>Cycladophoridae Suzuki in Sandin, Pillet, Biard, Poirier, Bigeard, Romac, Suzuki &amp; Not, 2019: 201-202.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Same as the family.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>This superfamily is established so as to maintain consistency at the superfamily rank in Lineage IV.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFFAFE5B043AFC84FDE44BC3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFFAFE5A05BCFB25FB764CC3.text	038DDA73FFFAFE5A05BCFB25FB764CC3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cycladophoridae Suzuki 2019	<div><p>Family CYCLADOPHORIDAE Suzuki in Sandin, Pillet, Biard, Poirier, Bigeard, Romac, Suzuki &amp; Not, 2019</p> <p>Cycladophoridae Suzuki in Sandin, Pillet, Biard, Poirier, Bigeard, Romac, Suzuki &amp; Not, 2019: 201-202.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Cycladophora Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [type species by subsequent monotypy: Cycladophora ? davisiana Ehrenberg, 1862: 297].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Cycladophora Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Cyclamptidium with the same type species; Diplocyclas synonymized by BjØrklund &amp; De Ruiter 1987: 274; Spuroclathrocycla synonymized by Lombari &amp; Lazarus 1988: 108). —? Valkyria O’Connor, 1997a: 74.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Cycladophoridae consist of a helmet-conical shell with two-segments, with or without a frill-like fringe. The cephalis is small, spherical, and may be found pore-less or with relict pores. The thorax is robust and tends to be “well-necked” in its upper part. The thoracic pore frames are generally polygonal-rounded or simply rounded. The width of pore frames is variable in places. Three wing-like rods or rims are visible on upper thoracic wall. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, V-, D-, double l-, double L- and dot-like Ax-rods. A tubular, cephalic horn is absent. Two apical horns emerge from the A-rod, and from the obliquely oriented V-rod. A double Ll-arch develops horizontally and double LV-arch extend at a large angle. The double Dl-arch is of a very small size. Most parts of Ll- and LV-arches are buried in the shell wall whereas the Dl-arch is almost merged with the shell wall to form a tiny clear double hole. The endoplasm is located in the cephalis and upper part of the thorax. No endoplasm is present in the lower half of the test. The occurrence of pseudopodia has not been confirmed as of yet. No algal symbionts are present.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Eocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Cycladophoridae differ from the Lithochytrididae by having the latter three distinctive rims or relevant structures related to the V-and double L-rods. The Cycladophoridae are easily distinguished from the Pterocorythoidea by having the latter a cephalic structure with special lobes (pterocorythidtype). The genus composition of the Cycladophoridae results from the molecular phylogeny (Sandin et al. 2019), but the position of Valkyria is problematic. First, the genus Valkyria is a monotypic genus from the Oligocene to the lowest Miocene (O’Connor 1997a: text-fig. 2) and no descendants have been reported. Secondly, Sandin et al. (2019) tentatively identified it as “ Valkyria ?” because the most similar morphotype representative of the genus presented a phylogenetic disconnection with the Valkyria -species. Nevertheless, the cephalic structure of the paratype Valkyria pukapuka (O’Connor 1997a: textfig. 7, pl. 7, figs 11, 12) is identical to that of Cycladophora (Nakaseko &amp; Nishimura 1982: pl. 48, fig. 2; Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 36, figs 8a, 8b; Poluzzi 1982: pl. 23, fig. 13; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 21, fig. 3). As repeatedly admitted (Matsuzaki et al. 2015; Sandin et al. 2019), the morphological difference between the Theopiliidae and the Cycladophoridae remains unclear (see remarks in Theopiliidae). A polygonal frame on the thorax and a fragile shell wall are common in Theopiliidae (see remarks in Theopiliidae). The robust shallow-hat shaped nassellarians with polygonal frames were mainly described in the northwestern Pacific and Sea of Japan (e.g., Cycladophora sphaeris (Popova, 1989); Cycladophora urymensis (Popova, 1989); Cycladophora nakasekoi Motoyama, 1996; Cycladophora funakawai Kamikuri, 2010, in published year order). Excepting the difference in polygonal frame, these species share a common structure to Cycladophora. The evolutionary phylogenetic studies, based on species with a continuous stratigraphic record in the aforementioned areas, conclude that Cycladophora davisiana, the type species of Cycladophora, directly evolved from Cycladophora sphaeris (Popova, 1989) (originally Cycladophora sakaii), which in turn is the direct descendant of C. funakawai (Motoyama 1997; Kamikuri 2010). This suggests that a robust skeleton is also a key distinguishing feature for the Cycladophoridae. Other Cycladophoridae taxa are found in these areas and some attempts were made to reconstruct the evolution of the traditional Cycladophoridae which diverged, or evolved, from the Coniforma -form of Anthocyrtis (originally Coniforma; Late Cretaceous), Anthocyrtis (Eocene), the Clathrocyclas -form of Anthocyrtis (end of Eocene to Oligocene), the Spuroclathrocyclas -form of Cycladophora (Spuroclathrocyclas in original; Miocene to Pliocene), and Cycladophora (Pliocene-Pleistocene), respectively (Tochilina &amp; Vasilenko 2015, 2018b). If this reconstruction could be supported at a species level, the Anthocyrtididae would then belong to the same superfam- ily as the Cycladophoridae, or would become synonym of Cycladophoridae. The “Living” appearance of Cycladophora has been well documented (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: figs 8.10.8, 8.10.9, 8.11.21; Zhang et al. 2018: 19, figs 7.26, 7.27).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Cycladophora</p> <p>The type designation for Cycladophora has a complex history because three species, Cycladophora davisiana, Cycladophora stiligera, and Cycladophora tabulata were each selected as the type species in different publications. The genus name was proposed without any assigned species in 1846. The species name was first applied as “ Cycladophora ? davisiana ” by Ehrenberg (1862: 297), but this is not accepted as the first named species of Cycladophora according to the Code (ICZN 1999), article 67.2.5 of which states, “ A nominal species is deemed not to be originally included if it was doubtfully or conditionally includes [...]”. The next applications of Cycladophora were as Cycladophora davisiana and Cycladophora tabulata in Ehrenberg (1873b: 288-289, pl. 2, fig. 11; p. 145, 288- 289, pl. 4, fig. 18 for the latter). Thus, according to ICZN (1999) article 67.2.2, the type species must be selected from Ehrenberg (1873b). Because Ehrenberg had already placed davisiana within Cycladophora, Cycladophora davisiana takes precedence over Cycladophora tabulata as the type species, even if the first application was questionably assigned. Unfortunately, the type specimen of Cycladophora tabulata is missing from the Ehrenberg collection. Thus, Cycladophora tabulata is considered nomen dubium, and the type designation of Cycladophora tabulata by Foreman (1973b: 434) is unlikely. Unaware of the recommendations of ICZN (1926) article 30:III-q, stating that, all else equal, “ show preference to a species which the author of the genus actually studied at or before the time he [sic] proposed the genus,” Campbell (1954: D132) wrongly designated Cycladophora stiligera as the type species of Cycladophora. Cycladophora stiligera was described by Ehrenberg (1874), and therefore cannot be selected as the type species according toICZN (1999) article 67.2.2, which states, “ If a nominal genus [...] was established before 1931 [...] without included nominal species, the nominal species that were first subsequently and expressively included in it are deemed to be the only originally included nominal species.” Thus, Cycladophora davisiana is the only valid type species of Cycladophora. Cyclamptidium has the same type species as Cycladophora. Diplocyclas was previously synonymized with Cycladophora by BjØrklund &amp; De Ruiter (1987: 274). The type species of Spuroclathrocyclas, Clathrocyclas semeles, was placed in Cycladophora by Lombari &amp; Lazarus (1988); thus, Spuroclathrocyclas is potentially a synonym of Cycladophora, although this genus was established in 1989, 1 year later than Lombari &amp; Lazarus (1988). Therefore, the taxonomic characters of Spuroclathrocyclas require evaluation.</p> <p>Spuroclathrocyclas was defined by Popova (1989: 72), translated as “ Three-segmented shell with an aperture with peristome. First segment spherical and well differentiated, with two apical cylindrical or side horns as external extensions of the A- and V-rods. On the opposite side to the first and second horns is another horn formed by external extension of the single internal rod, which is rarely preserved.Second segment sometimes designated as a pedestal, sub-cylindrical, slightly wider than the first segment.Third segment bell-shaped. First segment smooth, not separated from the second (pedestal) by a constriction. Sharp constriction with an internal septum between the second and third segments. Third segment swollen. Aperture slightly constricted or as wide as the widest part of the last segment. Inner peristome sometimes bearing apophyses of considerable length. Pores are medium on the first and second segments, and wider and quincuncially distributed on the third segment. Walls of most segments are uniformly thin. Basal spines have large pores and are not always preserved.” Spuroclathrocyclas differs from Cycladophora davisiana in four ways: bell-shaped abdomen, ambiguous separation between the cephalis and thorax (pedestal), sharp constriction with an internal septum between the thorax and abdomen, and aperture slight constricted. The species best fitting these characters is Spuroclathrocyclas sphaeris, which is a senior synonym of Cycladophora sakaii; however, based on high-resolution biostratigraphy (Motoyama 1997), this species is the direct ancestor of Cycladophora davisiana. Based on this analysis, Cycladophora davisiana and Cycladophora sphaeris should belong to the same genus. Among these genus names, Cycladophora is the oldest.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFFAFE5A05BCFB25FB764CC3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFFBFE5A0662FC24FB314A1D.text	038DDA73FFFBFE5A0662FC24FB314A1D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sethoperoidea Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Superfamily SETHOPEROIDEA Haeckel, 1882 n. stat.</p> <p>Sethoperida Haeckel, 1882: 433 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1192, 1194, 1232 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Same as the family.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The independency of this superfamily and its relationship to other Lineage IV superfamilies has not been recognized due to the lack of molecular phylogenic data for the Sethoperidae. The complexity of the cephalis and the mono-segmentation resemble that of the Plagiacanthoidea.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFFBFE5A0662FC24FB314A1D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFFBFE440691FA69FE4D4A01.text	038DDA73FFFBFE440691FA69FE4D4A01.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Tripocyrtidae	<div><p>Family SETHOPERIDAE Haeckel, 1882</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Sethoperida Haeckel, 1882: 433 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1192, 1194, 1232 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Archicorida Haeckel, 1882: 427 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; 1887: 1133, 1179, 1180 [as a subfamily]. — Wisniowski 1889: 687.</p> <p>Callimitrida Haeckel, 1882: 431 [below tribe].</p> <p>Sethophatnida Haeckel, 1882: 433 [as a tribe].</p> <p>Sethophaenida – Haeckel 1887: 1192, 1242, 1285 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Tripocyrtida Haeckel, 1887: 1192-1194 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1986 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 181 [as a family]. — nec Cayeux 1894: 212.</p> <p>Tripocyrtidae – Haecker 1908: 448. — Popofsky 1908: 274; 1913: 333. — Schröder 1914: 100. — Wailes 1937: 13. — Clark &amp; Camp- bell 1942: 65; 1945: 37. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 41; 1944b: 23. — Chediya 1959: 199. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 274. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 169; 2003: 113. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 153. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 296. — Chen et al. 2017: 182.</p> <p>Sethoperinae – Haecker 1908: 448-451. — Campbell 1954: D124. — Chediya 1959: 203. — Petrushevskaya 1971a: 76-80; 1971b: 989-990 (sensu emend.); 1981: 295. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 279. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 140. — Chen et al. 2017: 198.</p> <p>Archicorinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 65 [nomen dubium]; 1945: 35. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 40; 1944b: 22. — Chediya 1959: 196.</p> <p>Sethoperidae – Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 535 (sensu emend.); Petrushevskaya 1975: 589; 1981: 291-295. — Dumitrica 1979: 30. — Takahashi 1991: 98. — De Wever et al. 2001: 236, 238. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S293. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 140.</p> <p>Tripocyrtididae – Poche 1913: 220.</p> <p>Sethophatninae – Campbell 1954: D128 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Sethophaeninae – Chediya 1959: 208 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Sethophatnidae – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 228 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Sethopera Haeckel, 1882: 433 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D124): Sethopera tricostata Haeckel, 1887: 1232] = junior subjective synonym of Clathrocanium Ehrenberg, 1861b: 829 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D122): Clathrocanium squarrosum Ehrenberg, 1873a: 303].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Callimitra Haeckel, 1882: 431 (= Arachnothauma n. syn.). — Clathrocanium Ehrenberg, 1861b: 829 (= Clathrocanidium with the same type species; Arachnopilium, Clathrocorona, Clathrolychnus synonymized byPetrushevskaya 1971a: 80; Tripocyrtis synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 300; Sethopera n. syn.). — Clathrocorys Haeckel, 1882: 431. — Dictyocodoma Haeckel, 1887: 1335. — Dictyocodon Haeckel, 1882: 435 (= Dictyocodella with the same type species). — Pteropilium Haeckel, 1882: 435 (= Clathropilium with the same type species).</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Sethophaena.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Archibursa, Archicorys, Sethophatna.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Sethoperidae consist of a one- to two- segmented, rounded pyramidal shell with one long apical horn and three long feet (or wings). The cephalis is latticed. A wired screen develops between the apical horn and each of the feet, (or wings) and/or between the feet (or wings) and thorax. The thorax varies from a three-sided, rounded pyramid to a basket-like from. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, V-, D-, and the double-L rods. Double l-rod absent. The basal ring is directly connected to the D- and double L-rods forming three collar pores. Several arches develop freely in the cephalic cavity, or are attached on the inner side of the cephalic wall. However, but these do not form sutures on the cephalic wall. The combination and connecting ends of the arches such as AD-arch, ap -arch (one of AL-arch), ac -arch (one of AD-arch) and pj -arch (one of VL-arch) are variable. A straight double a -spinule extends laterally as a part of the ap -arch, a second double arch named the m -(ap) arch, may develop between the m -position on the A-rod and the ap -arch. A further second double arch may be present between the g -position of the A-rod and the m -(ap) arch. The V-rod is present but never protrudes through the cephalic wall. In its place, a very small ventral tube exists.</p> <p>The protoplasm is observed in Callimitra and Clathrocanium. The endoplasm with multi-nuclei or a single nucleus is very small, transparent, and located in the cephalic cavity. Several algal symbionts are located inside and/or just below the cephalis.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Eocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The taxonomic position of the Sethoperidae at the superfamily and lineage levels, as well as the taxonomic differences between the Phaenocalpididae and Sethoperidae require additional studies. Tripocyrtis appear to be a synonym of Periplecta (Phaenocalpididae) while Dictyocodoma and Clathropilium appear to be members of the Stichopiliidae and Ceratocyrtidae, respectively. In most cases, the Sethoperidae are distinguished from the Phaenocalpididae by the presence of a wired screen in the cephalis and thorax. However, in some critical cases, a detailed examination of the cephalic initial spicular system is necessary (Tripocyrtis vs Periplecta). The cephalic initial spicular system of the Phaenocalpididae is broadly similar to that of the Sethoperidae. The differences between the Sethoperidae and the Phaenocalpididae are: 1) the development a second arch along D- and double L-rods outside of the basal ring in Sethoperidae; 2) the lack of developed sutures on the cephalis with cephalic arches in Sethoperidae; and 3) the presence of a straight a-spinule and arches that are related to m- and g-positions on the A-rod forming a “segmented” appearance inside the cephalis from dorsal or ventral view in Sethoperidae. The type-illustration of Dictyocodoma is probably obtained from the dorsal or ventral view of Stichopiliidae. This view allows the user to find a single apical horn if the supporting image is indeed correct. However, this observation is structurally impossible as the view with the three wings should be also associated with the identification of both apical and ventral horns. A Pteropilium species was previously identified as a member of Lipmanella (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 34, fig. 7). However, if the cephalic initial spicular system defined by Funakawa (2000) is considered, Pteropilium is completely different from Lipmanella.</p> <p>The cephalic initial spicular system has been well illustrated for Callimitra (Nishimura 1990: figs 22.3, 22.4; Takahashi 1991: pl. 27, fig. 3), Clathrocanium (Poluzzi 1982: pl. 29, figs 1-3; Takahashi 1991: pl. 26, figs 12; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 15, fig. 4), Clathrocorys (Nishimura 1990: figs 21.3, 22.1, 22.2, 23.5; Sugiyama 1994: pl. 2, figs 1, 2), Pteropilium (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 34, fig. 7), and Tripocyrtis (Nishimura 1990: figs 23.1, 23.2, 23.4). These genera have small size and they are frequently overlooked in many plankton studies. Nonetheless, some living images were illustrated for Callimitra (Anderson 1983: fig. 1.2.G; Matsuoka 1999: pl. 1, fig.1; 2017: fig.20; Zhang et al. 2018: 9, fig. 33; pl. 10, figs 31, 46, 47) and Clathrocanium (Suzuki et al. 2009b: figs 2O, 2P; Zhang et al. 2018: 10, fig. 4, p. 13, fig. 21).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Callimitra</p> <p>The precise anatomical description of Callimitra was written by Petrushevskaya (1981: 301) and revised by Goll (1979:</p> <p>386) as follows: “[...] characterized by 3 large lattice panels extending laterally from the tip of the apical apophysis to the tips of each of the frontal and primary lateral apophyses.” Arachnothauma was described as follows: “ Shell cupola- or helm-shaped with three delicate convex appendages downwardly curved. From them originate pairs of divergent small lateral apophyses [...] From the top of the cephalis originates a similar appendage [...] with also lateral apophyses. Between them are distributed extremely thin threads that are linked again to other oblique threads. This structure gives the impression that a very small spider web has covered a very elegant beam structure ” (translation from Zacharias 1906: 566-567). This description of Arachnothauma and the type-illustration (Zacharias 1906: fig. 19) match those of Callimitra. Zacharias (1906) did not compare Arachnothauma to Callimitra. They are indeed clearly synonyms. The name Callimitra is older than Arachnothauma.</p> <p>Clathrocanium</p> <p>Clathrocanidium has the same type species as Clathrocanium. Clathrocanium, Clathrocorona, Arachnopilium, Clathrolychnus, Sethopera, and Tripocyrtis are defined in terms of their ontogenetic growth stages. Clathrocanium (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 54, figs 5a-d), Sethopera (Haeckel 1887: pl. 97, fig. 11), and Tripocyrtis (Haeckel 1887: pl. 60, fig. 10) represent the youngest stage, without a perforated apical horn. Clathrocorona (Haeckel 1887: pl. 64, fig. 2), with perforated apical horn and three perforated basal feet, represents the next growth stage, and is illustrated in the Atlas as a supporting image for Clathrocanidium. The next growth stages are Clathrolychnus (Haeckel 1887: pl. 64, fig. 5), with a perforation connecting the apical horn and basal feet, followed by Arachnopilium (Haeckel 1887: pl. 64, fig. 7), with the development of a perforated thin cover around the three gates between the basal feet. Arachnopilium is illustrated as a supporting image for Clathrocorona and Clathrolychnus in the Atlas.</p> <p>Superfamily LITHOCHYTRIDOIDEA Ehrenberg, 1846 n. stat.</p> <p>Lithochytrina Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [as a family]; 1847: 53 [as a family].</p> <p>Lychnocanioidea – Petrushevskaya 1986: 132-132. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S295-296. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 144.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Lithochytridoidea consist of two- to three-segmented Nassellaria with a stout vertical apical horn, a spherical cephalis, a conical or globular thorax, as well as three feet or a relevant structure. The feet are principally connected to the D- and double L-rods of the cephalic initial spicular system. Expect for a few exceptions, an aperture is present.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Lithochytridoidea consists of the Bekomidae and Lithochytrididae. Based on the results of the molecular phylogeny, Lamprotripus and Dictyopodium (= Pterocanium in original) form a tight, single group (Sandin et al. 2019).</p> <p>Family BEKOMIDAE Dumitrica in De Wever, Dumitrica, Caulet, Nigrini &amp; Caridroit, 2001</p> <p>Bekomidae Dumitrica in De Wever, Dumitrica, Caulet, Nigrini &amp; Caridroit, 2001: 284. — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 63-64.</p> <p>Bekominae – Afanasieva et al. 2005: S296. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 145.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Bekoma Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo, 1971: 1592 [type species by monotypy: Bekoma bidarfensis Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo, 1971: 1592].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Bekoma Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo, 1971: 1592. — Bekomiforma Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel, 1974: 1020. — Lamprotripus Haeckel, 1882: 431. — Orbula Foreman, 1973a: 437.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Stichocampe, Stichopterium.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Bekomidae consist of two-segmented Lithochytridoidea (exclusive of Orbula) with six collar pores that form the basal ring of the cephalis, two free A- and V-rods in the cephalic cavity, and three feet. Except in the case of Lamprotripus, the cephalis is covered with a thick siliceous wall. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of A-, V-, D-, double l-, and double L-rods. A combination of A- and V-rods, or solely A-rod, forms one or more significant cylindrical apical horn(s). D- and double L-rods protrude from the cephalis and form three feet or rims on the thorax. The MB is located in the center of the basal aperture of the cephalis. The basal ring is directly connected to the D-, double l- and double L-rods. The basal ring tends to be located horizontally in the cephalic cavity. Although the basal ring is generally merged to the shell wall, it is well visible in older forms (Bekoma and Bekomiforma) but degraded in a younger form (Lamprotripus).</p> <p>A protoplasm is observed in Lamprotripus. The endoplasm is opaque dark grey, filling the upper part of the shell at the level where three rod wings are separated from the shell. No algal symbionts are present.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Bekomidae are distinguishable from the Lithochytrididae. The latter lack the double l-rod and have four collar pores instead of six and their MB is oblique to the collar stricture.The cephalic initial spicular system was illustrated for Bekoma (Nishimura 1992: pl. 5, figs 4, 5, 9, 11; pl. 8, fig. 5?), Bekomiforma (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 20, fig. 1) and Lamprotripus (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 31, fig.1; Nishimura 1990: figs 26.6, 26.7, 29.6; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 22, fig. 1). The diagnosis written above excludes the characteristics of “ Lamprotripus ” mawsoni (Riedel 1958). As this species lacks the double l- and V-rods (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 16, figs 4, 5), it cannot be placed in Lamprotripus. This species is also grouped with Dictyopodium (= Pterocanium in original) but not Lamprotripus in the Clade I (Sandin et al. 2019). “ L.” mawsoni has three collar pores as opposed to four.Sugiyama et al. (1992: 18-19) conceptualized it as a new genus. The living appearance of Lamprotripus is documented (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.10.15).</p> <p>Family LITHOCHYTRIDIDAE Ehrenberg, 1846</p> <p>sensu Suzuki in Matsuzaki et al. (2015)</p> <p>Lithochytrina Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [as a family]; 1847: 53 [as a family]. — Schomburgk 1847: 124, 125 [as a family]. — Ehrenberg 1876: 156.</p> <p>Lychnocanida Haeckel, 1882: 432 [below tribe].</p> <p>Lithornithida Haeckel, 1882: 436 [nomen dubium, below tribe].</p> <p>Lychnocaniinae – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 227-228; 1981: 239-240. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S296. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 144.