overview (8)
Arkhangelskiales (2)
Eiffellithales (3)
Holococcoliths (26)
Nannoliths (10)
Podorhabdales (7)
Watznaueriales (1)
Genus Calcidiscus Kamptner, 1950
Description: Coccoliths circular to sub-circular. Proximal shield, birefringent, distal shield non-birefringent with curved sutures. Shields easily separated.
Remarks:
Type species: C. quadriforatus (subj. j. syn. of C. leptoporus).
Synonyms:
Variant:
Species-level taxonomy:
Calcidiscus is common throughout the Neogene
and shows significant variaton in size, number of elements, opening of
central area, and structural details. Species concepts have been extensively discussed,
most notably by Knppertsbusch (2000). Recent research has lead to
a three-fold divsion of the extant Calcidiscus population, see e.g. Quinn et al. (2004), Young et al. (2003):
By comparison Pliocene Calcidiscus assemblages are usually classified into:
It is not sure how these species relate to the extant species but the
degree of variation shown in fossil assemblages suggests that many more
speces could probably be recognised.
Neogene: Calcidiscus
Comments
C. leptoporus/tropicus/macintyrei/carlae
My entirely utilitarian splitting of this group is a little different than above. I must never have seen assemblages young enough to include C. quadriperforatus as I have never seen a member of this group that large younger than C. macintyrei.
I must admit that until very recently I never called anything C. tropicus. I did not see any practical reason to split them from C. leptoporus, so anything less than 10µm was recorded as leptoporus. Above 10µm they became C. macintyrei regardless of the openness of the central area. On the other hand, the specimens with a grill in the open central area (C. carlae) are very important to me as they lave a nice LAD in NN 16. Jeremy just calls these C. tropicus with grill...
More recently I have been splitting C. tropicus/leptoporus just to make my data blend better with contractor data.
As a side note I always call the small sort of dim Calcidiscus C. pataecus, just because they are easy to recognise.
Is there possibility that C.
Is there possibility that C. tropicus and C. leptoporus diverged from same species, in early Miocene? In my analyses I have over 90% of Calcidiscus, in whole preparation, with small open central area, dimensions 5-10µm. I couldn't seen grill in central. It is a Central Paratethyan, probably NN5-NN6!
Best regard,
Simun Ascic
Calcidiscus evolution
Take a look at this article:
Knappertsbusch, Michael, 2000; MORPHOLOGIC EVOLUTION OF THE COCCOLITHOPHORID CALCIDISCUS LEPTOPORUS FROM THE EARLY MIOCENE TO RECENT Journal of Paleontology; July 2000; v. 74; no. 4; p. 712-730
Is there possibility that C.
Is there possibility that C. tropicus and C. leptoporus diverged from same species, in early Miocene? In my analyses I have over 90% of Calcidiscus, in whole preparation, with small open central area, dimensions 5-10µm. I couldn't seen grill in central. It is a Central Paratethyan, probably NN5-NN6!
Best regard,
Simun Ascic