Abstract
Abstract. Morphologically similar benthic foraminiferal taxa can be
difficult to separate. Aside from causing issues in taxonomy, incorrect
identifications complicate our understanding of species-specific ecological
preferences and result in flawed palaeoenvironmental reconstructions and
geochemical results. Over the years, a number of studies have grouped
together several key Arctic–North Atlantic species in various combinations,
despite their distinct environmental preferences and/or stratigraphical
differences, causing great confusion in the literature. These species
include Cassidulina laevigata, Cassidulina neoteretis, Cassidulina teretis, Paracassidulina neocarinata, Islandiella helenae, and Islandiella norcrossi. Here, we provide for the first time a detailed comparison of
these taxa. We present a compilation of the original species descriptions,
along with clear, illustrated guidelines on how to separate these taxa to
circumvent taxonomic confusion. We acknowledge that some features cannot
easily be seen with a standard low-powered microscope, especially if
specimens are not well preserved. In those cases, we recommend the following
actions: (i) always strive to make a precise identification and at least
differentiate between the three genera; (ii) where C. neoteretis and C. teretis cannot be separated, and
where the stratigraphical context does not make the species identification
obvious, specimens belonging to these taxa should be reported as C. teretis/C. neoteretis; and (iii) where specimens in a sample cannot be confidently assigned to a specific
species of Islandiella or Cassidulina, specimens should be grouped as Islandiella spp. or Cassidulina spp., followed by
naming the most dominant species in brackets. The improved identification of
Cassidulina, Paracassidulina, and Islandiella specimens will ensure development of a better understanding of the
ecological affinities of these key Arctic–North Atlantic taxa, consequently
resulting in more accurate palaeoenvironmental reconstructions and
geochemical data.
Reference116 articles.
1. Alve, E.: Benthic foraminiferal responses to absence of fresh phytodetritus:
a two-year experiment, Mar. Micropaleontol., 76, 67–75, 2010.
2. Belanger, P. E. and Streeter, S. S.: Distribution and ecology of benthic
foraminifera in the Norwegian-Greenland Sea, Mar. Micropaleontol., 5,
401–428, 1980.
3. Brady, H. B.: XL. – On some Arctic Foraminifera from soundings obtained on the
Austro-Hungarian North-Polar Expedition of 1872–1874, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist.,
5, 393–418, 1881.
4. Brady, H. B.: Report on the foraminifera dredged by H.M.S. Challenger, during the years
1873-1876, in: Report on the scientific results of the
voyage of H.M.S. Challenger, during the years 1873-1876, Zoology, edited by: Murray, J., Edinburgh, Neill and Company, 1–814, 1884.
5. Cage, A. G.: The Modern and Late Holocene Marine Environments of Loch
Sunart, N.W. Scotland, PhD thesis, University of St Andrews, Scotland, 399 pp., 2005.
Cited by
28 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献