</p> <p>Lychnocaniidae – Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 552. — Petrushevskaya 1975: 583; 1981: 229-230; 1986: 133. — Dumitrica 1979: 34. — Kozlova 1999: 127. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S296. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 144. — Suzuki in Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 50.</p> <p>Lithochytridinae – Petrushevskaya 1981: 244. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: 296. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 144.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Lithochytris Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D132): Lithochytris vespertilio Ehrenberg, 1874: 239].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Dictyopodium Ehrenberg, 1847: 54 (= Pterocanarium n. syn.; Pterocanidium and Pleuropodium synonymized by Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970: 529; Lychnodictyum synonymized by Lazarus et al. 1985: 196). — Inversumbella Nigrini &amp; Caulet, 1992: 150. — Lithochytris Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Lithochytridium with the same type species; Sethochytris synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 247). — Lychnocanissa Haeckel, 1887: 1226 (= Acerahedrina, Acerocanium, Lychnocanoma synonymized by Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970: 529; Podocyrtecium n. syn.). — Lychnocanium Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Dictyophimium with the same type species; Lithochytrodes synonymized byPetrushevskaya 1975: 583; Lychnocanella n. syn.). —? Verutotholus O’Connor, 1999: 13.</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Tetrahedrina.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Lithornithium, Tetraedrina.</p> <p>NOMEN NUDUM. — Fenestracanthia.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Lithochytrididae consist of two or three segmented Lithochytridoidea with four collar pores on the cephalic basal ring, a free A-rod in the cephalic cavity, and a very short to very long apical horn on the spherical cephalis. Three (rarely two) feet or wings are always present. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, D-, V- and double L-rods. No l-rods are observed. The basal ring is directly connected to the apical side end of MB, V-, and the double L-rods. Furthermore, the basal ring is sharply bended along the line, with the double L-rods. The apical side of the basal ring is merged with the shell wall but all four collar pores are easily recognizable. The V-rod occasionally extends outward from the cephalic wall. The MB is oriented slightly toward to the apical side. The double mp -arch (upper arch of the double AL-arch in the cephalis) is embedded in the cephalic wall and is occasionally visible, near the uppermost A-rod on the cephalis, under light microscopy. The D- and double L-rods merge with the shell wall, forming wall rims. These rods are also connected with each foot.</p> <p>A protoplasm is observed in Dictyopodium. The endoplasm is transparent and appears as four lobes below the cephalis. The size of the lobe is variable, from very small near the cephalis to large close to the aperture. Many algal symbionts are distributed around the lobes. The endoplasm is observed inside or outside the shell. The pseudopodia are found radiating around the thorax. An axial projection is absent.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The problem in defining Lithochytrididae originates from the poorly reported cephalic structure in the type genus Lithochytris and its closest genus Lychnocanium. The cephalic structure was only reported for Lithochytris (Nishimura 1990: figs 28.2, 28.3) and Lychnocanium (Nishimura 1990: fig.28.1). By contrast, the cephalic structure was repeatedly illustrated in Dictyopodium (Dumitrica 1973a: pl. 13, figs 3-6; Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 30, figs 7, 9; Nishimura 1990: fig. 29.7; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 24, figs 5-8, pl. 25, figs 1, 3, 4). To the best of our knowledge, the detailed structure of Dictyopodium is nearly the same as that of Lychnocanium but the former displays the most representative characters of Lithochytrididae. The cephalic structure of Lychnocanissa (originally Lychnocanium) was only observed in the late Eocene to early Miocene specimens (O’Connor 1997a: pl. 9, figs 9-12; 1999; pl. 4, figs 12-15, pl. 4, figs 22-27). However, their cephalic base is completely separate from the shell test while the basal ring is affixed to the shell test by numerous short radial beams. These characters are typical for the Theoperidae. High species diversity is documented in Lychnocanissa (originally Lychnocanoma) (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970; Petrushevskaya 1981). Nonetheless, several species may not belong to this genus. Verutotholus is tentatively included in the Lithochytrididae though this genus has a double AL-arch, six collar pores and the presence of double l-rods (O’Connor 1999: pl. 2, figs 16, 20, 22b), more closely resembling the Bekomidae. An endemic Lychnocanissa with only two feet was originally described as Acerahedrina (Vinassa de Regny 1900). In regard to the cephalic structure of the Acerahedrina -form of Lychnocanissa (Nishimura 1990: figs 27.4-27.6; Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 17, fig. 2), the character of the cephalic base is similar to that of Dictyopodium and, thus, this form evidently belongs to the Lithochytrididae. The two feet of the Acerahedrina - form of Lychnocanissa are aligned parallel to the plane that includes MB-, D-, and V-rods. One of the feet appears to be connected with the D-rod while the other is disconnected from any initial rod.</p> <p>The members of the Lithochytrididae and the valid genera names in the Lithochytrididae were historically misunderstood. As for the family, all Lithochytrididae genera except for “ Lychnocanoma ” and “ Pterocanium ” (the valid names are Lychnocanissa and Dictyopodium in this paper) were not treated in De Wever et al. (2001). De Wever et al. (2001) placed Dictyopodium in the Mesozoic family Ultranaporidae Pessagno 1977a. The current usage of the latter name has been already discussed and resolved by Matsuzaki et al. (2015: 49-50). The valid genus name and correct type species for Lychnocanium (Sanfilippo et al. 1973: 221; Petrushevskaya 1981: 242), “ Lychnocanoma ” (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970: 529; Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 553; Petrushevskaya 1981: 241; Nishimura 1990: 132-133; O’Connor 1997a: 77-78; 1999: 24), and “ Pterocanium ” (the valid genus name is Dictyopodium in this paper) (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970: 529; Petrushevskaya 1981: 237) were not fully agreed among previous researchers. The main argument concerned whether Lychnocanium lucerna Ehrenberg 1847 or Lychnocanium falciferum Ehrenberg, 1854 was the correct type species of Lychnocanium. A similar problem occurred between Pterocanium proserpinae Ehrenberg 1859 and Lithocampe aculeata Ehrenberg 1844b for the correct type species of Pterocanium.</p> <p>The Lithochytrididae are commonly found from late Eocene sediments to the modern ocean, but the study of their evolution is limited. The evolutionary history of the genus Dictyopodium (= Pterocanium in original) was documented (Lazarus et al. 1985). One solution for the evolution of Lithochytris - Lychnocanium was proposed (Kling 1978: 234; Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1981: fig. 12.11).</p> <p>Knowledge of the living status of the Lithochytrididae is mainly based on Dictyopodium (Matsuoka 1993a: fig. 2.5; 1993b: pl. 5, figs 1, 2; 2017: fig. 23; Suzuki &amp; Aita 2011: fig. 5N; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.11.17). Algal symbionts of Dictyopodium praetextum (Ehrenberg) were identified as Gymnoxanthella radiolariae but Brandtodinium nucleate remained absent. The identified symbiont is the same dinoflagellate species as those found in Acanthodesmia (Acanthodesmiidae) and Dictyocoryne (Euchitoniidae, Spumellaria) (Yuasa et al. 2016).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Dictyopodium</p> <p>The concept of the valid genus Dictyopodium is equivalent to the current usage of Pterocanium because Dictyopodium trilobum, the type species of Dictyopodium, has been classified under the current concept of Pterocanium for more than 130 years (Haeckel 1887). The type species of Pterocanarium is Pterocanium proserpinae, which has been classified in Pterocanium for over a century, but was synonymized with Podocyrtis charybdea by Petrushevskaya (1971a). Lazarus et al. (1985) reconstructed the phylogeny of late Neogene Pterocanium to include Pterocanium charybdeum and Pterocanium trilobum (originally P. charybdeum trilobum); subsequently, Pterocanarium was synonymized with Dictyopodium, and the genera Pterocanidium, Pleuropodium, and Lychnodictyum were synonymized with Dictyopodium. Among these, the oldest available name is Dictyopodium.</p> <p>Lychnocanissa</p> <p>In the Atlas, Lychnocanissa corresponds to Lychnocanoma sensu Foreman (1973b: 437), Sanfilippo et al. (1973: 221), Morley &amp; Nigrini (1995: 80), and Suzuki in Matsuzaki et al. (2015: 50) and to Lychnocanium sensu Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo (1970: 529), Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova (1972: 553), Petrushevskaya (1981: 242), Nishimura (1990: 132-133), Kozlova (1999: 128), and O’Connor (1997a: 77-78; 1999: 24). Our concept is also equivalent to a combination of Lychnocanium and Lychnocanoma, sensu Tochilina &amp; Vasilenko (2018a: 23). The type-illustration of Podocyrtecium shows three segmentations (Haeckel 1887: pl. 72, fig. 1), but this is likely incorrect because no three-segmented specimens similar to Lychnocanoma have been found. Lychnocanissa, Lychnocanoma, and Podocyrtecium were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1887: 1226 for Lychnocanissa, 1229 for Lychnocanoma and 1339 for Podocyrtecium). Selecting a valid genus is problematic. Campbell (1954: D124) considered Lychnocanissa the nominate subgenus of Lychnocanium. However, the type species of Lychnocanium, Lychnocanium lucerna, was not originally included in Lychnocanissa. Species included at that time included Lychnocanium falciferum, Lychnocanium fenestratum, Lychnocanium fortipes, Lychnocanium sigmopodium, Lychnocanium tetrapodium, Lychnocanium trichopus, and Lychnocanium tuberosum. Campbell (1954) did not designate a type species for Lychnocanissa. Therefore, we newly designated Lychnocanium falciferum as a type species in the Atlas. Lychnocanium falciferum was designated as the type species of Lychnocanium by Campbell (1954: D124), but many authors have commented that this designation is incorrect. One of the authors of the present study (NS) suggested that Lychnocanoma be validated several times over a period of 2 years; however, the final consensus is that Lychnocanissa is a valid genus. The validation of Lychnocanissa over Lychnocanoma obviously violates ICZN (1999) article 23.9, which states, “ 23.9.1. Prevailing usage must be maintained when the following conditions are both met: 23.9.1. The senior synonym [...] has not been used as a valid name after 1899, and 23.9.1.2. The junior synonym [...] has been used for a particular taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years.”</p> <p>Lychnocanium</p> <p>There are two concepts of Lychnocanium, one based on the designation of Lychnocanium falciferum as the type species by Campbell (1954: D124), and the other based on the designation of Lychnocanium lucerna, the first species assigned to Lychnocanium, as the type species by Ehrenberg (1847). This confusion has continued since the early 1970s (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970; Sanfilippo et al. 1973; Petrushevskaya 1981; O’Connor 1997a; Tochilina &amp; Vasilenko 2018a). The only correct solution is for Lychnocanium lucerna to be designated as the type species, according to ICZN (1999) article 69.3, which states, “ Type species by subsequent monotypy. If only one nominal species was first subsequently included in a nominal genus or subgenus without included species, that nominal species is automatically fixed as the type species, by subsequent monotypy. ” Under this monotypy, the concept of Lychnocanium sensu Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo (1970: 529), Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova (1972: 553), Petrushevskaya (1981: 241), Nishimura (1990: 132-133), Kozlova (1999: 128) and O’Connor (1997a: 77-78; 1999: 24), and Tochilina &amp; Vasilenko (2018a: 23) is incorrect.</p> <p>Under the correct type species, Lychnocanium is synonymized with Lithochytrodes and Lychnocanella. Dictyophimium has the same type species as Lychnocanium. Lychnocanella was defined by Kozlova (1999: 127) and is translated as follows: “ Threesegmented shell with three well-developed feet, protruding from the base of the thorax. This genus differs from Lychnocanium Ehrenberg [note: type species L. lucerna in this case] only by a pear-shaped thorax with an elongated proximal part. ” This difference is a major distinguishing feature at the species level but not at the genus level. Petrushevskaya (1981: 241) strongly disagreed with the relationship between Lychnocanium and Lychnocanella, but this opinion was based on the incorrect type species, L. falciferum, not L. lucerna. Lithochytrodes was synonymized with Lychnocanella by Petrushevskaya (1975: 583). Later comments by Petrushevskaya (1981: 256) are translated as follows: “ Characteristics similar to those of Lychnocanella. Differences include a more precise distinction between the second and third segments [...] about 10-20 longitudinal rows of pores [...] Lithochytrodes is proposed as a subjective synonym of Lychnocanella.” Among these groups, Lychnocanium is the oldest available name.</p> <p>Superfamily PTEROCORYTHOIDEA Haeckel, 1882</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Pterocorida Haeckel, 1882: 435 [below a tribe].</p> <p>Pterocoryacea – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1984: 122.</p> <p>Pterocorythoidea – Suzuki in Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 49-50.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Pterocorythoidea consist of three segmented Nassellaria with a stout, vertical apical horn, a spherical or elongated cephalis, a truncated conical thorax, and a very variable size last segment. Generally, no feet extend from the abdomen. If feet are present and extend from the abdomen, they remain disconnected from any rods of the cephalis spicular system. An aperture is observable except in the case of a few exceptions. The A-rod side of the MB is positioned very close to the shell wall or may be merged, becoming a part of the shell wall. The V-rod side of the MB is generally located at the center of the cephalic basal aperture. The V-rod is oriented upward at an angle of 30-45 degrees from the horizontal plane. The stability of the cephalis spicular system varies throughout families.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Pterocorythoidea include the Lophocyrtiidae, Pterocorythidae, Theocotylidae and Theoperidae.As the Pterocorythidae is the only family with living genera (Anthocyrtidium, Pterocorys, and Theocorythium), the taxonomic position of the remaining three families is only based on morphological data. Matsuzaki et al. (2015) also included the Lithochytrididae (originally Lychnocaniidae) but did not conclude Lophocyrtiidae, Theocotylidae and Theoperidae as these families were not encountered in their study. Herein, the diagnosis is altered in order to align with these Cenozoic families. As three families of the Pterocorythoidea are extinct, the evolution between them can only be reconstructed by examining the fossil evidence. From an anatomical perspective, the Spongiopodium -form of Paralampterium has characters that resemble a combination of those found in Lophocyrtiidae and Theoperidae. Calocyclas has a mix of characters found in the Pterocorythidae and the Theocotylidae.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFFBFE440691FA69FE4D4A01	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFE5FE440675FF06FADF4991.text	038DDA73FFE5FE440675FF06FADF4991.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Bekomidae Dumitrica in De Wever, Dumitrica, Caulet, Nigrini & Caridroit 2001	<div><p>Family BEKOMIDAE Dumitrica in De Wever, Dumitrica, Caulet, Nigrini &amp; Caridroit, 2001</p> <p>Bekomidae Dumitrica in De Wever, Dumitrica, Caulet, Nigrini &amp; Caridroit, 2001: 284. — Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 63-64.</p> <p>Bekominae – Afanasieva et al. 2005: S296. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 145.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Bekoma Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo, 1971: 1592 [type species by monotypy: Bekoma bidarfensis Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo, 1971: 1592].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Bekoma Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo, 1971: 1592. — Bekomiforma Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel, 1974: 1020. — Lamprotripus Haeckel, 1882: 431. — Orbula Foreman, 1973a: 437.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Stichocampe, Stichopterium.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Bekomidae consist of two-segmented Lithochytridoidea (exclusive of Orbula) with six collar pores that form the basal ring of the cephalis, two free A- and V-rods in the cephalic cavity, and three feet. Except in the case of Lamprotripus, the cephalis is covered with a thick siliceous wall. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of A-, V-, D-, double l-, and double L-rods. A combination of A- and V-rods, or solely A-rod, forms one or more significant cylindrical apical horn(s). D- and double L-rods protrude from the cephalis and form three feet or rims on the thorax. The MB is located in the center of the basal aperture of the cephalis. The basal ring is directly connected to the D-, double l- and double L-rods. The basal ring tends to be located horizontally in the cephalic cavity. Although the basal ring is generally merged to the shell wall, it is well visible in older forms (Bekoma and Bekomiforma) but degraded in a younger form (Lamprotripus).</p> <p>A protoplasm is observed in Lamprotripus. The endoplasm is opaque dark grey, filling the upper part of the shell at the level where three rod wings are separated from the shell. No algal symbionts are present.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Bekomidae are distinguishable from the Lithochytrididae. The latter lack the double l-rod and have four collar pores instead of six and their MB is oblique to the collar stricture.The cephalic initial spicular system was illustrated for Bekoma (Nishimura 1992: pl. 5, figs 4, 5, 9, 11; pl. 8, fig. 5?), Bekomiforma (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 20, fig. 1) and Lamprotripus (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 31, fig.1; Nishimura 1990: figs 26.6, 26.7, 29.6; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 22, fig. 1). The diagnosis written above excludes the characteristics of “ Lamprotripus ” mawsoni (Riedel 1958). As this species lacks the double l- and V-rods (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 16, figs 4, 5), it cannot be placed in Lamprotripus. This species is also grouped with Dictyopodium (= Pterocanium in original) but not Lamprotripus in the Clade I (Sandin et al. 2019). “ L.” mawsoni has three collar pores as opposed to four.Sugiyama et al. (1992: 18-19) conceptualized it as a new genus. The living appearance of Lamprotripus is documented (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.10.15).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFE5FE440675FF06FADF4991	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFE5FE4405B2FA62FD054880.text	038DDA73FFE5FE4405B2FA62FD054880.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lithochytridoidea Ehrenberg 1846	<div><p>Superfamily LITHOCHYTRIDOIDEA Ehrenberg, 1846 n. stat.</p> <p>Lithochytrina Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [as a family]; 1847: 53 [as a family].</p> <p>Lychnocanioidea – Petrushevskaya 1986: 132-132. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S295-296. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 144.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Lithochytridoidea consist of two- to three-segmented Nassellaria with a stout vertical apical horn, a spherical cephalis, a conical or globular thorax, as well as three feet or a relevant structure. The feet are principally connected to the D- and double L-rods of the cephalic initial spicular system. Expect for a few exceptions, an aperture is present.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Lithochytridoidea consists of the Bekomidae and Lithochytrididae. Based on the results of the molecular phylogeny, Lamprotripus and Dictyopodium (= Pterocanium in original) form a tight, single group (Sandin et al. 2019).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFE5FE4405B2FA62FD054880	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFE5FE410649F892FE964EFD.text	038DDA73FFE5FE410649F892FE964EFD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lychnocaniidae	<div><p>Family LITHOCHYTRIDIDAE Ehrenberg, 1846 sensu Suzuki in Matsuzaki et al. (2015)Lithochytrina Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [as a family]; 1847: 53 [as a family]. — Schomburgk 1847: 124, 125 [as a family]. — Ehrenberg 1876: 156.Lychnocanida Haeckel, 1882: 432 [below tribe].Lithornithida Haeckel, 1882: 436 [nomen dubium, below tribe].Lychnocaniinae – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 227-228; 1981: 239-240. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S296. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 144.Lychnocaniidae – Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 552. — Petrushevskaya 1975: 583; 1981: 229-230; 1986: 133. — Dumitrica 1979: 34. — Kozlova 1999: 127. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S296. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 144. — Suzuki in Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 50. Lithochytridinae – Petrushevskaya 1981: 244. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: 296. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 144. TYPE GENUS. — Lithochytris Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D132): Lithochytris vespertilio Ehrenberg, 1874: 239]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Dictyopodium Ehrenberg, 1847: 54 (= Pterocanariumn. syn.; Pterocanidium and Pleuropodium synonymized by Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970: 529; Lychnodictyum synonymized by Lazarus et al. 1985: 196). — Inversumbella Nigrini &amp; Caulet, 1992: 150. — Lithochytris Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Lithochytridium with the same type species; Sethochytris synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 247). — Lychnocanissa Haeckel, 1887: 1226 (= Acerahedrina, Acerocanium, Lychnocanoma synonymized by Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970: 529; Podocyrteciumn. syn.). — Lychnocanium Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Dictyophimium with the same type species; Lithochytrodes synonymized byPetrushevskaya 1975: 583; Lychnocanellan. syn.). —? Verutotholus O’Connor, 1999: 13. INVALID NAME. — Tetrahedrina. NOMINA DUBIA. — Lithornithium, Tetraedrina. NOMEN NUDUM. — Fenestracanthia. DIAGNOSIS. — Lithochytrididae consist of two or three segmented Lithochytridoidea with four collar pores on the cephalic basal ring, a free A-rod in the cephalic cavity, and a very short to very long apical horn on the spherical cephalis. Three (rarely two) feet or wings are always present. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, D-, V- and double L-rods. No l-rods are observed. The basal ring is directly connected to the apical side end of MB, V-, and the double L-rods. Furthermore, the basal ring is sharply bended along the line, with the double L-rods. The apical side of the basal ring is merged with the shell wall but all four collar pores are easily recognizable. The V-rod occasionally extends outward from the cephalic wall. The MB is oriented slightly toward to the apical side. The double mp -arch (upper arch of the double AL-arch in the cephalis) is embedded in the cephalic wall and is occasionally visible, near the uppermost A-rod on the cephalis, under light microscopy. The D- and double L-rods merge with the shell wall, forming wall rims. These rods are also connected with each foot. A protoplasm is observed in Dictyopodium. The endoplasm is transparent and appears as four lobes below the cephalis. The size of the lobe is variable, from very small near the cephalis to large close to the aperture. Many algal symbionts are distributed around the lobes. The endoplasm is observed inside or outside the shell. The pseudopodia are found radiating around the thorax. An axial projection is absent. