<i>Wetzeliella</i>and its allies – the ‘hole’ story: a taxonomic revision of the Paleogene dinoflagellate subfamily Wetzelielloideae

Williams, Graham L.; Damassa, Sarah Pierce; Fensome, Robert A.; Guerstein, G. Raquel

doi:10.1080/01916122.2014.993888

Cited by 35 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…), with the archaeopyle type being a consequence of geometry. Williams et al (2015) broke with this convention because they specifically consider [sic] archaeopyle type to be an indicator for phylogeny. "…”

Section: Page6mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Bijl et al (2016, p. 1), Williams et al (2015) introduced "… taxonomic criteria that divert [i.e. diverge] drastically from well-established conventions" and that (p. 4) a "profound concern for the field of dinoflagellate cyst paleontology" is that Williams et al (2015) break with the "basic principle of hierarchy in morphological variation for the Wetzelielloideae ….…”

Section: Generic Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…And what do Bijl et al (2016, p. 1) intend when they recommend that "we propose to retain the generic definitions of Wetzelielloideae that existed prior to the revisions by Williams et al (2015) until a revision supported by the community is available". Which particular prior definitions do they mean?…”

Section: Page6mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To assess this issue, let's look at the definitions of wetzelielloidean genera as established prior to Williams et al (2015). The genus Wetzeliella itself was erected by Eisenack (1954, p. 187), who gave the following circumscription:…”

Section: Generic Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…raise several objections to the new classification of the Wetzelielloideae that was presented in Williams et al (2015), in which we emphasized the primary importance of archaeopyle outline and the secondary importance of wall morphology and ornamentation in distinguishing genera.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A response to ‘Comment to Wetzeliella and its allies – the ‘hole’ story: a taxonomic revision of the Paleogene dinoflagellate subfamily Wetzelielloideae by Williams et al. (2015)’

Williams

Damassa²,

Fensome

et al. 2017

Palynology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wetzelielloideae has led to a Comment by Bijl et al. (2016) that questions the validity of our assumptions regarding recognition of the equiepeliform, latiepeliform, hyperepeliform and soleiform archaeopyle types and their significance at the generic level. In this response we address the points that they raise, which are: the introduction of taxonomic criteria allegedly not followed in other fossil subfamilies; the erection of too many taxa; the unworkable nature of the proposed classification; and the reduction of stratigraphic applicability of many significant stratigraphic marker species. We have organized our response under the following topics: pragmatism versus theory; generic criteria: intergroup consistency; the genus Apectodinium and operculum attachment; stratigraphic utility; the number of taxa; and recognition problems. We also discuss specimens illustrated in the two plates included with the Comment. The variations in archaeopyle shapes and types of attachment of the operculum (the latter concept has been modified following more recent research) that we have used in part to separate the genera within the Wetzelielloideae have been previously applied to other 2 Page2 peridiniaceans subfamilies, most notably the Deflandreoideae. As with that subfamily, we consider that our focus on archaeopyle shape and operculum attachment for differentiating wetzelielloidean genera introduces an approach that may help refine the stratigraphic ranges of individual species. While it is a fundamental truth that there are no "correct" taxonomic ideas, we consider that new approaches should be tested with usage over time, not rejected out of hand prior to careful study.

show abstract

Section: Page6mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Generic Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Page6mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Generic Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A response to ‘Comment to Wetzeliella and its allies – the ‘hole’ story: a taxonomic revision of the Paleogene dinoflagellate subfamily Wetzelielloideae by Williams et al. (2015)’

Williams

Damassa²,

Fensome

et al. 2017

Palynology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Late Palaeocene to Early Eocene biostratigraphic framework from Upper Indus Basin, Pakistan, Eastern Tethys

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Basin, was selected for this purpose. Lithologically, the Patala Formation is composed of shale and limestone interbeds. Three different fossil groupssmaller benthic foraminifera, planktic foraminifera, and calcareous nanno-planktonsare used to establish a biostratigraphic framework for the Patala Formation. The biozones recognized in this study include: (a) bathyal benthic biozones, BB1 and BB2 of the Late Palaeocene and Early Eocene, respectively; (b) planktic biozones, P4 and P5 of the Late Palaeocene, while E1 and E2 of the Early Eocene; and (c) Calcareous Nannoplanktons biozones: the NP9, which is further divided into NP9a and NP9b of the Late Palaeocene and Early Eocene, respectively. These biozones have been integrated to identify the Palaeocene-Eocene (P-E) boundary interval by applying widely used biostratigraphic criteria (i.e., Rhomboaster-Discoaster [RD]-assemblage of calcareous nanno-planktons). In this study, we have considered the lithological interval between ChN/TP-16 and ChN/TP-17 as a marker horizon for the P-E boundary

show abstract

Palynofloral diversity and palaeoenvironments of early Eocene Akri lignite succession, Kutch Basin, western India

Verma

Garg

Rao

et al. 2019

Palaeobio Palaeoenv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wetzeliellaand its allies – the ‘hole’ story: a taxonomic revision of the Paleogene dinoflagellate subfamily Wetzelielloideae

Cited by 35 publications

References 43 publications

A response to ‘Comment to Wetzeliella and its allies – the ‘hole’ story: a taxonomic revision of the Paleogene dinoflagellate subfamily Wetzelielloideae by Williams et al. (2015)’

A response to ‘Comment to Wetzeliella and its allies – the ‘hole’ story: a taxonomic revision of the Paleogene dinoflagellate subfamily Wetzelielloideae by Williams et al. (2015)’

Late Palaeocene to Early Eocene biostratigraphic framework from Upper Indus Basin, Pakistan, Eastern Tethys

Palynofloral diversity and palaeoenvironments of early Eocene Akri lignite succession, Kutch Basin, western India

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About