Borings formed by Late Cretaceous endobiontic foraminifers within larger benthic foraminifers

• Autorzy: Nielsen J K
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Considering the fossil record, foraminifers constitute one of the most ubiquitous groups in marine deposits due to a high preservation potential of tests. Moreover, borings appear to be widely distributed in the tests. Findings of the borings have potential usefulness as palaeoecological markers and can be significant for taphonomical studies of foraminifers. Formal naming of the borings is needed to further their usefulness, and therefore a new ichnotaxon Curvichnus semorbis igen. et isp. nov. is erected.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Talpinella cunicularia; fossil record; marine deposit; foraminiferal species; Cretaceous; Late Cretaceous; taphonomy; morphology; France; Curvichnus semorbis; paleontology

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Palaeontologica Polonica
• Rocznik: 2002
• Tom: 47
• Numer: 4
• Opis fizyczny: p.673-678,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Nielsen J K

• University of Copenhagen, Oster Voldgade 5-7, DK-1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark

Bibliografia

• Baumfalk, Y.A., Fortuin, A.R., and Mok, R.P. 1982. Talpinella cunicularia n. gen., n. sp., a possible foraminiferal parasite of Late Cretaceous Orbitoides. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 12: 185–196.
• Baumfalk, Y.A. and Nijholt, K.J. 1984. Talpinella and Orbitoides: 18 million years of close relationship between two foraminiferal genera. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 14: 77–81.
• Bromley, R.G. 1981. Concepts in ichnotaxonomy illustrated by small round holes in shells. Acta Geològica Hispànica 16: 55–64.
• Bromley, R.G. 1994. The palaeoecology of bioerosion. In: S.K. Donovan (ed.), The Palaeobiology of Trace Fossils, 134–154. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
• Caus, E., Bernaus, J.M., and Gomez−Garrido, A. 1996. Biostratigraphic utility of species of the genus Orbitoides. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 26: 124–136.
• Głazek, J., Marcinowski, R., and Wierzbowski, A. 1971. Lower Cenomanian trace fossils and transgressive deposits in the Cracow Upland. Acta Geologica Polonica 21: 433–448.
• Goldring, R. and Pollard, J.E. 1996. Ichnotaxonomic revision and the importance of type material. Palaeontology Newsletter 31: 7–8.
• Görmüş, M. and Meriç, E. 2000. Unusual forms of orbitoidal foraminifera in the Maastrichtian of Turkey. Cretaceous Research 21: 801–812.
• Görmüş, M. and Sagular, E.K. 1998. Microboring activity in Orbitoides accumulations from Turkey.Israeli Journal of Earth−Sciences 47: 61–67.
• Hallock, P. and Talge, H.K. 1994. A predatory foraminifer, Floresina amphiphaga, n. sp., from the Florida Keys. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 24: 210–213.
• Hinte, J.E. van 1966. Orbitoidesfrom the Campanian type section. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Proceedings, Series B 69: 79–110.
• Hinte, J.E. van 1976. ACretaceous time scale. American Association Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 60: 498–516.
• International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. xxix+ 306 pp. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London.
• Kelly, S.R.A. and Bromley, R.G. 1984. Ichnological nomenclature of clavate borings. Palaeontology 27: 793–807.
• Martin, R.E. and Liddell, W.D. 1991. The taphonomy of Foraminifera in modern carbonate environments: implications for the formation of foraminiferal assemblages. In: S.K. Donovan (ed.), The Processes of Fossilization, 170–193. Belhaven Press, London.
• Neumann, M. 1990. Le genre Orbitoides: analyse de données statistiques pour la différentiation des espèces. Cahiers de Micropaléontologie Nouvelle Serie 5: 5–50.
• Neumann, M. 1993. Le genre Orbitoides. II Révision des différentes espèces. Revue de Micropaléontologie 36: 301–353.
• Neumann, M. and Odin, G.S. 2001. Le stratotype historique du Campanien, définition, éléments de corrélation. In: G.S. Odin (ed.), The Campanian–Maastrichtian Stage Boundary. Characterisation at Tercis les Bains (France) and Correlation with Europe and other Continents, 677–710. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam.
• Neumann, M. and Platel, J.−P. (coord.) 1983. Le Campanien stratotypique: étude lithologique et micropaléontologique. Géologie Méditerranéenne 10 (3–4): 41–57.
• Nielsen, K.S.S. 1999. Foraminiferivory revisited: a preliminary investigation of holes in foraminifera. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 45: 139–142.
• Nielsen, K.S.S. and Nielsen, J.K. 2001. Bioerosion in Pliocene to late Holocene tests of benthic and planktonic foraminiferans, with a revision of the ichnogenera Oichnus and Tremichnus. Ichnos 8: 99–116.
• Palmer, T.J., Haynes, J.R., and Plewes, C.R. 1991. A boring agglutinating foraminiferan from the Oxford Clay.Palaeontology Newsletter 12: 21.
• Peebles, M.W. and Lewis, R.D. 1988. Differential infestation of shallow−water benthic foraminifera by microboring organisms: possible biases in preservation potential. Palaios 3: 345–351.
• Plewes, C.R., Palmer, T.J., and Haynes, J.R. 1993. A boring foraminiferan from the Upper Jurassic of England and northern France. Journal of Micropalaeontology 12: 83–89.
• Shroba, C.S. 1993. Taphonomic features of benthic foraminifera in a temperate setting: experimental and field observations on the role of abrasion, solution and microboring in the destruction of foraminiferal tests. Palaios 8: 250–266.
• Sliter, W.V. 1971. Predation on benthic foraminifers. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 1: 20–29.
• Taylor, P.D. 1990. Preservation of soft−bodied and other organisms by bioimmuration—A review. Palaeontology 33: 1–17.
• Vénec−Peyré, M.−T. 1996. Bioeroding foraminifera: a review. Marine Micropaleontology 28: 19–30.