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Paleocene-Living.REMARKS The problem in defining Lithochytrididae originates from the poorly reported cephalic structure in the type genus Lithochytris and its closest genus Lychnocanium. The cephalic structure was only reported for Lithochytris (Nishimura 1990: figs 28.2, 28.3) and Lychnocanium (Nishimura 1990: fig.28.1). By contrast, the cephalic structure was repeatedly illustrated in Dictyopodium (Dumitrica 1973a: pl. 13, figs 3-6; Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 30, figs 7, 9; Nishimura 1990: fig. 29.7; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 24, figs 5-8, pl. 25, figs 1, 3, 4). To the best of our knowledge, the detailed structure of Dictyopodium is nearly the same as that of Lychnocanium but the former displays the most representative characters of Lithochytrididae. The cephalic structure of Lychnocanissa (originally Lychnocanium) was only observed in the late Eocene to early Miocene specimens (O’Connor 1997a: pl. 9, figs 9-12; 1999; pl. 4, figs 12-15, pl. 4, figs 22-27). However, their cephalic base is completely separate from the shell test while the basal ring is affixed to the shell test by numerous short radial beams. These characters are typical for the Theoperidae. High species diversity is documented in Lychnocanissa (originally Lychnocanoma) (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970; Petrushevskaya 1981). Nonetheless, several species may not belong to this genus. Verutotholus is tentatively included in the Lithochytrididae though this genus has a double AL-arch, six collar pores and the presence of double l-rods (O’Connor 1999: pl. 2, figs 16, 20, 22b), more closely resembling the Bekomidae. An endemic Lychnocanissa with only two feet was originally described as Acerahedrina (Vinassa de Regny 1900). In regard to the cephalic structure of the Acerahedrina -form of Lychnocanissa (Nishimura 1990: figs 27.4-27.6; Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 17, fig. 2), the character of the cephalic base is similar to that of Dictyopodium and, thus, this form evidently belongs to the Lithochytrididae. The two feet of the Acerahedrina - form of Lychnocanissa are aligned parallel to the plane that includes MB-, D-, and V-rods. One of the feet appears to be connected with the D-rod while the other is disconnected from any initial rod. The members of the Lithochytrididae and the valid genera names in the Lithochytrididae were historically misunderstood. As for the family, all Lithochytrididae genera except for “ Lychnocanoma ” and “ Pterocanium ” (the valid names are Lychnocanissa and Dictyopodium in this paper) were not treated in De Wever et al. (2001). De Wever et al. (2001) placed Dictyopodium in the Mesozoic family Ultranaporidae Pessagno 1977a. The current usage of the latter name has been already discussed and resolved by Matsuzaki et al. (2015: 49-50). The valid genus name and correct type species for Lychnocanium (Sanfilippo et al. 1973: 221; Petrushevskaya 1981: 242), “ Lychnocanoma ” (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970: 529; Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 553; Petrushevskaya 1981: 241; Nishimura 1990: 132-133; O’Connor 1997a: 77-78; 1999: 24), and “ Pterocanium ” (the valid genus name is Dictyopodium in this paper) (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970: 529; Petrushevskaya 1981: 237) were not fully agreed among previous researchers. The main argument concerned whether Lychnocanium lucerna Ehrenberg 1847 or Lychnocanium falciferum Ehrenberg, 1854 was the correct type species of Lychnocanium. A similar problem occurred between Pterocanium proserpinae Ehrenberg 1859 and Lithocampe aculeata Ehrenberg 1844b for the correct type species of Pterocanium. The Lithochytrididae are commonly found from late Eocene sediments to the modern ocean, but the study of their evolution is limited. The evolutionary history of the genus Dictyopodium (= Pterocanium in original) was documented (Lazarus et al. 1985). One solution for the evolution of Lithochytris - Lychnocanium was proposed (Kling 1978: 234; Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1981: fig. 12.11). Knowledge of the living status of the Lithochytrididae is mainly based on Dictyopodium (Matsuoka 1993a: fig. 2.5; 1993b: pl. 5, figs 1, 2; 2017: fig. 23; Suzuki &amp; Aita 2011: fig. 5N; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.11.17). Algal symbionts of Dictyopodium praetextum (Ehrenberg) were identified as Gymnoxanthella radiolariae but Brandtodinium nucleate remained absent. The identified symbiont is the same dinoflagellate species as those found in Acanthodesmia (Acanthodesmiidae) and Dictyocoryne (Euchitoniidae, Spumellaria) (Yuasa et al. 2016). VALIDITY OF GENERADictyopodium The concept of the valid genus Dictyopodium is equivalent to the current usage of Pterocanium because Dictyopodium trilobum, the type species of Dictyopodium, has been classified under the current concept of Pterocanium for more than 130 years (Haeckel 1887). The type species of Pterocanarium is Pterocanium proserpinae, which has been classified in Pterocanium for over a century, but was synonymized with Podocyrtis charybdea by Petrushevskaya (1971a). Lazarus et al. (1985) reconstructed the phylogeny of late Neogene Pterocanium to include Pterocanium charybdeum and Pterocanium trilobum (originally P. charybdeum trilobum); subsequently, Pterocanarium was synonymized with Dictyopodium, and the genera Pterocanidium, Pleuropodium, and Lychnodictyum were synonymized with Dictyopodium. Among these, the oldest available name is Dictyopodium. Lychnocanissa In the Atlas, Lychnocanissa corresponds to Lychnocanoma sensu Foreman (1973b: 437), Sanfilippo et al. (1973: 221), Morley &amp; Nigrini (1995: 80), and Suzuki in Matsuzaki et al. (2015: 50) and to Lychnocanium sensu Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo (1970: 529), Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova (1972: 553), Petrushevskaya (1981: 242), Nishimura (1990: 132-133), Kozlova (1999: 128), and O’Connor (1997a: 77-78; 1999: 24). Our concept is also equivalent to a combination of Lychnocanium and Lychnocanoma, sensu Tochilina &amp; Vasilenko (2018a: 23). The type-illustration of Podocyrtecium shows three segmentations (Haeckel 1887: pl. 72, fig. 1), but this is likely incorrect because no three-segmented specimens similar to Lychnocanoma have been found. Lychnocanissa, Lychnocanoma, and Podocyrtecium were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1887: 1226 for Lychnocanissa, 1229 for Lychnocanoma and 1339 for Podocyrtecium). Selecting a valid genus is problematic. Campbell (1954: D124) considered Lychnocanissa the nominate subgenus of Lychnocanium. However, the type species of Lychnocanium, Lychnocanium lucerna, was not originally included in Lychnocanissa. Species included at that time included Lychnocanium falciferum, Lychnocanium fenestratum, Lychnocanium fortipes, Lychnocanium sigmopodium, Lychnocanium tetrapodium, Lychnocanium trichopus, and Lychnocanium tuberosum. Campbell (1954) did not designate a type species for Lychnocanissa. Therefore, we newly designated Lychnocanium falciferum as a type species in the Atlas. Lychnocanium falciferum was designated as the type species of Lychnocanium by Campbell (1954: D124), but many authors have commented that this designation is incorrect. One of the authors of the present study (NS) suggested that Lychnocanoma be validated several times over a period of 2 years; however, the final consensus is that Lychnocanissa is a valid genus. The validation of Lychnocanissa over Lychnocanoma obviously violates ICZN (1999) article 23.9, which states, “ 23.9.1. Prevailing usage must be maintained when the following conditions are both met: 23.9.1. The senior synonym [...] has not been used as a valid name after 1899, and 23.9.1.2. The junior synonym [...] has been used for a particular taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years.” Lychnocanium There are two concepts of Lychnocanium, one based on the designation of Lychnocanium falciferum as the type species by Campbell (1954: D124), and the other based on the designation of Lychnocanium lucerna, the first species assigned to Lychnocanium, as the type species by Ehrenberg (1847). This confusion has continued since the early 1970s (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970; Sanfilippo et al. 1973; Petrushevskaya 1981; O’Connor 1997a; Tochilina &amp; Vasilenko 2018a). The only correct solution is for Lychnocanium lucerna to be designated as the type species, according to ICZN (1999) article 69.3, which states, “ Type species by subsequent monotypy. If only one nominal species was first subsequently included in a nominal genus or subgenus without included species, that nominal species is automatically fixed as the type species, by subsequent monotypy. ” Under this monotypy, the concept of Lychnocanium sensu Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo (1970: 529), Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova (1972: 553), Petrushevskaya (1981: 241), Nishimura (1990: 132-133), Kozlova (1999: 128) and O’Connor (1997a: 77-78; 1999: 24), and Tochilina &amp; Vasilenko (2018a: 23) is incorrect. Under the correct type species, Lychnocanium is synonymized with Lithochytrodes and Lychnocanella. Dictyophimium has the same type species as Lychnocanium. Lychnocanella was defined by Kozlova (1999: 127) and is translated as follows: “ Threesegmented shell with three well-developed feet, protruding from the base of the thorax. This genus differs from Lychnocanium Ehrenberg [note: type species L. lucerna in this case] only by a pear-shaped thorax with an elongated proximal part. ” This difference is a major distinguishing feature at the species level but not at the genus level. Petrushevskaya (1981: 241) strongly disagreed with the relationship between Lychnocanium and Lychnocanella, but this opinion was based on the incorrect type species, L. falciferum, not L. lucerna. Lithochytrodes was synonymized with Lychnocanella by Petrushevskaya (1975: 583). Later comments by Petrushevskaya (1981: 256) are translated as follows: “ Characteristics similar to those of Lychnocanella. Differences include a more precise distinction between the second and third segments [...] about 10-20 longitudinal rows of pores [...] Lithochytrodes is proposed as a subjective synonym of Lychnocanella.” Among these groups, Lychnocanium is the oldest available name. Superfamily PTEROCORYTHOIDEA Haeckel, 1882 sensu Suzuki emend. hereinPterocorida Haeckel, 1882: 435 [below a tribe].Pterocoryacea – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1984: 122.Pterocorythoidea – Suzuki in Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 49-50. DIAGNOSIS. — Pterocorythoidea consist of three segmented Nassellaria with a stout, vertical apical horn, a spherical or elongated cephalis, a truncated conical thorax, and a very variable size last segment. Generally, no feet extend from the abdomen. If feet are present and extend from the abdomen, they remain disconnected from any rods of the cephalis spicular system. An aperture is observable except in the case of a few exceptions. The A-rod side of the MB is positioned very close to the shell wall or may be merged, becoming a part of the shell wall. The V-rod side of the MB is generally located at the center of the cephalic basal aperture. The V-rod is oriented upward at an angle of 30-45 degrees from the horizontal plane. The stability of the cephalis spicular system varies throughout families. REMARKS The Pterocorythoidea include the Lophocyrtiidae, Pterocorythidae, Theocotylidae and Theoperidae.As the Pterocorythidae is the only family with living genera (Anthocyrtidium, Pterocorys, and Theocorythium), the taxonomic position of the remaining three families is only based on morphological data. Matsuzaki et al. (2015) also included the Lithochytrididae (originally Lychnocaniidae) but did not conclude Lophocyrtiidae, Theocotylidae and Theoperidae as these families were not encountered in their study. Herein, the diagnosis is altered in order to align with these Cenozoic families. As three families of the Pterocorythoidea are extinct, the evolution between them can only be reconstructed by examining the fossil evidence. From an anatomical perspective, the Spongiopodium -form of Paralampterium has characters that resemble a combination of those found in Lophocyrtiidae and Theoperidae. Calocyclas has a mix of characters found in the Pterocorythidae and the Theocotylidae.</p> <p>sensu Suzuki in Matsuzaki et al. (2015)</p> <p>Lithochytrina Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [as a family]; 1847: 53 [as a family]. — Schomburgk 1847: 124, 125 [as a family]. — Ehrenberg 1876: 156.</p> <p>Lychnocanida Haeckel, 1882: 432 [below tribe].</p> <p>Lithornithida Haeckel, 1882: 436 [nomen dubium, below tribe].</p> <p>Lychnocaniinae – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 227-228; 1981: 239-240. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S296. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 144.</p> <p>Lychnocaniidae – Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 552. — Petrushevskaya 1975: 583; 1981: 229-230; 1986: 133. — Dumitrica 1979: 34. — Kozlova 1999: 127. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S296. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 144. — Suzuki in Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 50.</p> <p>Lithochytridinae – Petrushevskaya 1981: 244. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: 296. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 144.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Lithochytris Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D132): Lithochytris vespertilio Ehrenberg, 1874: 239].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Dictyopodium Ehrenberg, 1847: 54 (= Pterocanarium n. syn.; Pterocanidium and Pleuropodium synonymized by Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970: 529; Lychnodictyum synonymized by Lazarus et al. 1985: 196). — Inversumbella Nigrini &amp; Caulet, 1992: 150. — Lithochytris Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Lithochytridium with the same type species; Sethochytris synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 247). — Lychnocanissa Haeckel, 1887: 1226 (= Acerahedrina, Acerocanium, Lychnocanoma synonymized by Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970: 529; Podocyrtecium n. syn.). — Lychnocanium Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Dictyophimium with the same type species; Lithochytrodes synonymized byPetrushevskaya 1975: 583; Lychnocanella n. syn.). —? Verutotholus O’Connor, 1999: 13.</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Tetrahedrina.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Lithornithium, Tetraedrina.</p> <p>NOMEN NUDUM. — Fenestracanthia.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Lithochytrididae consist of two or three segmented Lithochytridoidea with four collar pores on the cephalic basal ring, a free A-rod in the cephalic cavity, and a very short to very long apical horn on the spherical cephalis. Three (rarely two) feet or wings are always present. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, D-, V- and double L-rods. No l-rods are observed. The basal ring is directly connected to the apical side end of MB, V-, and the double L-rods. Furthermore, the basal ring is sharply bended along the line, with the double L-rods. The apical side of the basal ring is merged with the shell wall but all four collar pores are easily recognizable. The V-rod occasionally extends outward from the cephalic wall. The MB is oriented slightly toward to the apical side. The double mp -arch (upper arch of the double AL-arch in the cephalis) is embedded in the cephalic wall and is occasionally visible, near the uppermost A-rod on the cephalis, under light microscopy. The D- and double L-rods merge with the shell wall, forming wall rims. These rods are also connected with each foot.</p> <p>A protoplasm is observed in Dictyopodium. The endoplasm is transparent and appears as four lobes below the cephalis. The size of the lobe is variable, from very small near the cephalis to large close to the aperture. Many algal symbionts are distributed around the lobes. The endoplasm is observed inside or outside the shell. The pseudopodia are found radiating around the thorax. An axial projection is absent.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The problem in defining Lithochytrididae originates from the poorly reported cephalic structure in the type genus Lithochytris and its closest genus Lychnocanium. The cephalic structure was only reported for Lithochytris (Nishimura 1990: figs 28.2, 28.3) and Lychnocanium (Nishimura 1990: fig.28.1). By contrast, the cephalic structure was repeatedly illustrated in Dictyopodium (Dumitrica 1973a: pl. 13, figs 3-6; Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 30, figs 7, 9; Nishimura 1990: fig. 29.7; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 24, figs 5-8, pl. 25, figs 1, 3, 4). To the best of our knowledge, the detailed structure of Dictyopodium is nearly the same as that of Lychnocanium but the former displays the most representative characters of Lithochytrididae. The cephalic structure of Lychnocanissa (originally Lychnocanium) was only observed in the late Eocene to early Miocene specimens (O’Connor 1997a: pl. 9, figs 9-12; 1999; pl. 4, figs 12-15, pl. 4, figs 22-27). However, their cephalic base is completely separate from the shell test while the basal ring is affixed to the shell test by numerous short radial beams. These characters are typical for the Theoperidae. High species diversity is documented in Lychnocanissa (originally Lychnocanoma) (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970; Petrushevskaya 1981). Nonetheless, several species may not belong to this genus. Verutotholus is tentatively included in the Lithochytrididae though this genus has a double AL-arch, six collar pores and the presence of double l-rods (O’Connor 1999: pl. 2, figs 16, 20, 22b), more closely resembling the Bekomidae. An endemic Lychnocanissa with only two feet was originally described as Acerahedrina (Vinassa de Regny 1900). In regard to the cephalic structure of the Acerahedrina -form of Lychnocanissa (Nishimura 1990: figs 27.4-27.6; Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 17, fig. 2), the character of the cephalic base is similar to that of Dictyopodium and, thus, this form evidently belongs to the Lithochytrididae. The two feet of the Acerahedrina - form of Lychnocanissa are aligned parallel to the plane that includes MB-, D-, and V-rods. One of the feet appears to be connected with the D-rod while the other is disconnected from any initial rod.</p> <p>The members of the Lithochytrididae and the valid genera names in the Lithochytrididae were historically misunderstood. As for the family, all Lithochytrididae genera except for “ Lychnocanoma ” and “ Pterocanium ” (the valid names are Lychnocanissa and Dictyopodium in this paper) were not treated in De Wever et al. (2001). De Wever et al. (2001) placed Dictyopodium in the Mesozoic family Ultranaporidae Pessagno 1977a. The current usage of the latter name has been already discussed and resolved by Matsuzaki et al. (2015: 49-50). The valid genus name and correct type species for Lychnocanium (Sanfilippo et al. 1973: 221; Petrushevskaya 1981: 242), “ Lychnocanoma ” (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970: 529; Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 553; Petrushevskaya 1981: 241; Nishimura 1990: 132-133; O’Connor 1997a: 77-78; 1999: 24), and “ Pterocanium ” (the valid genus name is Dictyopodium in this paper) (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970: 529; Petrushevskaya 1981: 237) were not fully agreed among previous researchers. The main argument concerned whether Lychnocanium lucerna Ehrenberg 1847 or Lychnocanium falciferum Ehrenberg, 1854 was the correct type species of Lychnocanium. A similar problem occurred between Pterocanium proserpinae Ehrenberg 1859 and Lithocampe aculeata Ehrenberg 1844b for the correct type species of Pterocanium.</p> <p>The Lithochytrididae are commonly found from late Eocene sediments to the modern ocean, but the study of their evolution is limited. The evolutionary history of the genus Dictyopodium (= Pterocanium in original) was documented (Lazarus et al. 1985). One solution for the evolution of Lithochytris - Lychnocanium was proposed (Kling 1978: 234; Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1981: fig. 12.11).</p> <p>Knowledge of the living status of the Lithochytrididae is mainly based on Dictyopodium (Matsuoka 1993a: fig. 2.5; 1993b: pl. 5, figs 1, 2; 2017: fig. 23; Suzuki &amp; Aita 2011: fig. 5N; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.11.17). Algal symbionts of Dictyopodium praetextum (Ehrenberg) were identified as Gymnoxanthella radiolariae but Brandtodinium nucleate remained absent. The identified symbiont is the same dinoflagellate species as those found in Acanthodesmia (Acanthodesmiidae) and Dictyocoryne (Euchitoniidae, Spumellaria) (Yuasa et al. 2016).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Dictyopodium</p> <p>The concept of the valid genus Dictyopodium is equivalent to the current usage of Pterocanium because Dictyopodium trilobum, the type species of Dictyopodium, has been classified under the current concept of Pterocanium for more than 130 years (Haeckel 1887). The type species of Pterocanarium is Pterocanium proserpinae, which has been classified in Pterocanium for over a century, but was synonymized with Podocyrtis charybdea by Petrushevskaya (1971a). Lazarus et al. (1985) reconstructed the phylogeny of late Neogene Pterocanium to include Pterocanium charybdeum and Pterocanium trilobum (originally P. charybdeum trilobum); subsequently, Pterocanarium was synonymized with Dictyopodium, and the genera Pterocanidium, Pleuropodium, and Lychnodictyum were synonymized with Dictyopodium. Among these, the oldest available name is Dictyopodium.</p> <p>Lychnocanissa</p> <p>In the Atlas, Lychnocanissa corresponds to Lychnocanoma sensu Foreman (1973b: 437), Sanfilippo et al. (1973: 221), Morley &amp; Nigrini (1995: 80), and Suzuki in Matsuzaki et al. (2015: 50) and to Lychnocanium sensu Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo (1970: 529), Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova (1972: 553), Petrushevskaya (1981: 242), Nishimura (1990: 132-133), Kozlova (1999: 128), and O’Connor (1997a: 77-78; 1999: 24). Our concept is also equivalent to a combination of Lychnocanium and Lychnocanoma, sensu Tochilina &amp; Vasilenko (2018a: 23). The type-illustration of Podocyrtecium shows three segmentations (Haeckel 1887: pl. 72, fig. 1), but this is likely incorrect because no three-segmented specimens similar to Lychnocanoma have been found. Lychnocanissa, Lychnocanoma, and Podocyrtecium were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1887: 1226 for Lychnocanissa, 1229 for Lychnocanoma and 1339 for Podocyrtecium). Selecting a valid genus is problematic. Campbell (1954: D124) considered Lychnocanissa the nominate subgenus of Lychnocanium. However, the type species of Lychnocanium, Lychnocanium lucerna, was not originally included in Lychnocanissa. Species included at that time included Lychnocanium falciferum, Lychnocanium fenestratum, Lychnocanium fortipes, Lychnocanium sigmopodium, Lychnocanium tetrapodium, Lychnocanium trichopus, and Lychnocanium tuberosum. Campbell (1954) did not designate a type species for Lychnocanissa. Therefore, we newly designated Lychnocanium falciferum as a type species in the Atlas. Lychnocanium falciferum was designated as the type species of Lychnocanium by Campbell (1954: D124), but many authors have commented that this designation is incorrect. One of the authors of the present study (NS) suggested that Lychnocanoma be validated several times over a period of 2 years; however, the final consensus is that Lychnocanissa is a valid genus. The validation of Lychnocanissa over Lychnocanoma obviously violates ICZN (1999) article 23.9, which states, “ 23.9.1. Prevailing usage must be maintained when the following conditions are both met: 23.9.1. The senior synonym [...] has not been used as a valid name after 1899, and 23.9.1.2. The junior synonym [...] has been used for a particular taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years.”</p> <p>Lychnocanium</p> <p>There are two concepts of Lychnocanium, one based on the designation of Lychnocanium falciferum as the type species by Campbell (1954: D124), and the other based on the designation of Lychnocanium lucerna, the first species assigned to Lychnocanium, as the type species by Ehrenberg (1847). This confusion has continued since the early 1970s (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1970; Sanfilippo et al. 1973; Petrushevskaya 1981; O’Connor 1997a; Tochilina &amp; Vasilenko 2018a). The only correct solution is for Lychnocanium lucerna to be designated as the type species, according to ICZN (1999) article 69.3, which states, “ Type species by subsequent monotypy. If only one nominal species was first subsequently included in a nominal genus or subgenus without included species, that nominal species is automatically fixed as the type species, by subsequent monotypy. ” Under this monotypy, the concept of Lychnocanium sensu Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo (1970: 529), Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova (1972: 553), Petrushevskaya (1981: 241), Nishimura (1990: 132-133), Kozlova (1999: 128) and O’Connor (1997a: 77-78; 1999: 24), and Tochilina &amp; Vasilenko (2018a: 23) is incorrect.</p> <p>Under the correct type species, Lychnocanium is synonymized with Lithochytrodes and Lychnocanella. Dictyophimium has the same type species as Lychnocanium. Lychnocanella was defined by Kozlova (1999: 127) and is translated as follows: “ Threesegmented shell with three well-developed feet, protruding from the base of the thorax. This genus differs from Lychnocanium Ehrenberg [note: type species L. lucerna in this case] only by a pear-shaped thorax with an elongated proximal part. ” This difference is a major distinguishing feature at the species level but not at the genus level. Petrushevskaya (1981: 241) strongly disagreed with the relationship between Lychnocanium and Lychnocanella, but this opinion was based on the incorrect type species, L. falciferum, not L. lucerna. Lithochytrodes was synonymized with Lychnocanella by Petrushevskaya (1975: 583). Later comments by Petrushevskaya (1981: 256) are translated as follows: “ Characteristics similar to those of Lychnocanella. Differences include a more precise distinction between the second and third segments [...] about 10-20 longitudinal rows of pores [...] Lithochytrodes is proposed as a subjective synonym of Lychnocanella.” Among these groups, Lychnocanium is the oldest available name.</p> <p>Superfamily PTEROCORYTHOIDEA Haeckel, 1882 sensu Suzuki emend. hereinPterocorida Haeckel, 1882: 435 [below a tribe].Pterocoryacea – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1984: 122.Pterocorythoidea – Suzuki in Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 49-50. DIAGNOSIS. — Pterocorythoidea consist of three segmented Nassellaria with a stout, vertical apical horn, a spherical or elongated cephalis, a truncated conical thorax, and a very variable size last segment. Generally, no feet extend from the abdomen. If feet are present and extend from the abdomen, they remain disconnected from any rods of the cephalis spicular system. An aperture is observable except in the case of a few exceptions. The A-rod side of the MB is positioned very close to the shell wall or may be merged, becoming a part of the shell wall. The V-rod side of the MB is generally located at the center of the cephalic basal aperture. The V-rod is oriented upward at an angle of 30-45 degrees from the horizontal plane. The stability of the cephalis spicular system varies throughout families. REMARKS The Pterocorythoidea include the Lophocyrtiidae, Pterocorythidae, Theocotylidae and Theoperidae.As the Pterocorythidae is the only family with living genera (Anthocyrtidium, Pterocorys, and Theocorythium), the taxonomic position of the remaining three families is only based on morphological data. Matsuzaki et al. (2015) also included the Lithochytrididae (originally Lychnocaniidae) but did not conclude Lophocyrtiidae, Theocotylidae and Theoperidae as these families were not encountered in their study. Herein, the diagnosis is altered in order to align with these Cenozoic families. As three families of the Pterocorythoidea are extinct, the evolution between them can only be reconstructed by examining the fossil evidence. From an anatomical perspective, the Spongiopodium -form of Paralampterium has characters that resemble a combination of those found in Lophocyrtiidae and Theoperidae. Calocyclas has a mix of characters found in the Pterocorythidae and the Theocotylidae.</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Pterocorida Haeckel, 1882: 435 [below a tribe].</p> <p>Pterocoryacea – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1984: 122.</p> <p>Pterocorythoidea – Suzuki in Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 49-50.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Pterocorythoidea consist of three segmented Nassellaria with a stout, vertical apical horn, a spherical or elongated cephalis, a truncated conical thorax, and a very variable size last segment. Generally, no feet extend from the abdomen. If feet are present and extend from the abdomen, they remain disconnected from any rods of the cephalis spicular system. An aperture is observable except in the case of a few exceptions. The A-rod side of the MB is positioned very close to the shell wall or may be merged, becoming a part of the shell wall. The V-rod side of the MB is generally located at the center of the cephalic basal aperture. The V-rod is oriented upward at an angle of 30-45 degrees from the horizontal plane. The stability of the cephalis spicular system varies throughout families.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Pterocorythoidea include the Lophocyrtiidae, Pterocorythidae, Theocotylidae and Theoperidae.As the Pterocorythidae is the only family with living genera (Anthocyrtidium, Pterocorys, and Theocorythium), the taxonomic position of the remaining three families is only based on morphological data. Matsuzaki et al. (2015) also included the Lithochytrididae (originally Lychnocaniidae) but did not conclude Lophocyrtiidae, Theocotylidae and Theoperidae as these families were not encountered in their study. Herein, the diagnosis is altered in order to align with these Cenozoic families. As three families of the Pterocorythoidea are extinct, the evolution between them can only be reconstructed by examining the fossil evidence. From an anatomical perspective, the Spongiopodium -form of Paralampterium has characters that resemble a combination of those found in Lophocyrtiidae and Theoperidae. Calocyclas has a mix of characters found in the Pterocorythidae and the Theocotylidae.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFE5FE410649F892FE964EFD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFE0FE41058BFE09FEB5491A.text	038DDA73FFE0FE41058BFE09FEB5491A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pterocorythoidea Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Superfamily PTEROCORYTHOIDEA Haeckel, 1882 sensu Suzuki emend. hereinPterocorida Haeckel, 1882: 435 [below a tribe].Pterocoryacea – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1984: 122.Pterocorythoidea – Suzuki in Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 49-50. DIAGNOSIS. — Pterocorythoidea consist of three segmented Nassellaria with a stout, vertical apical horn, a spherical or elongated cephalis, a truncated conical thorax, and a very variable size last segment. Generally, no feet extend from the abdomen. If feet are present and extend from the abdomen, they remain disconnected from any rods of the cephalis spicular system. An aperture is observable except in the case of a few exceptions. The A-rod side of the MB is positioned very close to the shell wall or may be merged, becoming a part of the shell wall. The V-rod side of the MB is generally located at the center of the cephalic basal aperture. The V-rod is oriented upward at an angle of 30-45 degrees from the horizontal plane. The stability of the cephalis spicular system varies throughout families. REMARKS The Pterocorythoidea include the Lophocyrtiidae, Pterocorythidae, Theocotylidae and Theoperidae.As the Pterocorythidae is the only family with living genera (Anthocyrtidium, Pterocorys, and Theocorythium), the taxonomic position of the remaining three families is only based on morphological data. Matsuzaki et al. (2015) also included the Lithochytrididae (originally Lychnocaniidae) but did not conclude Lophocyrtiidae, Theocotylidae and Theoperidae as these families were not encountered in their study. Herein, the diagnosis is altered in order to align with these Cenozoic families. As three families of the Pterocorythoidea are extinct, the evolution between them can only be reconstructed by examining the fossil evidence. From an anatomical perspective, the Spongiopodium -form of Paralampterium has characters that resemble a combination of those found in Lophocyrtiidae and Theoperidae. Calocyclas has a mix of characters found in the Pterocorythidae and the Theocotylidae.</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Pterocorida Haeckel, 1882: 435 [below a tribe].</p> <p>Pterocoryacea – Kozur &amp; Mostler 1984: 122.</p> <p>Pterocorythoidea – Suzuki in Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 49-50.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Pterocorythoidea consist of three segmented Nassellaria with a stout, vertical apical horn, a spherical or elongated cephalis, a truncated conical thorax, and a very variable size last segment. Generally, no feet extend from the abdomen. If feet are present and extend from the abdomen, they remain disconnected from any rods of the cephalis spicular system. An aperture is observable except in the case of a few exceptions. The A-rod side of the MB is positioned very close to the shell wall or may be merged, becoming a part of the shell wall. The V-rod side of the MB is generally located at the center of the cephalic basal aperture. The V-rod is oriented upward at an angle of 30-45 degrees from the horizontal plane. The stability of the cephalis spicular system varies throughout families.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Pterocorythoidea include the Lophocyrtiidae, Pterocorythidae, Theocotylidae and Theoperidae.As the Pterocorythidae is the only family with living genera (Anthocyrtidium, Pterocorys, and Theocorythium), the taxonomic position of the remaining three families is only based on morphological data. Matsuzaki et al. (2015) also included the Lithochytrididae (originally Lychnocaniidae) but did not conclude Lophocyrtiidae, Theocotylidae and Theoperidae as these families were not encountered in their study. Herein, the diagnosis is altered in order to align with these Cenozoic families. As three families of the Pterocorythoidea are extinct, the evolution between them can only be reconstructed by examining the fossil evidence. From an anatomical perspective, the Spongiopodium -form of Paralampterium has characters that resemble a combination of those found in Lophocyrtiidae and Theoperidae. Calocyclas has a mix of characters found in the Pterocorythidae and the Theocotylidae.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFE0FE41058BFE09FEB5491A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFE0FE400475F96FFC344E3D.text	038DDA73FFE0FE400475F96FFC344E3D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lophocyrtiidae Sanfilippo & Caulet in De Wever, Dumitrica, Caulet, Nigrini & Caridroit 2001	<div><p>Family LOPHOCYRTIIDAE Sanfilippo &amp; Caulet in De Wever, Dumitrica, Caulet, Nigrini &amp; Caridroit, 2001Lophocyrtiidae Sanfilippo &amp; Caulet in De Wever, Dumitrica, Caulet, Nigrini &amp; Caridroit, 2001: 283-284. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S300-301. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 150.</p> <p>Sanfilippo &amp; Caulet in De Wever, Dumitrica, Caulet, Nigrini &amp; Caridroit, 2001</p> <p>Lophocyrtiidae Sanfilippo &amp; Caulet in De Wever, Dumitrica, Caulet, Nigrini &amp; Caridroit, 2001: 283-284. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S300-301. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 150.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Lophocyrtis Haeckel, 1887: 1410 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D134): Eucyrtidium stephanophorum Ehrenberg, 1874: 233].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Aphetocyrtis Sanfilippo &amp; Caulet, 1998: 16. — Apoplanius Sanfilippo &amp; Caulet, 1998: 12. — Clinorhabdus Sanfilippo &amp; Caulet, 1998: 19. — Cyclampterium Haeckel, 1887: 1379 (= Polyalacorys n. syn.). — Lophocyrtis Haeckel, 1887: 1410. — Paralampterium Sanfilippo, 1990: 307 (= Spongiopodium n. syn.). — Sciadiopeplus Sanfilippo, 1990: 310.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Lophocyrtiidae are commonly three-segmented, cylindrical to conical shell. The cephalis is spherical in shape and may or may not have pores. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, V-, double l-, double L-, and Ax-rods. The double mp - arch (one of AL-arch) freely develops in the cephalic cavity. The A-rod is generally visible and free in the cephalic cavity. It may also be attached to the cephalic wall. The thorax is of a rounded conical shape, thick-walled, and its pores are regularly quincuncially arranged. The abdomen is thick-walled to coarse-framed skirt-like. The abdomen’s end is widely open. The feet, present in some members, are disconnected from the cephalic initial spicular system. The basal ring is directly connected to the apical end of the MB as well as to the double L- and V-rods, forming a frame that resembles a four-leafed clover. The basal ring sharply bends along the line with the double L-rods. The D- and double L-rods extend downward forming a rim on the internal wall of the thorax. These rods are completely merged. A double Dl-arch seems to be present as part of the thoracic wall, but the double l-rod is generally unrecognizable. No living form are known.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Paleocene-early Middle Miocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The grammatically correct name is “Lophocyrtididae” but the current usage following Article 29.5 of the Code is maintained (Lophocyrtiidae).Three segmented, cylindrical Nassellaria similar to the Lophocyrtiidae are known in the Eucyrtidiidae (e.g., Theocoronium), Rhopalosyringiidae (e.g., Rhopalosyringium), and Pterocorythidae (e.g., Calocyclas, the Podocyrtopsis -form of Podocyrtis, the Theoconus -form of Pterocorys, Theocorythium). The most significant difference among them is the presence of a free double mp-arch in Lophocyrtiidae. Theocoronium is of a small size and is more fragile than the Lophocyrtiidae. Rhopalosyringium differs from the Lophocyrtiidae by its artostrobid-type cephalic structure. Calocyclas has a non-bladed, long, robust horn with a spherical and delicate thorax. Both Pterocorys and Theocorythium have a lobe-like, oblong, cephalic part with a complex internal structure. The cephalic structure of the Spongiopodium -form of Paralampterium (Lophocyrtiidae), similarly to Theoperidae, bears a connection structure between the cephalis and thorax.</p> <p>According to Sanfilippo (1990), Paralampterium diverged from Lophocyrtis in the early Eocene; Cyclampterium separated around the Eocene-Oligocene boundary while Sciadiopeplus diverged from Cyclampterium just after the appearance of Cyclampterium in the early Oligocene. Lophocyrtis is also the direct ancestor of Apoplanius, this follows the analyses of the stratigraphic distribution as well as the geographic distribution at species level among Lophocyrtis, Apoplanius, Aphetocyrtis and Clinorhabdus (Sanfilippo &amp; Caulet 1998). Takemura &amp; Ling (1998) discussed the phylogeny of the Lophocyrtiidae with the same group of species treated inSanfilippo &amp; Caulet (1998). These species appear under the genus name Theocorys Haeckel 1882 (with a Mesozoic type species Theocorys morchel- lula Rüst, 1885), as some photos appear to have a double mp -arch (Takemura &amp; Ling 1998: fig. 3.19). Little is known about the ancestor of the Lophocyrtiidae.</p> <p>The morphological change of the cephalic initial spicular system at species level was documented for Aphetocyrtis, Apoplanius and Clinorhabdus (Sanfilippo &amp; Caulet 1998). The double mp -arch must be encrypted in the cephalic wall of some members as it remained unobserved in scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images (Takemura &amp; Ling 1998: figs 5.7-5.12). The double mp -arch is recognizable as part of the thoracic wall in SEM illustrations of Aphetocyrtis (originally Theocorys in Takemura &amp; Ling 1998: figs 5.11, 5.12), Clinorhabdus (originally Theocorys inTakemura &amp; Ling 1998: figs 5.9, 5.10) and the Spongiopodium form of Paralampterium (Nishimura 1990: figs 27.1-27.3).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Cyclampterium</p> <p>Polyalacorys was first practically validated by Nishimura (1990: 142), who subsequently designated Alacorys carcinus as the type species of Polyalacorys, whereas Cyclampterium was transferred from a subgenus of Cycladophora (Haeckel 1887: 1379) to that of Lophocyrtis (Sanfilippo 1990: 304). Sanfilippo (1990) described Cyclampterium as having an apical horn usually short or absent and Nishimura (1990) described it as an apical spine prolonged from an A-rod. The length of the apical horn is the only difference in these descriptions. Sanfilippo (1990) considered the Cyclampterium lineage to start from Lophocyrtis (Cyclampterium) hadra. This species has a very long, stout apical horn that nearly reaches the same length as the apical horn of Alacorys carcinus, the type species of Polyalacorys. Based on the lineage reconstructed by Sanfilippo (1990), Polyalacorys must be synonymized with Cyclampterium. Cyclampterium has been raised to the rank of genus for practical usage due to its significant morphological differences, although this genus branches from Lophocyrtis.</p> <p>Paralampterium</p> <p>The main difference between the definitions of Spongiopodium and Paralampterium is a spongy wall structure and three or more foot-like projections for the former (Nishimura 1990: 135); the abdominal segment, the most conspicuous one, is very variable, with large-coarse meshes and three feet that are solid, incipiently latticed or pored for the latter (Sanfilippo 1990: 307). The definition of Paralampterium covers that of Spongiopodium, which raises the issue of splitting and lumping philosophies. The genus concept by Sanfilippo (1990) is based on stratigraphic and geographic distribution at the species level, whereas that by Nishimura (1990) is based on a spot sampling obtained in just one locality of the Pacific Ocean. As Sanfilippo’s (1990) concept better reflects stratigraphic and geographic variation for this taxon, we support the lumping philosophy for this genus. Both genera were published in 1990; the formal publication dates were March 1990 for Paralampterium (Marine Micropaleontology, Volume 15 no. 3-4) and March 31, 1990, for Spongiopodium (Science Reports of the Institute of Geoscience, University of Tsukuba, Section B: Geological Sciences, Volume 11). Because there is no clear difference between these publication dates, we select Paralampterium as the valid name due its more comprehensive definition.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFE0FE400475F96FFC344E3D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFE1FE4D06BEFE46FBC94887.text	038DDA73FFE1FE4D06BEFE46FBC94887.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pterocorythidae Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Family PTEROCORYTHIDAE Haeckel, 1882</p> <p>Pterocorida Haeckel, 1882: 435 [below a tribe].</p> <p>Sethocorida Haeckel, 1882: 430 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1192, 1289 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Calocyclida Haeckel, 1882: 434 [below tribe].</p> <p>Podocyrtida Haeckel, 1882: 435 [below tribe]; 1887: 1313, 1314- 1315 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1990 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 183. — Nigrini 1967: 65 [as a family].</p> <p>Sethocyrtida Haeckel, 1887: 1192, 1288-1289 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1989 [as a family]. — Rüst 1892: 182 [as a family]. — nec Cayeux 1894: 208.</p> <p>Phormocyrtida Haeckel, 1887: 1313, 1365-1366 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1992 [as a family].— Nigrini 1967: 65-66 [as a family].</p> <p>Theocyrtida Haeckel, 1887: 1313, 1395-1396 [as a family]. — Wisniowski 1889: 689 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1992 [as a family]. — Rüst 1892: 183 [as a family]. — nec Cayeux 1894: 209. — Nigrini 1967: 66 [as a family].</p> <p>Phormocampida Haeckel, 1887: 1435 [as a family]; 1887: 1453- 1454 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1994 [as a family].</p> <p>Phormocampiden – Haecker 1907: 126.</p> <p>Phormocyrtiden – Haecker 1907: 126 [as a family].</p> <p>Lamprocycladidae [sic] – Haecker 1908: 452-454 (= Lamprocyclidae).</p> <p>Sethocyrtidae [sic] – Popofsky 1908: 287 (= Sethocyrtididae);1913: 372. — Schröder 1914: 100, 113. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 75; 1945: 40. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 43; 1944b: 26. — Chediya 1959: 208. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 282. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 175; 2003: 113, 170. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 153. — Chen et al. 2017: 202.</p> <p>Podocyrtidae [sic] – Popofsky 1908: 288 (= Podocyrtididae); 1913: 373. — Schröder 1914: 119. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 80. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 46; 1944b: 29 (sensu emend.). — Dogiel &amp; Reshetnyak 1955: 47. — Chediya 1959: 213. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 283. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 176; 2003: 113, 174-175. — Nishimura 1990: 125-126 (sensu emend.). — van de Paverd 1995: 238. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 153. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 323. — Chen et al. 2017: 207.</p> <p>Phormocyrtidae [sic] – Popofsky 1908: 289 (= Phormocyrtididae); 1913: 395. — Schröder 1914: 127. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 81; 1945: 43. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 47; 1944b: 31. — Chediya 1959: 217. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 153. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 336. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 113, 192. — Chen et al. 2017: 212.</p> <p>Phormocampidae – Poche 1913: 221. — nec Khabakov 1937: 110. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944b: 37. — Chediya 1959: 228. — Tan &amp; Su 2003: 113, 214.</p> <p>Sethocyrtididae – Poche 1913: 221.</p> <p>Theocyrtidae [sic] – Popofsky 1913: 397 (= Theocyrtididae). — Schröder 1914: 129. — Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 89; 1945: 47. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 49; 1944b: 32. — Chediya 1959:</p> <p>220. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 289. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 177; 2003: 113, 200. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 154. — Chen et al. 2017: 218.</p> <p>Sethocorinae [sic] – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 75 (= Sethocorythinae); 1945: 40. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 43; 1944b: 27. — Chediya 1959: 208.</p> <p>Sethocyrtinae [sic] – Orlev 1959: 455-456 (= Sethocyrtididae).</p> <p>Theocyrtinae [sic] – Orlev 1959: 457 (= Theocyrtidinae).</p> <p>Phormocampinae – Orlev 1959: 459.</p> <p>Pterocoryidae [sic] – Riedel 1967b: 296 (= Pterocorythidae) (sensu emend.); 1971: 657. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1971: 1598. — Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 543. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 174. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 130. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 274-276. — Kozlova 1999: 144. — Amon 2000: 65-66. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S300. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 149.</p> <p>Pterocorydinae [sic] – Petrushevskaya 1971a: 230-231 (= Pterocorythinae); 1971b: 986.</p> <p>Pterocorythidae – Moore 1972: 147 (sensu emend.). — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 876. — Dumitrica 1979: 34. — Anderson 1983: 43. — Sanfilippo et al. 1985: 691. — Caulet &amp; Nigrini 1988: 223. — Nigrini &amp; Caulet 1988: 342. — Takahashi 1991: 123. — Hollis 1997: 65. — O’Connor 1997b: 108 (sensu emend.). — Boltovskoy 1998: 33. — Sugiyama 1998: 233. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1018. — De Wever et al. 2001: 258.</p> <p>Calocyclinae [sic] – Petrushevskaya 1981: 226-227 (= Calocyclidinae). — Amon 2000: 64. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S298. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 147.</p> <p>Podocyrtiinae [sic] – Petrushevskaya 1981: 276 (= Podocyrtididae). — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S300. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 149.</p> <p>Sethocorynae [sic] – Petrushevskaya 1981: 280 (= Sethocorythinae).</p> <p>Pterocoryinae [sic] – Petrushevskaya 1981: 283 (= Pterocorythinae). — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S300. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 149.</p> <p>Sethoconidae Nishimura, 1990: 124. — van de Paverd 1995: 229.</p> <p>Lamprocyclidae – Tochilina 1997: 11-12.</p> <p>Podocyrtinae [sic] – Amon 2000: 66 (= Podocyrtididae).</p> <p>Sethocoryinae [sic] – Amon 2000: 67 (= Sethocorythinae). — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S300. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 149.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Pterocorys Haeckel, 1882: 435 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D130): Pterocorys campanula Haeckel, 1887: 1316].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Albatrossidium Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel, 1992: 16. — Anthocyrtidium Haeckel, 1882: 430 (= Anthocyrtissa, Sethocyrtis synonymized by Caulet 1974: 239; Anthocyrtura synonymized by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 545; Phormocampe synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 282; Sethocanium n. syn.; Sethocorys synonymized by Caulet 1979: 132). — Calocyclas Ehrenberg, 1847: 54 (= Calocyclissa with the same type species; Anthocyrtonium synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 280; Calocycletta n. syn., Calocyclior n. syn., Calocyclissima n. syn., Calocyclopsis n. syn.). — Calocycloma Haeckel, 1887: 1384. — Lamprocyclas Haeckel, 1882: 434 (= Lamprocyclia with the same type species; Androcyclas synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1971a: 117; Craterocyclas, Hexalodus, Theocorbis synonymized by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 544). — Lamprocyrtis Kling, 1973: 638. — Lampterium Haeckel, 1882: 434 (= Alacorys, Tetralacorys,? Lamptidium synonymized by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 543). — Phormocyrtis Haeckel, 1887: 1368. — Podocyrtis Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Podocyrtidium with the same type species; Podocyrtoges n. syn., Podocyrtonium n. syn., Podocyrtopsis n. syn.). — Pterocorys Haeckel, 1882: 435 (= Sethoconus with the same type species, Conarachnium n. syn.; Lithopilium, Theoconus, Theocorax, synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1971a: 232). — Tetracorethra Haeckel, 1882: 429 (= Hexacorethra synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1971a: 234). — Theocorythium Haeckel, 1887: 1416 (= Theocapsilla synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 286; Theocapsura synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 287;? Theocorypha,? Theocyrtis n. syn.). —? Anthocyrtoma Haeckel, 1887: 1268. —? Calocyclura Haeckel, 1887: 1384 [errata 1764]. —? Theocorusca Haeckel, 1887: 1407.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Cyrtocorys, Ennealacorys, Lamprocycloma, Lamptonium, Phrenocodon.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYM. — Cyrtocoris Haeckel, 1882 (= Cyrtocorys) nec White, 1842.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Pterocorythidae consist of a small cephalis, a truncated, wide conical thorax, and a large abdomen. The aperture is always open and is associated with numerous feet, a circular rim on aperture, or a very coarse frame instead of abdomen. The cephalis varies from an elongated shape with a long apical horn to a thick-walled spherical shape with a robust apical horn. A pore, or pore-like depression, between the cephalis and thorax (sutural pore) is present (Anthocyrtidium, Calocyclas, Theocorythium) or absent (Lamprocyclas, Lamprocyrtis) as a stable character at the genus level. A sutural pore is always connected to the A-rod. In forms with an elongated cephalis, a free A-rod merges with the cephalic wall, constituting a rim, or part of a blade, along the apical horn. An alignment of several pores is visible on both sides of the A-rod on the cephalic surface. This alignment is found along the A-rod in Calocyclas and Lamprocyrtis. The elongated cephalis is divided into one larger unpaired lobe and two small- er lateral paired lobes separated by two directed arches AL that are obliquely oriented downward. The D-rod and double L-rod extend downward to merge with the thoracic wall but are never connected to the feet.</p> <p>The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-rod, V-rod, double L-rod, and a double AL-arch. The A-rod is free near the basal ring and merges with the cephalic wall, becoming an apical horn. The V-rod is also free in the cephalic cavity and rarely penetrates the cephalic wall. Both the double l-rod and the distinguishing Ax-rod are present or absent. Three types of basal ring are recognized as an infra-species variation in most genera: (Type A) The basal ring is directly connected with the apical side end of MB, double L-rod, and V-rod to form four collar pores; (Type B) Differing from Type A, the basal ring is directly connected to the double l-rod, instead of the MB, forming four collar pores; and (Type C) a basal ring with six collar pores made of D-, V-, double l- and double L-rods. In the case of Type B, an additional very small double pore on the shell wall is formed by the D-rod, double l-rod and double Dl-arch. In the case of Type C, the double pores on the apical side of the basal ring are particularly very small.</p> <p>A transparent endoplasm fills the cephalic cavity. Endoplasmic lobes of even sizes are present. Their size among specimens is variable but they never extend beyond the thorax. Algal symbionts are present and surround the endoplasmic lobes on the inner side of the shell test. Pseudopodia radiate throughout the test; a conical bundle of pseudopodia and a long robust thick pseudopodium (axial projection) extend outward from the aperture of the test. Tetracorethra has a degraded shell test. Living forms of Tetracorethra are also characterized by well-developed endoplasmic lobes and the absence of algal symbionts. The growth and development of pseudopodia remains still unknown in Tetracorethra.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Paleocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The type genus of this family is Pterocorys and the genitive form is Pterocorythos, thus the stem is Pterocoryth-, and the family name should be Pterocorythidae (seeMoore 1972: 147). Some species of Pterocorythidae with an absent lobe-like cephalis are occasionally misidentified as the Theocotylidae. This misidentification occurs regardless of the fundamental differences in the combination stability of the cephalic structure. The A-rod of the Pterocorythidae merges with the cephalic wall in most of the species, whereas the A-rod in Theocotylidae is free in the cephalic cavity and extends vertically to attach itself to the top of the cephalic cavity.The Pterocorythidae are generally distinguished by the presence of an elongated cephalis with an A-rod running along the cephalic wall (e.g., De Wever et al. 2001). However, this diagnosis cannot be rigidly applied for some genera such as Calocyclas, due to the variability of its cephalis which may be spherical (Calocyclas sensu stricto) to elongated (the Calocycletta -form of Calocyclas) or of an intermediate form (Calocyclior, Calocyclissima and the Calocyclopsis -form of Calocyclas). The genus Calocyclas (sensu stricto) differs from other Pterocorythidae by the A-rod position, which is variable and free in the cephalic cavity (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 94, fig. 7c). Other species assigned commonly to synonymies of Calocyclas (Calocycletta, Calocyclior, Calocyclissima and Calocyclopsis -forms) have an A-rod that merges with the cephalic wall (Moore 1972: pl. 1, fig. 1; pl. 2, fig. 5).</p> <p>The cephalic structure has been described in Anthocyrtidium (Caulet 1974: pl. 9, figs 1-2; Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 37, fig. 3; Nishimura 1990: figs 31.6, 31.9;Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 26, fig. 2; O’Connor 1997b: pl. 5, figs 9-13), Calocyclas (O’Connor 1997b: pl. 8, figs 2, 3;1999: pl. 3, figs 5-11; Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 19, fig. 7),? Calocycloma (Nishimura 1990: figs 30.3-30.5), Calocyclura (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 20, figs 5, 6), Lamprocyclas (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 37, fig. 11; Nishimura 1990: figs 31.1, 31.2, 39.1; Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 18, fig. 5;Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 26, figs 5, 6; Tochilina 1997: pl. 1, fig. 2; pl. 2, figs 1-6; pl. 4, figs 2, 3; pl. 14, figs 14, 15; O’Connor 1999: pl. 4, figs 28-32), Lamprocyrtis (Caulet 1971: pls 3, 4; 1974: pl. 10, figs 5, 6; Nishimura 1990: fig. 38.1; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 27, fig. 4), Lampterium (Nishimura 1990: figs 30.1, 30.2), Pterocorys (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 38, fig. 6), and Theocorythium (Nishimura &amp; Yamauchi 1984: pl. 38, fig. 10; Sugiyama &amp; Furutani 1992: pl. 19, fig. 1). The position of the A-rod, merged to the cephalic wall, is visible in the light microscopic image of Phormocyrtis (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 58, fig. 3f) and Podocyrtis (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 95, fig. 4b). The presence or absence of double l-rods varies at the species level, but not at the genus-, nor family-level. A good review of this difference was well illustrated inTochilina (1997) and according to her, Lamprocyclas has basal rings of Type A (Tochilina 1997: pl. 4, fig. 5), Type B (Tochilina 1997: pl. 4, fig. 2), and Type C (Tochilina 1997: pl. 1, fig. 2; pl. 5, fig. 15).</p> <p>The genus composition of the Pterocorythidae differs considerably among Petrushevskaya (1981: 275-276), De Wever et al. (2001: 258) and this catalogue. These divergences result from detailed investigation of the cephalic structure in 1990s. Additionally, our explanation is based on the first comprehensive integrated study of the cephalic structure anatomy and the molecular phylogeny. The overall appearance of Tetracorethra resembles the Plagiacanthoidea type, but the cephalic initial spicular system and protoplasmic structure of the former are identical to that of Pterocorys (Petrushevskaya 1971a: 234; 1981: 291). This opinion was supported by the molecular phylogenetic data of Sandin et al. (2019).</p> <p>The three questionably assigned genera (Anthocyrtoma, Calocyclura and Theocorusca) were not treated in De Wever et al. (2001). Petrushevskaya (1981) placed Anthocyrtoma and Calocyclura in subfamilies “Lapmpromitrinae” and “Theocotylinae” (Petrushevskaya 1981: 104-105, 222), respectively.The taxonomic position of Theocorusca was not clearly mentioned in Petrushevskaya (1981: 316) but appears included in the Cannobotrydidae as the figure of this genus was placed with those of Botryocylinder and Rhopalosyringium. Herein, Anthocyrtoma is tentatively included in the Pterocorythidae. The complete form of Anthocyrtoma (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1973: pl. 3, fig. 5) is observed with a very large appendage consisting of many feet appearing below a giant thorax. Partially incomplete specimens of Anthocyrtoma (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1973: pl. 6, fig. 4) clearly display a free A-rod in the cephalic cavity and a probable V-rod along the left side of the cephalic cavity that resembles a dark line. This cephalic structure is more likely similar to that of the Theocotylidae than that of the Pterocorythidae. Other forms of Anthocyrtoma (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1973: pl. 6, figs 2, 3) appear further as synonyms of the genera Clistophatna Haeckel 1882 and Clistophaena Haeckel 1887 (Theocotylidae). If this observation is correct, the valid genus name for Anthocyrtoma is Clistophatna, and thus becomes a member of Theocotylidae. The taxonomic position of Calocyclura may also be placed in Theocotylidae due to the six collar pores in the basal ring, which is not directly adjoined to the D-rod. In addition, Calocyclura has a free D-rod near the MB, a vertical extending free A-rod, and has not sutural pore (Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 20, figs 5, 6). The appropriate position of Theocorusca is unclear.</p> <p>The ultrafine protoplasmic structure of Pterocorys was documented by Sugiyama &amp; Anderson (1997b: pl. 1, figs 2, 3, 5; pls 4, 5) through transmitted scanning microscope (TEM) images. A normal optical image of living specimens was given for Anthocyrtidium (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.11.17), Pterocorys (Sashida &amp; Kurihara 1999: fig. 11.15; Matsuoka 2007: figs 4b, 5b; 2017: figs 26, 27; Matsuoka et al. 2017: Appendix b), Tetracorethra (Zhang et al. 2018: 15, fig. 24, p. 21, fig. 30) and Theocorythium (Matsuoka 2017: fig. 28).</p> <p>The evolution of the Pterocorythidae at the family, genus and species levels was studied on the basis of a continuous stratigraphic distribution and a detailed geographic distribution. The evolution has been well documented at the family level (Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1992), illustrated at genus level for the Podocyrtis -Lampterium lineage (Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1981: fig. 12.7; Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1990), and explained at species level for Anthocyrtidium (Nigrini &amp; Caulet 1988) and Calocyclas (originally Calocycletta in Moore 1972: text-fig. 1; Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1981: fig. 12.11).</p> <p>The morphologic changes between Podocyrtis sinuosa and Lampromitra mitra were examined by landmark, outline semi-landmark and landmark-constrained outline analysis (Danelian &amp; MacLeod 2019). Lamprocyclas may be infected with Marine Alveolata Group I (Ikenoue et al. 2016).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Calocyclas</p> <p>Calocyclissa has the same type species as Calocyclas. The validity of Calocyclas was complicated by a circumvention of the ICZN rules about the type species of Cycladophora. Campbell (1954: D132) incorrectly designated Cycladophora stiligera as the type species of Cycladophora. Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo (1970: 529) followed this designation and also synonymized Cycladophora stiligera with Calocyclas turris, which is the type species of Calocyclas; thus, Calocyclas was considered a junior synonym of Cycladophora sensu Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo (1970). Once the type species of Cycladophora was corrected to Cycladophora davisiana by Lombari &amp; Lazarus (1988), Calocyclas was no longer considered a synonym of Cycladophora.</p> <p>Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel (1992) established Calocyclior, Calocyclissima, and Calocyclopsis as subgenera of Calocycletta; they are all monotypic subgenera with the following characters. Calocyclissima differs from the other subgenera in possessing longitudinal ribs between rows of thoracic pores, and very short cylindrical horns; Calocyclopsis is distinguished by its few broad shovel-shaped feet (Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1992: 30); Calocyclior is defined by a larger and more inflated thorax, more delicate abdomen with a longer porous part, and short termination with triangular teeth (Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1992: 31). However, there is no apparent need for the separation of these species into subgenera.</p> <p>Petrushevskaya (1981: 279) revised the definition of Calocycletta, translated as follows: “ A helmet-shaped, typically pterocorythid cephalis basally narrowing. Cephalis height larger than its basal width. Collar area distinct. ‘Neck’ and lateral lobes well differentiated. Upper part of the shell cupolashaped; lower part cylindrical. External constriction between the thorax and abdomen almost unmarked. Pores similar in size and shape. Shell wall of the thorax thicker than on the abdomen. Except for ribs on the thorax, all thickened parts mamillated. Wall of the abdomen hyaline near the aperture, but may be composed of long, flat, ribbon-shaped teeth, surrounding the wide-open aperture. Porous part of the abdomen not longer than the thorax, but with teeth, the abdomen may be much longer than the thorax. ” This revised definition covers the characters of Calocyclas. Anthocyrtonium was previously synonymized with Calocyclas by Petrushevskaya (1981: 280). Among these groups, the oldest available name is Calocyclas.</p> <p>Lampterium</p> <p>Lampterium was designated as a subgenus of Podocyrtis (Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1992), but it is convenient to regard it as a genus for disambiguation from true Podocyrtis. Tetralacorys has the same type species as Alacorys. Alacorys and Lamptidium were previously synonymized by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova (1972: 543); thus, Tetralacorys was automatically synonymized with Lampterium. Lampterium and Tetralacorys were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1882: 434 for the former and 436 for the latter). Lampterium has generally been preferred to Tetralacorys; therefore, the former is selected as a valid name.</p> <p>Podocyrtis</p> <p>Podocyrtidium has the same type species as Podocyrtis. Podocyrtoges and Podocyrtopsis were established as subgenera of Podocyrtis by Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel (1992). Podocyrtopsis is distinguished from Podocyrtoges by its larger thorax, lack of feet, and by abdominal pores being irregular in size and arrangement (Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1992: 14). Podocyrtonium differs from Podocyrtis by having a larger and wider abdomen (Petrushevskaya 1981: 218). Podocyrtoges differs from Podocyrtis in having a larger abdomen than thorax. The thorax of Podocyrtopsis is larger than that of Podocyrtoges (Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1992: 14). Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel (1992) stressed that comparisons of single factors are much less satisfactory than considering entire subgeneric lineages, some of which contain diverse forms that cannot be briefly characterized. Thus, these groups should be considered a single genus, without subgenera; Podocyrtis is the oldest available name among them.</p> <p>Pterocorys</p> <p>Sethoconus and Conarachnium have the same type species, as do Theoconus and Theocorax. Theoconus was previously synonymized with Pterocorys; thus, Theocorax is also automatically synonymized with Pterocorys. Eucyrtidium trochus was examined by Ehrenberg himself, and designated the type species of Conarachnium and Sethoconus, based on specimens in the Ehrenberg collection (Suzuki et al. 2009c: pl. 55, figs 12a-c); the lectotype is a dorsal or ventral view of a young specimen of Pterocorys zancleus. In conclusion, these genera are synonymous. Pterocorys and Conarachnium were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1882: 430 for Conarachnium and 435 for Pterocorys). As the type species of Pterocorys is a better specimen than that of Conarachnium, the former is selected as the valid name.</p> <p>Theocorythium</p> <p>Theocorypha has the same type species as Theocyrtis. The original specimen of Eucyrtidium barbadense which was examined by Ehrenberg himself was found in the Ehrenberg collection (Ogane et al. 2009b, pl. 85, figs 7a-c) and was designated as the lectotype. This species is the type species of Theocyrtis. As shown in the supporting image for Theocyrtis in the Atlas, the real specimen is in very poor condition. Theocorythium is known from the late early Miocene, but the lectotype of Theocyrtis was dated to about the late Eocene. We tentatively synonymize Theocyrtis and Theocorypha with Theocorythium, but it should be considered nomen dubium. The genus name Theocyrtis has been used for important biostratigraphic marker species such as Theocyrtis tuberosa, but a new genus should be established for taxonomic stability.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFE1FE4D06BEFE46FBC94887	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFEDFE4C05FEFF06FC144880.text	038DDA73FFEDFE4C05FEFF06FC144880.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Theocotylidae Petrushevskaya 1981	<div><p>Family THEOCOTYLIDAE Petrushevskaya, 1981</p> <p>Theocotylinae Petrushevskaya, 1981: 216-217. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S298. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 147.</p> <p>Theocotylidae – De Wever et al. 2001: 280.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Theocotyle Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo, 1970: 524 [type species by original designation: Theocotyle venezuelensis Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo, 1970: 524] = junior subjective synonym of Axocorys Haeckel, 1882: 434 [type species by subsequent monotypy: Axocorys macroceros Haeckel, 1887: 1420].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Axocorys Haeckel, 1882: 434 (= Theocotyle synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 220; Theocotylissa n. syn.). — Clistophatna Haeckel, 1882: 433. — Pentalacorys Haeckel, 1882: 436 (= Hexalacorys n. syn.; Octalacorys synonymized bySanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1982: 175). — Pterocodon Ehrenberg, 1847: 54. — Thyrsocyrtis Ehrenberg, 1847: 54 (= Podocyrtarium synonymized by Petrushevskaya &amp; Kozlova 1972: 542).</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Clistophaena.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Theocotylidae consist of three segmented Pterocorythoidea with a small spherical cephalis and an abdomen that is usually two or three times larger than the thorax. The distal segment of the shell is always open. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, V-, D-, double L- and double l-rods. The basal ring is directly connected to the V-, double L- and double l-rods forming a four-leafed clover shape. Each of the double L- and double l-rods tend to be arranged into a straight line. The basal ring is bended along the line with the double l-rod. The A-rod is free and extends vertically to reach near the top of the cephalic cavity. The double AL-arch is visible under a light microscope near the top of the A-rod in the cephalic cavity and merge with the cephalic wall. The D-rod near MB is free from the shell wall and extends downward and is attached to the shell wall. The double L-rod is also free near the edge of the basal ring. These double L-rod extends downward, attaching itself to the shell wall. If present three feet are disconnected from the D- and double L-rods. Three or more feet appear disconnected from all parts of the cephalic initial spicular system. These feet are developed in some genera. Nothing is known about the protoplasmic characteristics.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-early Middle Miocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Some genera and species that possess a spherical cephalis in the Pterocorythidae (e.g., Calocycloma) may be misidentified as genera of the Theocotylidae (e.g., Pentalacorys). The Theocotylidae are distinguished from the Pterocorythidae by the presence of a free vertical A-rod in the cephalic cavity. All Pterocorythidae genera, except for Calocyclas, have an A-rod merged with the cephalic wall. The cephalic structure of the Theocotylidae is very similar to type B of the Pterocorythidae (with a basal ring and double l-rods, see remarks under Pterocorythidae). However, the former is always associated with double l-rods and a D-rod that is free from the shell wall near the MB. Another fundamental difference between both families is the stability of the cephalic structure. The combination of the cephalic initial spicular system varies, even in a same species of Pterocorythidae, yet it remains unchanged in the Theocotylidae. At the generic level, the differences in Theocotylidae is marked, between the Theocotylissa -form of Axocorys and Pentalacorys, by the geometric relationship of the cephalic basal ring to the shell wall. The basal ring of the Theocotylissa -form of Axocorys is distanced from the shell wall on the apical side of the MB, whereas in Pentalacorys the basal ring is connected to the shell wall. The cephalic initial spicular system was described in Pentalacorys (Nishimura 1990: figs 28.4-28.7, 30.7; O’Connor 1997a: pl. 9, figs 1-5) and in the Theocotylissa -form of Axocorys (Nishimura 1990: figs 26.8, 26.9) using scanning electron microscopy. However, the free vertical A-rod in the cephalic cavity is also visible using a light microscope in Pentalacorys (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 54, figs 1e, 2c, pl. 55, fig.1e, pl. 57, fig. 1e, pl. 91, fig. 3b, pl. 92, fig. 3a) and Thyrsocyrtis (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 56, figs 1e, 2d). The evolution between Thyrsocyrtis and Pentalacorys has been partially reported (Kling 1978: 234-235; Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1982: pl. 3, figs 8-12; Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1982).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Axocorys</p> <p>Theocotyle was previously synonymized with Axocorys byPetrushevskaya (1981: 220). Identical real specimens similar to the type-illustration of Axocorys macroceros (Haeckel 1887: pl. 68, fig. 1), the type species of Axocorys, have not been seen for over a century. The most similar specimen is illustrated in the supporting image for Axocorys; it has two segments, not three. The type-illustration of Axocorys is similar to Theocotyle in its deep constriction among segments and a fenestrated aperture. We tentatively synonymize Theocotyle with Theocotylissa. The best definition of Theocotylissa was written by Kozlova (1999: 161), and is translated as follows: “ Three-segmented shell, frequently very large, square or conical. Cephalis small, subspherical, with apical horn. Thorax conical or hemispherical, 2-2.5 times larger than cephalis. Abdomen is the widest segment. Thoracic and sub-abdominal pores large, distributed in alternate longitudinal rows, 13-25 rows on the visible half of the shell. Aperture shape narrower with triangular teeth, sharp thorns, or a smooth rim. External strictures between segments not always marked. ” Kozlova (1999) commented that Theocotylissa differs from Theocotyle in its larger size and more curved abdomen. These differences are not important at the genus level, but the lectotype of Eucyrtidium ficus (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 59, figs 2a, 2b) is marked by a smooth surface. Synonymy among these groups must be investigated in a future study; Axocorys is the oldest available name among them.</p> <p>Pentalacorys</p> <p>The living image of Alacorys friderici (Haeckel 1887: pl. 65, fig. 1) is implausible; its morphological characters are identical to those Pentalacorys. Until a living Alacorys friderici is found, this genus is synonymized with Pentalacorys. Octalacorys was previously synonymized with Pentalacorys by Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel (1982: 175). Pentalacorys and Hexalacorys were simultaneously published in Haeckel (1882: 436 for both). As the type specimen of Podocyrtis pentacantha was examined by Ehrenberg himself in the Ehrenberg collection (Ogane et al. 2009b: pl. 93, figs 1a-d), Pentalacorys is selected as the valid name.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFEDFE4C05FEFF06FC144880	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFEEFE490435FF06FD034BBE.text	038DDA73FFEEFE490435FF06FD034BBE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Theoperidae Haeckel 1882	<div><p>Family THEOPERIDAE Haeckel, 1882 sensu Suzuki emend. hereinTheoperida Haeckel, 1882: 435 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1313, 1325, 1354 [as a subfamily].Rhopalocanida Haeckel, 1882: 437 [below tribe].Artoperida Haeckel, 1882: 438 [as a tribe].Theophaenida Haeckel, 1887: 1313, 1366, 1393 [as a subfamily].Theoperinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 81. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944b: 30. — Campbell 1954: D130, D132. — Chediya 1959: 216. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 231.Theophaeninae – Chediya 1959: 219.Theoperidae – Riedel 1967b: 296 (sensu emend.); 1971: 656. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 130. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 870. — Anderson 1983: 40. — Sanfilippo et al. 1985: 666. — Blueford 1988: 244. — Takemura 1986: 43. — Takahashi 1991: 113. — Dumitrica 1995: 29. — Boltovskoy 1998: 33. — Cordey 1998: 118. —Sugiyama 1998: 233-234. — Takemura &amp; Ling 1998: 159. — Kiessling 1999: 55. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1017. — De Wever et al. 2001: 282-283. — Suzuki H. et al. 2002: 180. — Suzuki &amp; Gawlick 2003: 176. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S297. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 146. — nec Suzuki H. et al. 2002: 105. TYPE GENUS. — Theopera Haeckel, 1882: 436 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D130): Theopera prismatica Haeckel, 1887: 1357] = junior subjective synonym of Rhopalocanium Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [type species by subsequent monotypy: Rhopalocanium ornatum Ehrenberg, 1847: 55]. INCLUDED GENERA. — Clathropyrgus Haeckel, 1882: 439. — Cyrtopera Haeckel, 1882: 439 (= Artopera Haeckel, 1882 nec Artopera Haeckel, 1887, with the same type species).— Eusyringium Haeckel, 1882: 437 (= Eusyringartus with the same type species; Pterosyringium synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 218). — Rhopalocanium Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Artoperinan. syn., Dictyatractusn. syn., Rhopalatractusn. syn., Rhopalocyrtis n. syn., Theophaenan. syn.; Theopera synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 232). — Stichopilidium Haeckel, 1887: 1438. INVALID NAME. — Sethornithium. NOMINA DUBIA. — Hexalatractus, Sestrornithium. JUNIOR HOMONYMS. — Artopera Haeckel, 1887 (= Artoperina) nec Haeckel, 1882; Pteropilium Haeckel, 1887 (= Rhopalocyrtis) nec Haeckel, 1882. DIAGNOSIS. — Theoperidae consist of three segmented Pterocorythoidea with a thick-walled spherical cephalis, a truncated conical or globular thorax, and a well-defined abdomen and/or conical tube.Two or three undulations rarely develop on the abdomen.Three wings or feet extend from the D- and double L-rods between the upper part of the thorax and the thoracic-abdominal boundary. The wings are rarely absent. The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, V-, D-, and double L-rods. The basal ring directly connects to the apical side end of MB, double L- and V-rods, forming four collar pores. In some members, an additional twin pore connected to D- and double Lrods is present on the apical side of the basal ring. The basal ring is largely free from the shell wall or is attached to the shell with D- and double L-rods. The basal ring sharply bends along the line with double L-rods. An A-rod is free in the cephalic cavity and forms an apical horn on the cephalis. A free A-rod in cephalic cavity is connected to an apical horn. A free D-rod, close to the MB, merges to the shell test. Little to nothing is known regarding the protoplasm.STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Paleocene-early Middle Miocene.REMARKS The concept of the Theoperidae differs considerably among publications. The most widely applied concept was defined by Riedel (1967b: 296). In the Theoperidae family, he included nassellarians with simple cephalic structures enclosed in a small spherical cephalis, and with a “cyrtid” shell differentiated along a heteropolar axis. The “probable polyphyletic” character, noticed by Riedel (1967b) for the Theoperidae, has been against regarded as monophyletic (e.g., Sugiyama 1998: 233-234). Due to the nomenclature act following the Code, the taxonomic name Theoperidae was transformed into the concept of the superfamily Eucyrtidioidea (Petrushevskaya 1981: 200-202). However, the “probable polyphyletic” possibility appears to have been lost. Nishimura (1990: 125-126) insisted on using Podocyrtidae instead of Theoperidae as Theopera is a junior synonym of Lithornithium. This explanation is not only nonsensical but also an incorrect nomenclatural act due to the nomen nudum status of Lithornithium. The concept of “ Podocyrtidae ” mixes one family of Lineage I (Eucyrtidiidae in our catalogue) and five families of Lineage IV (Lithochytrididae, Lophocyrtiidae, Pterocorythidae, Theocotylidae and Theoperidae in our catalogue). Thus, the concept of “ Podocyrtidae ” must be rejected. Besides a very broad concept of the Theoperidae (Riedel 1967b; Nishimura 1990; Sugiyama 1998), the concept of “Theoperinae” adopted by Petrushevskaya (1981: 231) and of “ Theoperidae ” adopted by De Wever et al. (2001: 282- 283) is further limited by the morphological commonality to the type genus Theopera. However, their concepts are slightly different in so far as to include Pterocyrtidium (Rhopalosyringiidae) and Lamprotripus (Bekomidae) from Petrushevskaya (1981). Conversely, Lychnocanissa (originally Lychnocanoma) and Lychnocanium (Lithochytrididae) are included in De Wever et al. (2001: 282). The improbable placement of these genera in the Theoperidae was explained in the remarks for Lamprotripus. Several species generally classified in Lychnocanissa (originally Lychnocanoma) (O’Connor 1997a: pl. 9, figs 9-12; 1; 1999: pl. 4, figs 11, 15) have a cephalic structure identical to that of the Theoperidae; this is marked by the presence of many rods around the cephalic base that join the basal ring and shell test. For O’Connor (1997a; 1999) these species develop a tube-like porous skirt, which is common to the thorax of the Theoperidae genera. Lychnocanissa is a very large group. Nonetheless, this does not suggest that all Lychnocanissa belong to the Theoperidae. The cephalic initial spicular system was reported for Cyrtopera (Nishimura 1992: pl. 8, figs 2, 12; O’Connor 1999: pl. 4, figs 16-21), for some Lychnocanissa members (O’Connor 1997a: pl. 9, figs 9-12; 1999: pl. 4, figs 11, 15), Rhopalocanium (Nishimura 1990: fig. 27.10), and the “ Lychnocanissa ”-form of Rhopalocanium (Nishimura 1992: pl. 9, figs 12 16; O’Connor 1999: pl. 4, figs 1-15). The aforementioned explanations have a common cephalic structure with a few exceptions (Nishimura 1992: pl. 8, fig. 8). VALIDITY OF GENERARhopalocanium Rhopalocyrtis and Pteropilium have the same type species. The genera listed here have common characters including two to three segments, inverted conical final segment, and wing-like lateral appendages that are directly connected with D- and L-rods. Apart from the final segment, the largest segment is cupola-shaped. Skeleton robust. In ignorance of the final segment, these genera may be subdivided into a two-segmented group (Rhopalocanium, Artoperina, Dictyatractus, Rhopalatractus, Theopera, and Theophaena) and a three-segmented group (Rhopalocyrtis). Apical horn on cephalis is variable, from very short (Rhopalatractus, Theopera, and Theophaena) to upwardly thickening hyaline cephalic wall (Artoperina), to very robust and long (Rhopalocanium and Dictyatractus). These continuous changes are insufficient for distinction at the genus level. The robustness and length of wing-like lateral appendages are also variable, but in a different way from the apical horn. Winglike lateral appendages form ridges on the test, and its distal part is free from the test. Free lateral appendages sometimes develop poreless or latticed web from the test. The following differences are summarized in the Atlas for each genus based on type and supporting images: thoracic ribs and base of free lateral appendages on upper abdomen in Dictyatractus and Rhopalocanium; thoracic or thoracic to abdominal ribs and free lateral appendages with poreless web on upper abdomen or distal margin of abdomen in Rhopalatractus; thoracic to abdominal ribs as base of free lateral appendages in Artoperina; extended thoracic to abdominal ribs with very short lateral appendages from distal margin of abdomen in Theopera; and ribs vertically passing through thorax and free lateral appendages originating from abdomen in Theophaena. As the base and free parts of the lateral appendages overlap among these genera, these characters are inappropriate for genus classification. All genera have three lateral appendages, except Theophaena. No real specimens have been reported for Theopera. The final segments can be divided into three types: slender, inverted, conical in shape and a straight extending terminal tube in Dictyatractus, Rhopalatractus, and Rhopalocanium; inverted, conical in shape without opening in Theopera and Theophaena; short, truncated, inverted, conical in shape with fenestrated aperture at end of final segment in Artoperina; and short, truncated, slightly inverted, conical in shape with large aperture at end of final segment in Dictyatractus and Rhopalatractus. As described above, Dictyatractus and Rhopalatractus may have different final segments, in which case detailed differences in the final segment may represent intraspecific or infraspecific variation rather than genus differences.We have discarded all differences among all two-segmented genera described in previous studies (Haeckel 1882, 1887; Petrushevskaya 1981; Kozlova 1999) from the genus criteria. The remaining genus is Rhopalocyrtis, which was defined by Bütschli (1882: 526) and translated as follows: “ Four segments. Short apical horn.Well-developed abdomen and lateral appendages oriented slightly downward and to posterior, such that they originate from continuous second and third segments, which are strongly connected. ” We consider this description to be similar to that of two-segmented genera, except for the number of segments in Rhopalocyrtis. Among these groups, the oldest available name is Rhopalocanium. Incertae familiae nassellarians INCLUDED GENUS. — Aspis Nishimura, 1992: 358. STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-Late Paleocene.</p> <p>sensu Suzuki emend. herein</p> <p>Theoperida Haeckel, 1882: 435 [as a tribe]; 1887: 1313, 1325, 1354 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Rhopalocanida Haeckel, 1882: 437 [below tribe].</p> <p>Artoperida Haeckel, 1882: 438 [as a tribe].</p> <p>Theophaenida Haeckel, 1887: 1313, 1366, 1393 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Theoperinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 81. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944b: 30. — Campbell 1954: D130, D132. — Chediya 1959: 216. — Petrushevskaya 1981: 231.</p> <p>Theophaeninae – Chediya 1959: 219.</p> <p>Theoperidae – Riedel 1967b: 296 (sensu emend.); 1971: 656. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 130. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 870. — Anderson 1983: 40. — Sanfilippo et al. 1985: 666. — Blueford 1988: 244. — Takemura 1986: 43. — Takahashi 1991: 113. — Dumitrica 1995: 29. — Boltovskoy 1998: 33. — Cordey 1998: 118. —Sugiyama 1998: 233-234. — Takemura &amp; Ling 1998: 159. — Kiessling 1999: 55. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1017. — De Wever et al. 2001: 282-283. — Suzuki H. et al. 2002: 180. — Suzuki &amp; Gawlick 2003: 176. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S297. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 146. — nec Suzuki H. et al. 2002: 105.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Theopera Haeckel, 1882: 436 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D130): Theopera prismatica Haeckel, 1887: 1357] = junior subjective synonym of Rhopalocanium Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [type species by subsequent monotypy: Rhopalocanium ornatum Ehrenberg, 1847: 55].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Clathropyrgus Haeckel, 1882: 439. — Cyrtopera Haeckel, 1882: 439 (= Artopera Haeckel, 1882 nec Artopera Haeckel, 1887, with the same type species).— Eusyringium Haeckel, 1882: 437 (= Eusyringartus with the same type species; Pterosyringium synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 218). — Rhopalocanium Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 (= Artoperina n. syn., Dictyatractus n. syn., Rhopalatractus n. syn., Rhopalocyrtis n. syn., Theophaena n. syn.; Theopera synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1981: 232). — Stichopilidium Haeckel, 1887: 1438.</p> <p>INVALID NAME. — Sethornithium.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Hexalatractus, Sestrornithium.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYMS. — Artopera Haeckel, 1887 (= Artoperina) nec Haeckel, 1882; Pteropilium Haeckel, 1887 (= Rhopalocyrtis) nec Haeckel, 1882.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Theoperidae consist of three segmented Pterocorythoidea with a thick-walled spherical cephalis, a truncated conical or globular thorax, and a well-defined abdomen and/or conical tube.Two or three undulations rarely develop on the abdomen.Three wings or feet extend from the D- and double L-rods between the upper part of the thorax and the thoracic-abdominal boundary. The wings are rarely absent.</p> <p>The cephalic initial spicular system consists of MB, A-, V-, D-, and double L-rods. The basal ring directly connects to the apical side end of MB, double L- and V-rods, forming four collar pores. In some members, an additional twin pore connected to D- and double Lrods is present on the apical side of the basal ring. The basal ring is largely free from the shell wall or is attached to the shell with D- and double L-rods. The basal ring sharply bends along the line with double L-rods. An A-rod is free in the cephalic cavity and forms an apical horn on the cephalis. A free A-rod in cephalic cavity is connected to an apical horn. A free D-rod, close to the MB, merges to the shell test. Little to nothing is known regarding the protoplasm.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Early Paleocene-early Middle Miocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The concept of the Theoperidae differs considerably among publications. The most widely applied concept was defined by Riedel (1967b: 296). In the Theoperidae family, he included nassellarians with simple cephalic structures enclosed in a small spherical cephalis, and with a “cyrtid” shell differentiated along a heteropolar axis. The “probable polyphyletic” character, noticed by Riedel (1967b) for the Theoperidae, has been against regarded as monophyletic (e.g., Sugiyama 1998: 233-234). Due to the nomenclature act following the Code, the taxonomic name Theoperidae was transformed into the concept of the superfamily Eucyrtidioidea (Petrushevskaya 1981: 200-202). However, the “probable polyphyletic” possibility appears to have been lost. Nishimura (1990: 125-126) insisted on using Podocyrtidae instead of Theoperidae as Theopera is a junior synonym of Lithornithium. This explanation is not only nonsensical but also an incorrect nomenclatural act due to the nomen nudum status of Lithornithium. The concept of “ Podocyrtidae ” mixes one family of Lineage I (Eucyrtidiidae in our catalogue) and five families of Lineage IV (Lithochytrididae, Lophocyrtiidae, Pterocorythidae, Theocotylidae and Theoperidae in our catalogue). Thus, the concept of “ Podocyrtidae ” must be rejected. Besides a very broad concept of the Theoperidae (Riedel 1967b; Nishimura 1990; Sugiyama 1998), the concept of “Theoperinae” adopted by Petrushevskaya (1981: 231) and of “ Theoperidae ” adopted by De Wever et al. (2001: 282- 283) is further limited by the morphological commonality to the type genus Theopera. However, their concepts are slightly different in so far as to include Pterocyrtidium (Rhopalosyringiidae) and Lamprotripus (Bekomidae) from Petrushevskaya (1981). Conversely, Lychnocanissa (originally Lychnocanoma) and Lychnocanium (Lithochytrididae) are included in De Wever et al. (2001: 282). The improbable placement of these genera in the Theoperidae was explained in the remarks for Lamprotripus. Several species generally classified in Lychnocanissa (originally Lychnocanoma) (O’Connor 1997a: pl. 9, figs 9-12; 1; 1999: pl. 4, figs 11, 15) have a cephalic structure identical to that of the Theoperidae; this is marked by the presence of many rods around the cephalic base that join the basal ring and shell test. For O’Connor (1997a; 1999) these species develop a tube-like porous skirt, which is common to the thorax of the Theoperidae genera. Lychnocanissa is a very large group. Nonetheless, this does not suggest that all Lychnocanissa belong to the Theoperidae.</p> <p>The cephalic initial spicular system was reported for Cyrtopera (Nishimura 1992: pl. 8, figs 2, 12; O’Connor 1999: pl. 4, figs 16-21), for some Lychnocanissa members (O’Connor 1997a: pl. 9, figs 9-12; 1999: pl. 4, figs 11, 15), Rhopalocanium (Nishimura 1990: fig. 27.10), and the “ Lychnocanissa ”-form of Rhopalocanium (Nishimura 1992: pl. 9, figs 12 16; O’Connor 1999: pl. 4, figs 1-15). The aforementioned explanations have a common cephalic structure with a few exceptions (Nishimura 1992: pl. 8, fig. 8).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Rhopalocanium</p> <p>Rhopalocyrtis and Pteropilium have the same type species. The genera listed here have common characters including two to three segments, inverted conical final segment, and wing-like lateral appendages that are directly connected with D- and L-rods. Apart from the final segment, the largest segment is cupola-shaped. Skeleton robust. In ignorance of the final segment, these genera may be subdivided into a two-segmented group (Rhopalocanium, Artoperina, Dictyatractus, Rhopalatractus, Theopera, and Theophaena) and a three-segmented group (Rhopalocyrtis). Apical horn on cephalis is variable, from very short (Rhopalatractus, Theopera, and Theophaena) to upwardly thickening hyaline cephalic wall (Artoperina), to very robust and long (Rhopalocanium and Dictyatractus). These continuous changes are insufficient for distinction at the genus level. The robustness and length of wing-like lateral appendages are also variable, but in a different way from the apical horn. Winglike lateral appendages form ridges on the test, and its distal part is free from the test. Free lateral appendages sometimes develop poreless or latticed web from the test. The following differences are summarized in the Atlas for each genus based on type and supporting images: thoracic ribs and base of free lateral appendages on upper abdomen in Dictyatractus and Rhopalocanium; thoracic or thoracic to abdominal ribs and free lateral appendages with poreless web on upper abdomen or distal margin of abdomen in Rhopalatractus; thoracic to abdominal ribs as base of free lateral appendages in Artoperina; extended thoracic to abdominal ribs with very short lateral appendages from distal margin of abdomen in Theopera; and ribs vertically passing through thorax and free lateral appendages originating from abdomen in Theophaena. As the base and free parts of the lateral appendages overlap among these genera, these characters are inappropriate for genus classification. All genera have three lateral appendages, except Theophaena. No real specimens have been reported for Theopera. The final segments can be divided into three types: slender, inverted, conical in shape and a straight extending terminal tube in Dictyatractus, Rhopalatractus, and Rhopalocanium; inverted, conical in shape without opening in Theopera and Theophaena; short, truncated, inverted, conical in shape with fenestrated aperture at end of final segment in Artoperina; and short, truncated, slightly inverted, conical in shape with large aperture at end of final segment in Dictyatractus and Rhopalatractus. As described above, Dictyatractus and Rhopalatractus may have different final segments, in which case detailed differences in the final segment may represent intraspecific or infraspecific variation rather than genus differences.We have discarded all differences among all two-segmented genera described in previous studies (Haeckel 1882, 1887; Petrushevskaya 1981; Kozlova 1999) from the genus criteria. The remaining genus is Rhopalocyrtis, which was defined by Bütschli (1882: 526) and translated as follows: “ Four segments. Short apical horn.Well-developed abdomen and lateral appendages oriented slightly downward and to posterior, such that they originate from continuous second and third segments, which are strongly connected. ” We consider this description to be similar to that of two-segmented genera, except for the number of segments in Rhopalocyrtis. Among these groups, the oldest available name is Rhopalocanium.</p> <p>Incertae familiae nassellarians</p> <p>INCLUDED GENUS. — Aspis Nishimura, 1992: 358.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-Late Paleocene.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The cephalic structure of Aspis was only shown in Hollis (2002: pl. 5, fig. 11a). This genus is characterized by the absence of internal dividers and has a very complex cephalic initial spicular system. Dumitrica (1973b: pl. 3, figs 2-4) identified this genus as Ceratocyrtis at the time.</p> <p>Orphaned nassellarian family ranks</p> <p>Calodictya Ehrenberg, 1847: 54 [invalid name, as a family]; 1876: 156. — Schomburgk 1847: 124, 126 [as a family].</p> <p>Cyrtiida Haeckel, 1862: 237-238, 272-290 [invalid name, as a family]. — Zittel 1876-1880: 120 [as a group].</p> <p>Dicyrtida Haeckel, 1862: 238, 280, 296 [invalid name, as a tribe]; 1887: 1192 [as a section between suborder and family]. — Zittel 1876-1880: 121 [rank unknown]. — Stöhr 1880: 99 [as a family]. — Poche 1913: 220 [as a super-superfamily]. — Popofsky 1913: 333 [as a section between suborder and family]. — Schröder 1914: 91, 100 [as a group between suborder and family]. — Chediya 1959: 199 [as a group between superfamily and family].</p> <p>Polycyrtida Haeckel, 1862: 238, 280, 341 [invalid name, as a tribe]. — Zittel 1876-1880: 123 [rank unknown].</p> <p>Zygocyrtida Haeckel, 1862: 238, 280, 291 [invalid name, as a tribe]. — Zittel 1876-1880: 121 [rank unknown]. — Stöhr 1880: 97 [as a family].</p> <p>Cyrlidae [sic] – Claus 1876: 159 [invalid name] (= Cyrtidae).</p> <p>Cyrtiden – Hertwig 1879: 202-214 [invalid name, as a family].</p> <p>Plectida Haeckel, 1882: 423 [invalid name, as a family]. — Lankester 1885: 850 [as a family].</p> <p>Cyrtida – Haeckel 1882: 425 [invalid name, as a family]; 1884: 31 [as a family]. — Lankester 1885: 850 [as a family].</p> <p>Dyocyrtida Haeckel, 1882: 430 [invalid name, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Triocyrtida Haeckel, 1882: 434 [nomen nudum, as a subfamily]; 1887: 1313 [as a section between suborder and family].</p> <p>Lophocorida Haeckel, 1882: 434 [invalid name, below a tribe].</p> <p>Artocorida Haeckel, 1882: 437 [nomen nudum, as a tribe].</p> <p>Tetracyrtida Haeckel, 1882: 437 [invalid name, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Theophatnida Haeckel, 1882: 437 [nomen nudum, as a tribe].</p> <p>Dyospyrida Haeckel, 1882: 441 [nomen nudum, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Pentaspyrida Haeckel, 1882: 442 [invalid name, as a subfamily]; 1887: 1024, 1052 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Pleurospyrida Haeckel, 1882: 444 [nomen nudum, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Stephida Haeckel, 1882: 444-445 [invalid name, as a family]. — Lankester 1885: 850 [as a family].</p> <p>Dyostephanida Haeckel, 1882: 446 [nomen nudum, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Dyostephida Haeckel, 1882: 446 [nomen nudum, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Parastephida Haeckel, 1882: 446 [nomen nudum, as a subfamily].</p> <p>Plectoida Haeckel, 1884: 30 [invalid name, as a family].</p> <p>Cyrtoidea – Haecker 1908: 448 [invalid name, as a rank between suborder and family]. — Chediya 1959: 188 [as a superfamily]. — Pessagno 1977b: 933 [as a superfamily]. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 294 [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Pentaspyrinae – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 57 [invalid name]; 1945: 32. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 35. — Chediya 1959: 179.</p> <p>Dicyrtoidea – Clark &amp; Campbell 1942: 65 [invalid name, as a section above a family]; 1945: 36. — Campbell &amp; Clark 1944a: 40 [as a section above a family]; 1944b: 23 [as a section].</p> <p>Enneaplagiinae Campbell, 1954: D104 [nomen nudum].</p> <p>Pentaspyridinae – Campbell 1954: D112 [invalid name].</p> <p>Theophatninae Campbell, 1954: D134 [nomen nudum].</p> <p>Cyrtoidae – Orlev 1959: 454 [invalid name, as a family].</p> <p>Dicyrtoidae – Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 294 [invalid name].</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Families with no assigned species that can tentatively be placed in Nassellaria and are “ nomina nuda ” without any taxonomic information are simply listed herein. This list does not include higher ranks than the family-rank (e.g., suborder Cyrtida).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFEEFE490435FF06FD034BBE	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFE8FE4905EBFA46FA5749DC.text	038DDA73FFE8FE4905EBFA46FA5749DC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sphaerozoidea Muller 1859	<div><p>Superfamily SPHAEROZOIDEA Müller, 1859</p> <p>Sphaerozoen Müller, 1859a: 17 [as a family].</p> <p>Sphaerozoeen – Hertwig 1879: 261 [as an order]. — Brandt 1885: 210-212.</p> <p>Sphaerozoa – Lankester et al. 1909:145 [as an order].</p> <p>Spheroidea – Calkins 1909: 40 [as an order].</p> <p>Spherozoea – Calkins 1909: 40 [as an order].</p> <p>Collosphaerinea – Poche 1913: 210 [as a suborder] (synonymized with Collosphaerida, Polycyttaria).</p> <p>Sphaerozoidea – Bertolini 1937: 1267-1268 [as a group].</p> <p>Collosphaeroidea – Bertolini 1937: 1268.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. —For Colonial Collodaria, the colony consists of many collodarian cells which are embedded in a gelatinous support. A reticulated system of pseudopodia interconnects the collodarian cells inside the gelatinous substance. The cell is constituted of three zonal structure: the adipose droplet (oil droplet) in the center, the intracapsular zone with an endoplasm, and the extracapsular zone with ectoplasm. The intracapsular zone includes many small nuclei, pigmented spherules observed in light microscopy, and several small orthorhombic shaped crystals. The intracapsular zone is bounded from the extracapsular zone by the capsular wall. The extracapsular zone resembles a transparent clear thin zone and consists of the ectoplasm and pseudopodia. Anatomically, the pseudopodia are part of the endoplasm. The endoplasm extrudes from the intracapsular zone through the fusules, that is a special tunnel organelle on the central capsule. The extracapsular zone is bounded by the plasmalemma of the gelatinous material. The pseudopodia buried in gelatinous material radiate and appear as fibers of gelatinous matter. The algal symbionts are located in the ectoplasm or in the gelatinous matter. The boundary of the gelatinous matter is unknown. If present, the siliceous skeletons are wrapped with silicalemma. It is unknown whether the silicalemma is a part of the endoplasm and/or of the ectoplasm.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The Collodaria are conventionally divided into “colonial Collodaria ” and “solitary Collodaria ”; the former is commonly known as Sphaerozoidea. One of the most comprehensive studies of the Sphaerozoidea was performed by Strelkov &amp; Reshetnyak (1971). The morphological terminology adopted in fig. 6 of Strelkov &amp; Reshetnyak (1971) is a basis in understanding the Sphaerozoidea. The metabarcoding survey found that the coastal area populations are dominated by the Sphaerozoidae, while open ocean populations are dominated by the Collosphaeridae (Biard et al. 2017). Although the exact taxonomy of the host is unknown, amphipod species such as Oxycephalusclausi, Streetsiaporcella and Hyperietta stebbingi were found among Sphaerozoidea (Harbison et al. 1977; Zeidler 2016). The Sphaerozoidea consists of the Collophiidae, Collosphaeridae and Sphaerozoidae. The formation of superfamily names for this group needs some additional explanations. The Latin stem of Sphaerozoum is Sphaerozo-, thus Sphaerozo-oidea is grammatically correct. However, in this case, there is an old pronunciation problem. When one pronounces a double “oo”, the result is not very nice for Latin, Italian, French and Spanish ears. In English the pronunciation can result as “ouuu” sound. There is just a big exception which is the Greek name “zoon” = zoo (identical in all European languages, even in Russian). The prevalent use in occidental languages is to remove the additional “o”, so as not to pronounce this not phonetically nice “oo”. Sphaerozoidae sounds better than Sphaerozooidae.Very often, many radiolarists have been using translations of such word in their native languages: Sphaerozoidés in French, Sphaerozoids in English and Sphaerozoiden in German (always without a double “o”).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFE8FE4905EBFA46FA5749DC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFE8FE480675F926FCFE4BB9.text	038DDA73FFE8FE480675F926FCFE4BB9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Collophidiidae Biard & Suzuki 2015	<div><p>Family COLLOPHIDIIDAE Biard &amp; Suzuki in Biard, Pillet, Decelle, Poirier, Suzuki &amp; Not, 2015</p> <p>Collophidiidae Biard &amp; Suzuki in Biard, Pillet, Decelle, Poirier, Suzuki &amp; Not, 2015: 384.</p> <p>Collophidae – Ishitani et al. 2012 [no pages can be specified due to ambiguous indication, no type genus indication, and grammatic error in name formation, unavailable name].</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Collophidium Haeckel, 1887: 26 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D44): Collozoum serpentinum Haeckel, 1887: 26].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Collophidium Haeckel, 1887: 26.</p> <p>NOMEN DUBIUM. — Colloprunum.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Collophidiidae are Colonial Collodaria with a variable elongated, cylindrical, or spherical appearance. Each colony is comprised of a delicate gelatinous material that encompasses the scattered algal symbionts and the string-like aggregations. A stringlike aggregation includes tens to a hundred collodarian cells within a firm gelatinous material. The central capsule is of an elongated cylindrical shape, with an endoplasm highly vacuolated.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The taxonomic independency of Collophidium was initially recognized by the studies of Anderson et al. (1999). This was achieved by the observation of ultrafine cellular structure and the publication of “living” images.Their results were later supported by a molecular phylogenetic study by Ishitani et al. (2012).</p> <p>The microbial eukaryotes (0.8-20 Μm) of the bathypelagic zone (3000-4000 m in water depth) in global oceans are dominated by Collophidium, suggesting the important role of this genus in the deep-ocean (Pernice et al. 2016). This family can be easily distinguished from the other collodarian families by the presence of cell-embedded sacks observed within the gelatinous matter. Many undescribed genera and species are encountered in plankton samples. Four Collophidium species were drawn in figs 10-13 of Strelkov &amp; Reshetnyak (1971) but need to be described again as new species due to their identification based on the unillustrated species of Haeckel (1887).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFE8FE480675F926FCFE4BB9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFE9FE4A05DBFACAFB2F4CDF.text	038DDA73FFE9FE4A05DBFACAFB2F4CDF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Collosphaeridae Muller 1859	<div><p>Family COLLOSPHAERIDAE Müller, 1859</p> <p>Collosphaeren Müller, 1859a: 17 [as a family].</p> <p>Collosphaerida – Haeckel 1862: 240, 530-531 [as both family and tribe]; 1882: 471 [as a family]; 1884: 29 [as a family];1887: 55, 92- 94 [as a family]. — Mivart 1878: 179 [as a subsection]. — Brandt 1885: 252-254. — Bütschli 1889: 1949 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 140 [as a family]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 157 [as a class].</p> <p>Collosphaeridae – Claus 1876: 160. — Delage &amp; Hérouard 1896: 203 [as a suborder]. — Enriques 1919: 57; 1932: 983. — Campbell 1954: D51. — Chediya 1959: 74. — Riedel 1967b: 294; 1971: 650. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1971: 1586; 1977: 862. — Strelkov &amp; Reshetnyak 1971: 329-332. — Dumitrica 1973a: 831. — Sanfilippo &amp; Riedel 1973: 485. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 166. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 119. — Tan &amp; Tchang 1976: 226. — Reshetnyak &amp; Runeva 1978: 6-7. — Dumitrica 1979: 26-27. — Tan &amp; Su 1982: 137. — Anderson 1983: 37, 71. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 285. — Sanfilippo et al. 1985: 650. — Petrushevskaya 1986: 123. — Takahashi 1991: 53. — van de Paverd 1995: 35-37. — Chen &amp; Tan 1996: 150. — Boltovskoy 1998: 30-31. — Tan 1998: 104. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1001. — De Wever et al. 2001: 169, 171. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S306. — Chen et al. 2017: 93.</p> <p>Acrosphaerida Haeckel, 1882: 471 [as a subfamily]; 1887: 94 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Clathrosphaerida Haeckel, 1882: 472 [as a subfamily]; 1887: 94, 118 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Collosphaeriden – Brandt 1905: 327-328 [as a family]. — Lankester et al. 1909: 145 [as a family]. — Popofsky 1917: 239 [as a family].</p> <p>Collosphaerinae – Campbell 1954: D51.</p> <p>Clathrosphaerinae – Campbell 1954: D52. — Chediya 1959: 77.</p> <p>Acrosphaerinae – Chediya 1959: 74.</p> <p>Collosphaerini – Strelkov &amp; Reshetnyak 1971: 332.</p> <p>Acrosphaerini – Strelkov &amp; Reshetnyak 1971: 338-339</p> <p>Siphonosphaerini Strelkov &amp; Reshetnyak, 1971: 348.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Collosphaera Müller, 1855: 238 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D51): Thalassicolla (Collosphaera) huxleyi Müller, 1855: 238].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Choenicosphaera Haeckel, 1887: 102 (= Choenicosphaerula with the same type species; Choenicosphaerium n. syn., Coronosphaera n. syn., Trypanosphaerium n. syn.; Trypanosphaera, Trypanosphaerula synonymized by Menshutkin &amp; Petrushevskaya 1989: 91). — Clathrosphaera Haeckel, 1882: 472 (= Clathrosphaerula with the same type species). — Collosphaera Müller, 1855: 238 (= Dyscollosphaera with the same type species; Collodiscus n. syn., Conosphaera n. syn., Myxosphaera n. syn.). — Disolenia Ehrenberg, 1861b: 831 (= Solenosphaera, Tetrasolenia synonymized by Haeckel 1887: 113, Trisolenia synonymized by Haeckel 1887: 114). — Otosphaera Haeckel, 1887: 116. — Polysolenia Ehrenberg, 1861b: 832 (= Acrosphaera synonymized by Nigrini 1967: 14; Clathrosphaerium synonymized by Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 4, Mazosphaera synonymized by Menshutkin &amp; Petrushevskaya 1989: 93, Odontosphaera n. syn.). — Siphonosphaera Müller, 1859b: 59 (= Holosiphonia with the same type species; Merosiphonia synonymized by Riedel 1971: 651; Solenosphactra synonymized by Menshutkin &amp; Petrushevskaya 1989: 95; Solenosphenia n. syn., Solenosphyra n. syn.). — Tribonosphaera Haeckel, 1882: 471 (= Buccinosphaera, Pharyngosphaera synonymized by Menshutkin &amp; Petrushevskaya 1989: 90).</p> <p>NOMEN NUDUM. — Pentasolenia</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Caminosphaera, Eucollosphaera, Xanthiosphaera.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYM. — Pachysphaera Brandt, 1902 nec Pilsbry in Tryon &amp; Pilsbry, 1892.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Collosphaeridae consist of colonial Collodaria with tens, hundreds or more collodarian cells, depending on the size of the colony. Each collodarian cell has one or two, rarely more, spherical cortical shells. The intracapsular zone is always located inside the cortical shell. Each cell has multi-nuclei, at least in Collosphaera and Disolenia. Algal symbionts are observed within the cortical shell or outside of it, but little is known about their specific location at genus- or species- levels.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — early Early Miocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>In sediments, the Collosphaeridae are identifiable at species level. Unfortunately, the Collosphaeridae are usually poorly preserved in sediments. A single colony contains variable morphotypes of one probable species. The morphological variations at the species level and taxonomic scheme at the genus level were repeatedly studied (Knoll &amp; Johnson 1975; Menshutkin &amp; Petrushevskaya 1989; Petrushevskaya &amp; Swanberg 1990). However, their contributions are difficult to apply for further studies. The first occurrences of Collosphaera tuberosa and Tribonosphaera invaginata are important in determining the RN16 (0.51±0.08 Ma at the base) and RN17 (0.34±0.11 Ma at the base) radiolarian biozones in the tropical region (Sanfilippo &amp; Nigrini 1998). The first occurrence of Siphonosphaera abyssi is also key to determining the boundary of 1.80 Ma in the Northwest Pacific (Matsuzaki et al. 2014). Thus, the identification of these three species is critical. The critical identification was explained in detail in Matsuzaki et al. (2015: 5) for S. abyssi and the morphological changes of Tribonosphaera (originally Buccinosphaera) were stratigraphically recognized inKnoll &amp; Johnson (1975). The determinable morphological character for Tribonosphaera is best illustrated in van de Paverd (1995: pl. 4, figs 2a, 4). Differing from other Collodaria families, the Collosphaeridae are the only family which provide a connection between our knowledge of living and fossil forms. In the fossil record, the evolution of Polysolenia (= Acrosphaera in original), Collosphaera and Disolenia (= Trisolenia) were recorded since the early Miocene (c. 20 Ma) (BjØrklund &amp; Goll 1979). Collosphaera was used for biological research on ultrafine cellular structures (Anderson 1978a; 1983), assimilation of organic substances from algal symbionts using 14 C (Anderson 1978a; Anderson et al. 1983; 1985), binary fission on live (Anderson &amp; Swanberg 1981; Anderson &amp; Gupta 1998), and silicalemma containing granular masses forming the siliceous skeleton (Anderson 1981: figs 13.14-13.17). Moreover, the silicalemma function of Polycystinea was based on the study of Collosphaera. Collosphaeridae are relatively easy to identify at the genus level. Consequently, images of living specimens were published in many papers. “Living” images were illustrated for Collosphaera (Anderson 1978a: fig. 1; 1980: fig. 8; 1983: figs 1.5.E-1.5.F; Anderson &amp; Gupta 1998: figs 1-7; Suzuki &amp; Aita 2011: figs 5H, 5I; Probert et al. 2014: S1, PAC 2, 7; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.13.8, 8.13.9; Matsuoka et al. 2017: appendix A), Otosphaera (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.13.12), Polysolenia (Caron &amp; Swanberg 1990: fig. 3.C), Siphonosphaera (Casey 1993: fig. 13.6: Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.13.11), Disolenia (Anderson 1983: fig. 1.4.A; Caron &amp; Swanberg 1990: fig. 3.A; Matsuoka 2007: fig. 5.b; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig.8.13.13-8.13.15), and Tribonosphaera (Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.13.10). The skeletal structure, including the growth line, was documented for Polysolenia (Nishimura 1986: figs 6.1-6.2), Disolenia (Nishimura 1986: fig. 6.3), Tribonosphaera (van de Paverd 1995: pl. 4, figs 2a, 4). These results are not applicable as a general rule for all Polycystinea due to the differences in skeletal formation of Nassellaria and Spumellaria. Though a powerful detection tool to define on-time silicification phenomena, PDMPO and HCK-123 failed to catch silicification phenomena for any collodarian specimens (not reported inOgane et al. 2009c, 2010 because of negative results). Any results based on Collosphaeridae should not be overgeneralized in Polycystinea. From a historical point of view, the study of symbionts in Collosphaeridae is of particular interest. The algal symbionts and the nucleus of host were documented using DAPI dyeing epi-fluorescent observation for Collosphaera (Suzuki et al. 2009b: figs 1I-1K; Zhang et al. 2018: 11, fig. 4, p. 13, figs 1-4), Mazosphaera (Zhang et al. 2018: 13, figs 6-8), Disolenia (Suzuki et al. 2009b: figs 1L, 1M; Zhang et al. 2018: 11, figs 9, 10, p. 13, fig. 5), Polysolenia (Zhang et al. 2018: 11, fig. 21; p. 13, figs 9, 12, 13), Otosphaera (Zhang et al. 2018: 11, fig. 22; p. 13, figs 10, 11), Polysolenia (Zhang et al. 2018: 11, fig. 25), Siphonosphaera (Zhang et al. 2018: 13, figs 14-17). The algal symbionts of Collosphaera were identified as Brandtodinium nutricula by Probert et al. (2014). Merodinium mendax parasites in Collosphaera were reported by Chatton (1923) but integrative morpho- and molecular studies have not been conducted as of yet.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Choenicosphaera</p> <p>The combinations Choenicosphaera and Choenicosphaerula, and Trypanosphaera and Trypanosphaerula have the same type species. The genera listed here are subdivided into a group with poreless, hyaline shells (Choenicosphaera and Trypanosphaera) and a group with shells with pit-like pores (Choenicosphaera, Coronosphaera, and Trypanosphaerium). Choenicosphaera is defined by coronal radial spines around a large pore and a crown of spines around each pore (Campbell 1954: D52). These characteristics fit the type-illustration of Coronosphaera diadema, the type species of Coronosphaera (Haeckel 1887: pl. 7, fig. 3). Coronosphaera is characterized by pores prolonged outward in fenestrate tubules (Campbell 1954: D52). This difference is insufficient to separate them into two genera. According to Campbell (1954: D52), Trypanosphaerium is similar to Coronosphaera, but differs from the latter by solid walled tubules. This and the type-illustration of Trypanosphaera coronata (Haeckel 1887: pl. 5, fig. 3), the type species of Trypanosphaerium, fit the definition of Choenicosphaerium. Trypanosphaera has solid walled tubules and its pores all have tubules (Campbell 1954: D52). This explanation and the type-illustration of Trypanosphaera trepanata, the type species of Trypanosphaera, fit the characteristics of Choenicosphaera. Although it is unclear whether the genera with hyaline shells can be synonymized with the genera with pit-like pores on the shells, we tentatively synonymize all genera listed here. All of these genera were published simultaneously in Haeckel (1887: D102 for Choenicosphaera; D103 for Choenicosphaerium; D109 for Trypanosphaera; D110 for Trypanosphaerium; and D117 for Coronosphaera). There were no differences in taxonomic stability, thus the first genus was selected as the valid genus.</p> <p>Collosphaera</p> <p>The combinations Collosphaera and Dyscollosphaera, and Myxosphaera and Collodiscus each have the same type species. Müller (1855 a: 238) described Collosphaera as “ a light-yellow cell surrounded by a fragile transparent spherical shell perforated by numerous circular pores ” (summary from the translation of Müller 1855 a). Brandt (1885: 254) erected Myxosphaera for Sphaerozoum coeruleum, whose reproductive process differs from other Collosphaeridae and Sphaerozoidae.This original definition is useless for specifying any collodarian genera because no collodarian reproductive processes have been examined with modern techniques. Brandt (1885) noted other characteristics of Myxosphaera: “ the thickness of the central capsule wall; the appearance of blue pigmentation during swarmer formation; and no siliceous skeleton ” (translated from Brandt 1885). Collosphaera has a naked mode like Myxosphaera; consequently, they can be synonymized. Collosphaera tuberosa and Buccinosphaera invaginata seemed to have evolved from Collosphaera orthoconus, referring to BjØrklund &amp; Goll (1979). C. orthoconus resembles Conosphaera platyconus, the type species of Conosphaera (Haeckel 1887: pl. 12, fig. 3); consequently, Conosphaera is a synonym of Collosphaera. The oldest name is Collosphaera.</p> <p>Disolenia</p> <p>The synonymized opinion on the four genera Disolenia, Solenosphaera, Tetrasolenia, and Trisolenia was already accepted in the 1880s (Haeckel 1887: 113; Strelkov &amp; Reshetnyak 1971: 358; BjØrklund &amp; Goll 1979: 1317-1318). However, the valid genus name is disputed and there are two problems. One is the type species for these four genera. Solenosphaera has the same type species as Tetrasolenia (Tetrasolenia quadrata). The type species of Trisolenia is Trisolenia megalactis, by subsequent monotypy. Matsuzaki et al. (2015: 6) subsequently designated Trisolenia zanguebarica as the type species of Disolenia, after radiolarians examined by Ehrenberg himself were found in the Ehrenberg collection. Thus, all of these genera are available taxonomic names. The second problem is which genus is the oldest; Solenosphaera used to be a valid genus, but this is obviously illegal because this genus was established in 1887 to “kill” Ehrenberg’s Disolenia, Tetrasolenia, and Trisolenia (Haeckel 1887: 113). Ehrenberg’s genera were published simultaneously in Ehrenberg (1861b: 831 for Disolenia and 833 for Tetrasolenia and Trisolenia). Campbell (1954: D52) and Nigrini (1967: 19) both validated Disolenia over Tetrasolenia and Trisolenia. As the first reviser’s decision was retained under ICZN (1999), Disolenia was already a legal valid name.</p> <p>Polysolenia</p> <p>As noted in the remarks in the Atlas, the type species of Acrosphaera is not Polysolenia setosa, which was subsequently designated by Campbell (1954: D52). The correct type species is Collosphaera spinosa, a subsequent monotypy by Brandt (1885: 263). The controversy over whether Acrosphaera or Polysolenia is the valid name has existed since 1954 (see the historical review in Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 4), but this discussion was wasted because it started from the objective synonymy between Acrosphaera and Polysolenia. This is wrong logically, but the result is the same because Collosphaera spinosa was classified in Polysolenia (Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 4-5). Mazosphaera is obviously the same as Polysolenia. Clathrosphaerium differs from Polysolenia by the presence of a web-like mesh around the Polysolenia -form shell, which differs at intra- and infraspecific levels. Odontosphaera was tentatively synonymized with Polysolenia by the presence of a hooked spine on its pores, like Collosphaera spinosa. Acrosphaera was published in 1882. Mazosphaera and Polysolenia, the oldest available names, were published simultaneously inEhrenberg (1861b: 832 for both genera). Since several papers use Polysolenia, this genus is validated here.</p> <p>Siphonosphaera</p> <p>BjØrklund &amp; Goll (1979) considered Siphonosphaera a junior synonym of Disolenia (Solenosphaera originally). As the typical Siphonosphaera in a colony has a uniform morphotype, differing from the high variation in the number of tubules and shell shapes in Disolenia (Haeckel 1887: 113), we keep Siphonosphaera as an independent genus. Holosiphonia has the same type species as Siphonosphaera. Merosiphonia and Solenosphactra have already been synonymized (Riedel 1971: 651; Menshutkin &amp; Petrushevskaya 1989: 95). Solenosphyra is marked by funnel-shaped, outwardly flaring tubules (Campbell 1954: D52). The most similar real specimen is shown in the support image for Solenosphyra in the Atlas. This specimen is very similar to Siphonosphaera and it is not necessary to separate it as an independent genus. An actual specimen identifiable as Solenosphaera ascensionis, the type species of Solenosphenia, has not been reported. This genus looks similar to Disolenia, but is tentatively synonymized with Solenosphaera considering the well-developed tubules and spherical cortical shell. The oldest available name is Siphonosphaera.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFE9FE4A05DBFACAFB2F4CDF	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FFEBFEB40696FC2BFDF2498A.text	038DDA73FFEBFEB40696FC2BFDF2498A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sphaerozoidae Muller 1859	<div><p>Family SPHAEROZOIDAE Müller, 1859</p> <p>Sphaerozoen Müller, 1859a: 17 [as a family].</p> <p>Sphaerozoida – Haeckel 1862: 240, 521-522 [as a family]; 1882: 472 [as a family];1884: 28 [as a family]; 1887: 10, 38-39 [as a family]. — Mivart 1878: 179 [as a subsection]. — Brandt 1885: 212-214 [rank unknown]. — Bütschli 1889: 1947 [as a family]. — nec Rüst 1892: 132 [as a family]. — Ludwig 1908: 17 [rank unknown]. — Anderson 1983: 23.</p> <p>Collozoida Haeckel, 1862: 240, 522 [as a tribe]; 1882: 472 [as a family]; 1884: 28 [as a family]; 1887: 10, 23-24 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1947 [as a family]. — Ludwig 1908: 17 [rank unknown]. — Anderson 1983: 23.</p> <p>Rhaphidozoida Haeckel, 1862: 240, 522, 525 [as a tribe].</p> <p>Sphaerozoidae – Claus 1876: 160. — Delage &amp; Hérouard 1896: 202 [as a suborder]. — Lankester et al. 1909: 145. — Enriques 1919: 57; 1932: 983. — Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1953: 108. — Campbell 1954: D46. — Chediya 1959: 67. — Strelkov &amp; Reshetnyak 1971: 317. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 118. — Dumitrica 1979: 26. — Anderson 1983: 71. — Takahashi 1991: 61. — van de Paverd 1995: 34. — Tan 1998: 90 Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 117. — De Wever et al. 2001: 173. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S306.</p> <p>Sphaerozoiden – Hertwig 1879: 158-160 [as a family]. — Brandt 1882: 388-400; 1905: 314-316 [as a family].</p> <p>Collozoidae – Delage &amp; Hérouard 1896: 201 [as a suborder]. — Campbell 1954: D44. — Chediya 1959: 66. — Tan 1998: 87. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 114. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1001.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Sphaerozoum Meyen, 1834: 163 [type species by monotypy: Sphaerozoum fuscum Meyen, 1834: 164].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Belonozoum Haeckel, 1887: 39. — Collozoum Haeckel, 1862: 522 (= Collodinium with the same type</p> <p>species; Coinozoum n. syn., Collodastrum synonymized by Haeckel 1887: 28, Xantozoum n. syn.). — Rhaphidozoum Haeckel, 1862: 529 (= Rhaphidonactis with the same type species; Rhaphidoceras synonymized by Popofsky 1920: 587; Rhaphidonura synonymized by Popofsky 1920: 567). — Sphaerozoum Meyen, 1834: 163 (= Sphaerozonoceras with the same type species; Actinozoum n. syn.; Sphaerozonura synonymized by Popofsky 1920: 568).</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Jozoum, Sphaerozonactis.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Sphaerozoidae consist of colonial Collodaria with isolated siliceous spicules. Each cell is surrounded by isolated siliceous spicules located inside a gelatinous matter. Algal symbionts generally surround each collodarian cell or are found scattered throughout the gelatinous matter. The shape of the colony changes within the same species. Each cell possesses many nuclei that are observable in the endoplasm.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Very small differences between isolated siliceous spicules, analyzed in molecular phylogeny by Biard et al. (2015), may reflect significant molecular differences.For fully grown spicules it may be possible to specify the small clades of Biard et al. (2015) but younger spicules share common shapes. Thus, it is impossible to determine the relevant clades of Biard et al. (2015). A colony in which isolated siliceous spicules are evenly distributed may be found in plankton samples. This is probably an intermediate condition between colonial and solitary forms and a part of the life stage (see remarks in Thalassicolloidea). Isolated siliceous spicules are occasionally encountered in rocks and sediments, but it is impossible to classify them as Thalassosphaeridae or Sphaerozoidae. If new research might prove that Thalassosphaeridae correspond to a different life stage of the Sphaerozoidae, the isolated siliceous spicules would be identified as fragments of Sphaerozoidae. Collozoum and Sphaerozoum are easily collected in shallow, warm waters; as such many living and fixed cells images were provided. “Living” images were illustrated for Collozoum (Anderson 1980: fig. 9; 1983: figs 1.5.A-1.5.B, 2.17; Swanberg &amp; Harbison 1980: figs 2, 6; Swanberg &amp; Anderson 1981: figs 1A-1D; De Wever et al. 1994: figs 6.a, 6.b; Matsuoka 2007: fig. 4.g; Suzuki &amp; Aita 2011: figs 5F, 5G; Probert et al. 2014: S1, PAC 17, S2, SES 46, VEPO-14; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: figs 8.13.3- 8.13.5), Rhaphidozoum (De Wever et al. 1994: fig. 14; Probert et al. 2014: S1, PAC 8; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.13.6), and Sphaerozoum (Anderson 1976b: pl. 1, figs 1, 2; 1983: figs 1.5.C-1.5.D; Suzuki &amp; Aita 2011: fig. 5C, 5D; Probert et al. 2014: S1, SES 47; Yuasa &amp; Takahashi 2014: figs 1A, 1B; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.13.7). Algal symbionts and nuclei were also illustrated with epi-fluorescent observation with DAPI dyeing for Sphaerozoum (Suzuki et al. 2009b: figs 1N, 1O; Zhang et al. 2018: 9, figs 4-6), Rhaphidozoum (Zhang et al. 2018: 11, figs 26, 27). Collozoum was used for studies on the ultrafine cellular structure (Anderson1976c; 1983;Swanberg &amp; Anderson 1981: Villar et al. 2018), food preference (Anderson 1980) and transcriptome analysis (Balzano et al. 2015). The ultrafine cellular structure (Anderson 1976b; 1981) and food preference of Sphaerozoum (Anderson 1980) has been well documented. One of the most important discover on Sphaerozoum has been the identification of the silicalemma, that is the cytokalymma in which the silica precipitate (Anderson 1981: fig. 13-13). The presence of crystals in a cell was already reported in Collozoum and Sphaerozoum by Haeckel (1862) (see Strelkov &amp; Reshetnyak 1971: 305-306 for history of the study). The mineralogy in question is strontium sulfate and was found in reproductive swarmers of Sphaerozoum (Hollande 1974; Hollande &amp; Martoja 1974) and ultrafine cellular structure (Yuasa &amp; Takahashi 2014). From an historical point of view, the study of algal symbionts in Collosphaeridae are important because the Zooxanthella nutricula give the root of the common name “zooxanthella”. It was formally described for the first time in Collozoum inerme byBrandt (1882). Algal symbionts of Collozoum, Rhaphidozoum and Sphaerozoum were identified as Brandtodinium nutricula by Probert et al. (2014). The variety of symbiosis is largely documented in Collozoum. Hyperiid amphipod genus Hyperietta juveniles remain inside the gelatinous matter of Collozoum longiforme as an obligate parasite and they swim elsewhere after consuming the algal symbionts (Swanberg &amp; Harbison 1980). A similar photography was captured in Biard et al. (2016: extended data fig. 3.d). A single Hyperietta stephenseni (Lestrigonidae) individual can hold a fan-shaped flat colony of Collozoum pelagicum because this amphipod uses the colony to paraglide water flows (Nakamura et al. 2019: fig.S2.d). Other parasites were reported from Collozoum as Bod insidiosus (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1953: 173-174), Merodinium brandti (Chatton 1923) and M. belari (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1953: 159-165; 1955: figs 3, 4), and also from Sphaerozoum as Merodinium dolosum and M. asturum (Chatton 1923). However, regardless of the efforts (Dolven et al. 2007; Bråte et al. 2012), little progress has been made regarding the molecular study of these parasites relative to the morpho-species.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Collozoum</p> <p>As no papers explained the definition of Coinozoum, we present a translated summary of this genus from Enriques (1919): “ Colony in vegetative mode is cylindrical with a length &lt;10 mm; width &lt;1-2 mm; vacuoles usually present, irregularly distributed; the colonies may appear segmented as if they were miniature C. inerme; plasmodia somewhat large as in C. radiosum; oil droplets colorless to very light yellow (only visible after squishing the colony). ” As this genus is defined by characteristics of the colony, not radiolarian cells, and Coinozoum was established as a subgenus of Collozoum, we simply synonymize this subgenus with Collozoum.</p> <p>Xantozoum has not been explained in any papers. Enriques (1919: 21) erected this genus to apply only to Collozoum fulvum. The translated summary of Brandt’s (1885: 223) description of C. fulvum is as follows: “ Colony spherical or ellipsoidal with one large or many small vacuoles. Individuals spherical, slightly flattened with a circular outline. Central capsule delicate.Two layers of nuclei. Numerous yellow inclusions in the protoplasm. ” This genus was also established based on colony shape. Under the current taxonomic scheme, colony shape is useless for define species, genera, or other any taxonomic levels in Collodaria.</p> <p>Collodastrum was defined as:“ form of the central capsules irregular and indefinite, variable, commonly polyhedral or polygonal, or amoeboid, often with irregular, finger-like processes ” (Haeckel 1887: 27). The type species is Sphaerozoum pelagicum, but this species lacks isolated siliceous spicules, so it belongs to Collozoum. The oldest available name is Collozoum.</p> <p>Rhaphidozoum</p> <p>Rhaphidonactis has the same type species as Rhaphidozoum, which is characterized by two to four shanks on radiate spicules, while Rhaphidoceras has complex spicules with rays at both ends, and in Rhaphidonura, “ complex spicules include both radiate type with rays from central point and branched type with rays at both ends ” (Campbell 1954: D46). The current concept of Rhaphidozoum is defined by: “ spicules partly simple and partly branched or radiate ” (Campbell 1954: D46). This definition covers the characteristics of Rhaphidoceras and Rhaphidonura. Rhaphidozoum is the oldest available name among them. However, molecular phylogenetic analyses revealed very high diversity in the current Rhaphidozoum at the genus and family levels (Biard et al. 2015).</p> <p>Sphaerozoum</p> <p>Sphaerozoum was studied mainly by Brandt (1885) and Strelkov &amp; Reshetnyak (1971). Brandt (1885: 229) described this genus as: “ Skeletons always present and consist of numerous needle-like spines that are not connected and are distributed tangentially in individuals ” (translated from German by J.-P. Caulet). Strelkov &amp; Reshetnyak (1971) described it as: “ This genus includes, as the only skeletal elements, double (pairedtriradiate) spines as the main axis, bearing at the ends two, three, four, or more lateral branches. These branches can be simple and are most frequently smooth (Sphaerozoum punctatum) or ramified and covered with spinules (S. verticillatum)” (translated from Russian by J.-P. Caulet). Enriques (1919: 61, 63) defines Actinozoum as: “ the main characteristic of this group is the greatest preponderance of complicate spicules ” (translated from Italian by J.-P. Caulet) and Haeckel (1887: 45) defines Sphaerozonura as: “ Spicules all geminate-radiate, but with different, variable numbers of shanks on each end of the middle rod. ” These characteristics are covered by Brandt’s (1885) definition, rather than that ofStrelkov &amp; Reshetnyak (1971). Sphaerozoum is the oldest available name among them. As with Rhaphidozoum, molecular phylogenetic analyses revealed very high diversity in the current Sphaerozoum at the genus and family levels (Biard et al. 2015).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FFEBFEB40696FC2BFDF2498A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF15FEB405FDF844FA494C98.text	038DDA73FF15FEB405FDF844FA494C98.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Thalassicolloidea Muller 1859	<div><p>Superfamily THALASSICOLLOIDEA Müller, 1859</p> <p>Thalassicollae Müller, 1859a: 28 [as a family]. Akeleta [pars] Zittel, 1876-1880: 118 [nomen nudum, as a group].</p> <p>Collida [pars] Haeckel, 1862: 237, 244-246 [nomen nudum, as a family] (= Thalassicollidae + Thalassosphaeridae + Aulacanthidae). — Hertwig 1876: 75 [rank unknown]. — Mivart 1878: 179 [as a subsection]. — Calkins 1909: 40 [as an order].</p> <p>Colliden – Hertwig 1879: 160-157 [nomen nudum, as a family].</p> <p>Thalassicolleen – Hertwig 1879: 261 [as an order].</p> <p>Thalassicollicae – Campbell 1954: D44 [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Thalassosphaericae – Campbell 1954: D45 [as a superfamily].</p> <p>Thalassosphaeracea – Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1961: 221 [as a superfamily].</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Thalassicolloidea consist of solitary Collodaria with or without isolated siliceous spicules.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>As explained in the remarks of Thalassicollidae, the superfamily Thalassicolloidea is an artificial morpho-group for practical purpose of plankton studies. This superfamily exactly corresponds to the “solitary Collodaria ”. The life, cytology, reproduction, algal symbionts and parasites of the Thalassicolloidea were well documented (Huth 1913; Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1953). However, little is known about their studies. This may be attributed to a non-English understanding.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF15FEB405FDF844FA494C98	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF15FEB706A0FBEAFA564A1D.text	038DDA73FF15FEB706A0FBEAFA564A1D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Thalassicollidae Muller 1859	<div><p>Family THALASSICOLLIDAE Müller, 1859</p> <p>Thalassicollae Müller, 1859a: 28 [as a family].</p> <p>Thalassicollida – Haeckel 1862: 237, 246 [as both family and tribe]; Haeckel 1882: 469 [as a family]; Haeckel 1884: 28 [as a family]; Haeckel 1887: 10-12 [as a family]. — Lankester 1885: 849 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1946 [as a family]. — Ludwig 1908: 17 [rank unknown].— Anderson 1983: 23. — Boltovskoy 1998: 30 [as a family].</p> <p>Thalassicollidae – Wallich 1869: 97-99. — Claus 1876: 158. — Delage &amp; Hérouard 1896: 177 [as a suborder]. — Brandt 1902: 82. — Popofsky 1908: 203. — Lankester et al. 1909: 144. — Enriques 1932: 983. — nec Aberdeen 1940: 132-133. — Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1953: 107, 108, 136-144. — Campbell 1954: D44. — Chediya 1959: 65. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 284. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1000.</p> <p>Brachiata Mivart, 1878: 179 [unavailable name, as a subsection] (including Myxobrachia).</p> <p>Thalassophysidae Brandt, 1902: 82 [nomen dubium]. — Lankester et al. 1909: 144. — Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1953: 108, 130-131, 144-150. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 285.</p> <p>Thalassophysiden – Huth 1913: 25 [nomen dubium, as a family].</p> <p>Thalassicolliden – Huth 1913: 25-26 [as a family].</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Thalassicolla Huxley, 1851: 433 [type species by subsequent designation (Haeckel 1887: 18): Thalassicolla nucleata Huxley, 1851: 435].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Myxobrachia Haeckel, 1870: 519. — Procyttarium Haeckel, 1879: 705 (= Actissa with the same type species). — Thalassicolla Huxley, 1851: 433 (= Thalassicollidium with the same type species). — Thalassicollarium Haeckel, 1887: 18. — Thalassolampe Haeckel, 1862: 253. — Thalassopila Haeckel, 1882: 469.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Actidiscus, Actilarcus, Actiprunum, Monocarion, Thalassophysa.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Thalassicollidae consists of solitary Collodaria without a siliceous skeleton. A single large nucleus is present in the center and is surrounded with the endoplasm. Huge number of algal symbionts are present.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>“ Thalassicolla ” is scattered among the Sphaerozoidae and Collosphaeridae clades in molecular phylogenetic studies (Biard et al. 2015). A life stage shift from “ Thalassophysa ” to Collozoum was reported by Hollande &amp; Enjumet (1953: 136-144). Morphologic changes among Myxobrachia, Thalassicolla and Thalassolampe are ordinarily observable in a single cell within a several-day laboratory observation. In addition, many undescribed “genera” in Thalassicollidae are commonly found in plankton samples. The Thalassicollidae are an artificial group but should be maintained as a morphological family for convenience because “solitary collodarians” are abundantly and regularly found in plankton samples. Thalassicolla has long been regarded as a model organism of Spumellaria, but it is now understood that Thalassicolla has extremely endemic characters in terms of cytology, ecology, morphology and taxonomy (Suzuki &amp; Aita 2011; Biard et al. 2015; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015). The ultrafine cytologic structure is also quite different between Collodaria and spherical Spumellaria (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1960; Cachon &amp; Cachon 1972b; 1972c; 1984). However, the protoplasmic illustrations in textbooks of Radiolaria, were referred to Thalassicollidae with or without certain modifications. Thus, they are useless in acquiring a basic knowledge of the majority of spherical Radiolaria (Campbell 1954: D12; Chediya 1959: 10; Orlev 1959: 376; Nakaseko et al. 1975: fig. 95; Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: fig. 7.1; Kling 1978: fig. 3.B; Margulis &amp; Schwartz 1988; Nazarov 1988: figs 1, 2; Cachon et al. 1989: fig. 2). In particular, the bubble-like structure (named “glycocalyx” in Hollande &amp; Hollande 1975) is a character unique to some members of the Thalassicollidae and Thalassosphaeridae. Due to its historic reputation as “a model Spumellaria ”, the biological knowledge of Thalassicollidae is substantial. “Living” images were illustrated for Thalassicolla (Huth 1913: figs 1-7; Anderson 1978b: fig. 1; 1983: fig. 1.1.A; Anderson &amp; Botfield 1983: fig. 1: Caron &amp; Swanberg 1990: fig. 3.D; Probert et al. 2014: S1, PAC 1, 3-6, 10-15; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.13.1; Biard et al. 2016: figs 3.a, 3.b, 3.e; Matsuoka et al. 2017: appendix A; Liu et al. 2019: fig. 1), Thalassolampe (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1953: fig. 8; Anderson 1993: fig. 4; 1996: fig. 1.F), Thalassopila (Biard et al. 2016: fig. 3.c) and “ Thalassophysa ” (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1953: figs 12-14, 37). The biology and ecology of Thalassicolla has been profusely documented with studied dealing with: ultrafine cellular structure (Hollande &amp; Hollande 1975; Anderson 1976a, 1978b; Cachon &amp; Cachon 1976; Anderson &amp; Botfield 1983); feeding behavior, nutrition and reproduction (Anderson 1978b); optimal pH for enzyme activity and cellular specialization (Anderson &amp; Botfield 1983); food preference in laboratory culture (Anderson 1980); 14C isotopic evidence for assimilation of organic substances from algal symbionts (Anderson et al. 1983; 1985); and interaction of holobionts by transcriptome (Liu et al. 2019). The ultrafine cellular structures of Thalassolampe (Hollande &amp; Cachon-Enjumet 1959; Cachon &amp; Cachon 1977) and “ Thalassophysa ” (Hollande &amp; Cachon-Enjumet 1959; Hollande et al. 1970) were also reported. Algal symbionts of Thalassicolla were identified as Brandtodinium nutricula by Probert et al. (2014). Fatal symbiosis by Solenodinium and Caryotoma bernardi was also documented in Thalassicolla (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1953: 166-173; Hollande &amp; Corbel 1982). However, molecular studies concerning the morphological taxonomy for these fatal symbionts were not conducted.</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENUS</p> <p>Procyttarium</p> <p>Procyttarium has the same type species as Actissa. However, the practical definitions of these two genera were based on different species. Procyttarium is based on Procyttarium primordial, whereas Actissa is based on Actissa princeps. The definition of Procyttarium in Haeckel (1879: 705) is: “ globular cell (central capsule) with a central oil sphere surrounded by numerous small ‘yellow vacuoles’ radiating fine pseudopodia ” (translated from German by J.-P. Caulet). SinceHaeckel (1887: 12) established Actissa, only Ludwig (1908) has studied Actissa. Ludwig (1908: 28) revised the definition of Actissa as: “ Thalassicollidae usually without spicules, usually without or with rare vacuoles in the extracapsular gelatinous sheath, which is more compact. Often very numerous algal symbionts. Smaller than Thalassicolla. Pigmented in red, yellow, or black. The central capsule wall is usually thick. In the vegetative stages, the chromatin usually borders a sphere built from ‘ground matter’. The centrosome is observed at the beginning of anisospore formation. The macro- and microspores are usually inside the nucleus ” (translated from German by J.-P. Caulet). As these definitions show, these two “genera” differ. A new genus is needed for Actissa sensu Ludwig (1908).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF15FEB706A0FBEAFA564A1D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF16FEB60648FA66FEAA4934.text	038DDA73FF16FEB60648FA66FEAA4934.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Thalassosphaeridae Haeckel 1862	<div><p>Family THALASSOSPHAERIDAE Haeckel, 1862</p> <p>Thalassosphaerida Haeckel, 1862: 237, 246, 255 [as both family and tribe];1882: 470 [as a family]; 1884: 28 [as a family]; 1887: 10, 29-30 [as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1947 [as a family]. — Ludwig 1908: 17 [rank unknown]. — Anderson 1983: 23. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 157 [as a class].</p> <p>Thalassosphaeridae – Claus 1876: 158. — Delage &amp; Hérouard 1896: 178 [as a suborder]. — Campbell 1954: D45. — Chediya 1959: 66. — De Wever et al. 2001: 171. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S306. — Chen et al. 2017: 81.</p> <p>Physematidae Brandt, 1902: 81-82 [nomen dubium]. — Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1953: 107, 112, 129. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 284.</p> <p>Physematiidae – Lankester et al. 1909: 144 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Physematiden – Huth 1913: 25 [nomen dubium, as a family].</p> <p>Bathysphaeridae Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960: 127 [junior homonym]. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 285.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Thalassosphaera Haeckel, 1862: 259 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1951: 527): Sphaerozoum bifurcum Haeckel, 1861b: 845]</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Lampoxanthura Haeckel, 1887: 38. — Thalassosphaera Haeckel, 1862: 259 (nec Haeckel, 1887) (= Thalassoxanthomma with the same type species). — Thalassoxanthella Haeckel, 1887: 31.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Calosphaera, Lampoxanthella, Lampoxanthium, Lampoxanthomma, Physematium, Thalassiosolen, Thalassorhaphis, Thalassoxanthium.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYMS. — Thalassoplancta Haeckel, 1887 (= Thalassorhaphis) nec Haeckel, 1882; Thalassosphaera Haeckel, 1887 (= Calosphaera) nec Haeckel, 1862.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Thalassosphaeridae consist of solitary Collodaria. The protoplasm consists of a single central large nucleus surrounded by an endoplasm. A very high number of isolated siliceous spicules are scattered outside the endoplasm.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>No molecular data was obtained but the Thalassosphaeridae are suspected to be one of the different living stages of Thalassicollidae (see remarks for Thalassicollidae). This family includes the first described polycystine genus in history, namely Physematium, but the original images in Meyen (1834) are too ambiguous, making it difficult to determine real specimens without a dose of interpretative imagination. However, the ecology of Physematium has been studied in wide area of open oceans. In this sense, there are several studies on the functional morphology of the colony (Anderson et al. 1986b), the trophic activity (Swanberg &amp; Anderson 1985; Swanberg et al. 1986a), as well as their feeding preferences (Swanberg et al. 1986b). “Living” images were illustrated for Lampoxanthura (Anderson 1983: figs 1.2.C-1.2.D), Thalassosphaera (Suzuki &amp; Aita 2011: fig. 5E; Suzuki &amp; Not 2015: fig. 8.13.2), “ Physematium ” (Anderson 1983: figs.1.2.A-1.2.B; Anderson et al. 1986b: figs 1.1-1.2) and “ Thalassoxanthium ” (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1953: fig. 18). However, these “living images” were obtained for nomina dubia genera such as “ Physematium ” and “ Thalassoxanthium ”. Many undescribed “genera” of Thalassicollidae are also commonly found in plankton samples.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF16FEB60648FA66FEAA4934	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF17FEB60584F8D0FBA64DFF.text	038DDA73FF17FEB60584F8D0FBA64DFF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Oroscenoidea Haeckel 1887	<div><p>Superfamily OROSCENOIDEA Haeckel, 1887 n. stat.</p> <p>Oroscenida Haeckel, 1887: 1593 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Orosphaericae [sic] – Campbell 1954: D46 [nomen dubium] (= Orosphaeroidea) [as a superfamily in Collodaria].</p> <p>Orosphaeridea – van de Paverd 1995: 33 [nomen dubium, as a suborder].</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Oroscenoidea consist of a very large, single skeleton network, or of several rods radiating from a single point. The superficial area of the central capsule is very large.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Due to its uniqueness, van de Paverd (1995) established the “Orosphaeridea” as a suborder of the Spumellaria. However, the type species of the genus Orosphaera is an un-illustrated species and, consequently the oldest available name (Oroscenoidea) is selected for family and superfamily ranks. The higher classification position of this superfamily is related to the position of the Oroscenidae in Collodaria; however, recent molecular studies (Nakamura et al. 2020) suggests a new and independent order.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF17FEB60584F8D0FBA64DFF	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
038DDA73FF17FEB0064BFD0AFDF74A41.text	038DDA73FF17FEB0064BFD0AFDF74A41.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Oroscenidae Haeckel 1887	<div><p>Family OROSCENIDAE Haeckel, 1887 n. stat.</p> <p>Oroscenida Haeckel, 1887: 1593 [as a subfamily]. — Borgert 1901: XV-9 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Orosphaerida Haeckel, 1887: 1541, 1590-1593 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1997 [as a family]. — Borgert 1901: XV-2, XV-9 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 31 [as a family of Phaeodaria].</p> <p>Oronida Haeckel, 1887: 1593 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]. — Borgert 1901: XV-9 [as a subfamily].</p> <p>Orosphaeridae – Haecker 1908: 408-428 [nomen dubium, in Collodaria]. — Lankester et al. 1909: 144. — Wetzel 1933: 5. — Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1953: 107, 130 [in Collodaria]. — Campbell 1954: D46, 48 [in Collodaria]. — Dogiel &amp; Reshetnyak 1955: 46 [in Spumellaria]. — Chediya 1959: 239 [in Phaeodaria]. — Friend &amp; Riedel 1967: 221. — Riedel 1967b: 294; 1971: 650. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 166. — Nakaseko &amp; Sugano 1976: 118. — Riedel &amp; Sanfilippo 1977: 861. — Dumitrica 1979: 19; 1984: 94-95. — Kozur &amp; Mostler 1982: 410 [in Entactinaria]. — Anderson 1983: 37. — Petrushevskaya 1984: 125, 128 [in Collodaria]. — Cachon &amp; Cachon 1985: 284 [in Sphaerocollina]. — Petrushevskaya 1986: 123 [in Collodaria]. — Gourmelon 1987: 35. — van de Paverd 1995: 33. — Kiessling 1999: 44 [in Entactinaria]. — Tan &amp; Chen 1999: 120. — De Wever et al. 2001: 185 [in Entactinaria]. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S276 [in Order Cancelliata]. — Afanasieva &amp; Amon 2006: 115.</p> <p>Orosphaerinae – Campbell 1954: D48 [nomen dubium].</p> <p>Orosceninae – Campbell 1954: D48.</p> <p>TYPE GENUS. — Oroscena Haeckel, 1887: 1597 [type species by subsequent designation (Campbell 1954: D48): Oroscena gegenbauri Haeckel, 1887: 1597].</p> <p>INCLUDED GENERA. — Orodapis Friend &amp; Riedel, 1967: 222. — Orodendrum Haeckel, 1887: 1598 (= Oroplegma, Oroplegmium, synonymized by Friend &amp; Riedel 1967: 228). — Oropelex Friend &amp; Riedel, 1967: 223 (= Oropagis n. syn.). — Oroscena Haeckel, 1887: 1597 (= Oroscenium with the same type species; Orothamnus n. syn.). — Orostaurus Friend &amp; Riedel, 1967: 271.</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA. — Orodictyum, Orona, Oronium, Orosphaera.</p> <p>DIAGNOSIS. — Oroscenidae consist of a one millimeter- to centimeter-sized empty spherical shell, made of polygonal frames. The present radial spines are club-shaped or form a finely-branched network. The radial spines and network extend in a downward direction in some genera. A single large central capsular, white in color, is located in the shell. No algal symbionts are present.</p> <p>STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Eocene-Living.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>The family name “ Orosphaeridae ” is replaced by “ Oroscenidae ” due to the nomen dubium status of Orosphaera. The taxonomic position of the Oroscenidae has repeatedly changed among Collodaria (e.g., Haecker 1906; 1908; Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1953; Petrushevskaya 1984), Spumellaria (e.g., Dogiel &amp; Reshetnyak 1955), Phaeodaria (Chediya 1959) and Entactinaria (Kozur &amp; Mostler 1982; Kiessling 1999; De Wever et al. 2001). Molecular study clearly indicates a close relationship to the Collodaria (Nakamura et al. 2020). Reports identify this group as a deep-water member (&gt; 200m). Nestell &amp; Nestell (2010: 20, 22) included the late Guadalupian of the Permian (Capitanian) subfamily Polyedroentactiniinae into the Oroscenidae, but this grouping needs further study due to the stratigraphic gap between the Polyedroentactiniinae and the Cenozoic Oroscenidae. A “living” image is only obtained for Orodendrum (Suzuki &amp; Zhang 2016: 39). Skeletal structure is illustrated for Orodictyum (Keany &amp; Kennett 1972: fig. 4.6), Orodendrum (Nakamura et al. 2020: figs 2.G-2.I), and Oroscena (Kling 1978: fig.11).</p> <p>VALIDITY OF GENERA</p> <p>Orodendrum</p> <p>Oroplegma has the same type species as Oroplegmium. Since Friend &amp; Riedel (1967: 228) synonymized Oroplegmium with Orodendrum, Oroplegma is also automatically a synonym of Orodendrum. All were established simultaneously in Haeckel (1887: 1598 for Orodendrum, 1599 for Oroplegma, 1600 for Oroplegmium). Regarding the first revision between Orodendrum and Oroplegmium, Orodendrum is selected as the valid name.</p> <p>Oropelex</p> <p>Friend &amp; Riedel (1967: 223), the authors of Oropelex, distinguished Oropelex from Oropagis in that its shell is single rather than double. At that time, the number of shells was applied systematically for genus, family, or higher taxonomic ranks without any concern about ontogenetic growth under Haeckel’s system. The type photo of Oropagis dolium, the type species of Oropagis, illustrates the supplementary growth coverage, called the “outer shell” in Friend &amp; Riedel (1967: 226). This does not necessitate separating them at the genus level. Oropelex and Oropagis were published simultaneously in Friend &amp; Riedel (1967). Oropelex is selected as the valid name because the type specimen looks better.</p> <p>Oroscena</p> <p>The difference is the absence of pyramidal or tent-like elevations in Orothamnus and their presence in Oroscena (Campbell 1954: D48). These differences were applied for the subfamily levels distinguishing “Orosphaerinae” and “Orosceninae,” in the type-illustration of Oroscena arborescens (Haeckel 1887: pl. 106, fig. 3); however, the type species of Orothamnus has obvious pyramidal or tent-like elevations. This difference is meaningless for these two genera. The subgenera in Orosphaerinae and Orosceninae were determined by whether the radial spines are branched, arborescent, or not. This difference is also seen at the species level. Both names were published simultaneously in Haeckel (1887: 1597 for Oroscena; 1596 for Orothamnus). Oroscena was selected as the valid name because real specimens have been photographed.</p> <p>DOUBTFUL RADIOLARIA, NON-POLYCYSTINEA, BUT INITIALLY DESCRIBED AS POLYCYSTINEA</p> <p>CORRESPONDING GENERA</p> <p>Acanthometra Müller, 1855: 248 [Acantharia].</p> <p>Campanula Alvira-Martín, 1972: 206 [incertae sedis].</p> <p>Cannosphaeropsis Wetzel, 1933: 52 [Dinoflagellate].</p> <p>Centrocolla Cachon &amp; Cachon, 1985: 285 [incertae sedis].</p> <p>Conostylus Popofsky, 1907: 702 [Siliceous sponge spicule].</p> <p>Dystympanium Haeckel, 1887: 1006 [Silicoflagellate].</p> <p>Enjumetia Özdikmen, 2009: 245 [incertae sedis].</p> <p>Eutympanium Haeckel, 1882: 446 [incertae sedis].</p> <p>Halicalyptra Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [Silicoflagellate] (= Acrocalpis).</p> <p>Hataina Huang, 1967: 178 [Siliceous sponge spicule].</p> <p>Lithacanthus Popofsky, 1907: 699 [Siliceous sponge spicule].</p> <p>Radiosphaera JØrgensen, 1905: 122 [Acantharia].</p> <p>Prismozoon Burchardt, 1900: 788 [Diatom].</p> <p>Rhaphiophorasphaera Clark &amp; Campbell, 1945: 18 [Diatom]</p> <p>Sethodisculus Haeckel, 1887: 423 [Siliceous sponge spicule].</p> <p>Sticholonche Hertwig, 1877: 324 [Taxopodia].</p> <p>Tetracina Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1961: 221 [Siliceous sponge spicule].</p> <p>Zygacantha Müller, 1859b: 51 [Acantharia].</p> <p>NOMINA DUBIA UNDER THE ICZN</p> <p>Circotympanum, Echinocalpis, Parastephanus, Paratympanium, Spongasteriscinus.</p> <p>INVALID NAME UNDER THE ICZN</p> <p>Paratympanum.</p> <p>JUNIOR HOMONYMS UNDER THE ICZN</p> <p>Bathysphaera Hollande &amp; Enjumet, 1960 (= Enjumetia) nec Beebe, 1932; Spirillina Ehrenberg, 1859 nec Ehrenberg, 1843; Tetracanthus Popofsky, 1907 (= Tetracina) nec Hope, 1834.</p> <p>REMARKS</p> <p>Non-Polycystinea genera listed herein present certain difficulties regarding the meaning of “taxonomic availability” as some of these are treated under the International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants (ICN) (Turland et al. 2018). First, the concept of “ type ” is quite different between ICN and the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). The ICN mentions that the junior synonym of living “plants” prioritizes the senior synonym of fossil “plants”. By contrast, the ICZN is applied independently of all other nomenclatural codes. It is for this reason that we simply present a list of genera which have repeatedly been questioned as radiolarians Polycystinea. One of the problems is posed by “ Hataina ” and “ Sethodiscus ” which are a siliceous ellipsoidal or spherical in shape and whose internal structures are made of radiated fine fibers. These forms belong to the Class Hexactinellidae of the Porifera (Rigby 2004: 444-445). It has been known as “OST” in Japan since 1949 (Morishima et al. 1949) and was originally thought of as a phaeodarian (Challengeridae). The origin of “OST” was specified by the discovery of ten-centimeter-colonies on the slope of Japan Trench, east of Tohoku region of Japan (Inoue &amp; Iwasaki 1975). Several “OST” has been formally described as new genera (e.g., Geodia Lamarck, 1815; Cydonium Fleming, 1828; Sethodisculus Haeckel, 1887; Hataia Huang, 1967; Silicosphaera Hughes, 1985; Concilaspongia Robinson &amp; Haslett, 1995; in chronological order); however, we did not provide valid name for any “OST” because they are not belonging to Polycystinea.</p> <p>Radiosphaera was questionably regarded as a Collodaria, but this genus is a protoplasmic remain of acantharians after the dissolution of strontium sulfate. This can be recognized by the presence of myonemes, muscle-like fiber bundles on the periphery of some cell membranes (capsular membrane) observed under normal light microscopy (Hollande &amp; Enjumet 1955: black bundles on fig. 10; Febvre 1981). “ Radiosphaera ” was definitely identified, by DAPI dyeing fluorescence microscopy, as an acantharian cell with multi-nuculi and many algal symbionts inside the cell membrane.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73FF17FEB0064BFD0AFDF74A41	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Suzuki, Noritoshi;Caulet, Jean-Pierre;Dumitrica, Paulian	Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre, Dumitrica, Paulian (2021): A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts. Geodiversitas 43 (15): 405-573, DOI: 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15
