Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T19:40:02.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wall structure and growth of fusulinacean Foraminifera

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Scott A. Hageman  and
Roger L. Kaesler
Scott A. Hageman
Affiliation:
Natural Sciences, Park College, Parkville, MO 64152
Roger L. Kaesler
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Natural History Museum, and Paleontological Institute, The University of Kansas, Lawrence 66045
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scanning electron microscopy of tests of Triticites ventricosus and Schwagerina sp. shows that the microgranular wall was secreted rather than agglutinated. Grains range in size from 0.5 to 6.0 μm, but grains larger than 4 μm are rare. Evidence that grains were secreted includes tight packing, uniform size and shape, and apparently homogeneous composition. Furthermore, scanning electron microscopy confirms the perforate nature of the antetheca and the nature of the keriothecal wall. Alveoli taper toward the tectum and pass through the tectum as tiny pores, enhancing communication between chambers and with the external environment.

The traditional model for the addition of chambers is rejected. Three ways in which new chambers may have been added to the test that are consistent with observations made here: 1) The antetheca may have thickened differentially, creating a substrate to which the keriotheca of the new chamber was attached; 2) Part of the tectum, septum, and keriotheca of the previous chamber may have been resorbed before calcite forming the new chamber was secreted, perhaps necessary because the tectum was an unsuitable substrate on which to attach the keriotheca of the new chamber; 3) A combination of the above may have occurred wherein the antetheca thickened differentially and was resorbed locally, providing a suitable substrate on which to attach the keriotheca of the new chamber. The last model is favored here because it best explains the shape of the septa and the configuration of the keriotheca of the chambers of most specimens. Nevertheless, the other two models are consistent with the morphology of some specimens.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 72 , Issue 2 , March 1998 , pp. 181 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blaxter, K. 1989. Energy Metabolism in Animals and Man. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 336 p.Google Scholar
Brady, H. B. 1876. A monograph of the Carboniferous and Permian foraminifera (the genus Fusulina excepted). Palaeontographical Society, London, 166 p.Google Scholar
Carter, J. G. (ed.). 1990. Skeletal Biomineralization: Patterns, Processes and Evolutionary Trends, Volumes 1 and 2. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 832 p. and 101 p. Google Scholar
Crick, R. E. (ed.). 1989. Origin, Evolution, and Modern Aspects of Biomineralization in Plants and Animals. Plenum Press, New York, 536 p.Google Scholar
Cummings, R. H. 1955. Nodosinella Brady (1876) and associated upper Palaeozoic genera. Micropaleontology, 1:221–238.Google Scholar
Cummings, R. H. 1956. Revision of the upper Palaeozoic textulariid foraminifera. Micropaleontology, 2:201–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushman, J. A. 1948. Foraminifera their Classification and Economic Use. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 605 p.Google Scholar
Deprat, J. 1912. Étude des fusulinides de Chine et d'Indochine et classification des calcaires a fusulines. Memoires Service Geologique de l'Indochine, 1(3):1–63.Google Scholar
Douvillé, H. 1906. Sur la structure du test dans les fusulines. C. R. Academie des Sciences, Paris, 143:258–261.Google Scholar
Dunbar, C. O. 1963. Trends of evolution in American fusulines, p. 25–44. In von Koenigswald, G. H. R., Emeis, J. D., Buning, W. L., and Wagner, C. W. (eds.), Evolutionary Trends in Foraminifera. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Dunbar, C. O., and Condra, G. E. 1927. The Fusulinidae of the Pennsylvanian System of Nebraska. Nebraska Geological Survey Bulletin, second series, 2, 135 p.Google Scholar
Dunbar, C. O., and Henbest, L. G. 1942. Pennsylvanian Fusulinidae of Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey Bulletin, 67, 218 p.Google Scholar
Dunbar, C. O., and Skinner, J. W. 1937. Permian Fusulinidae of Texas. University of Texas Bulletin, 3701:518–825.Google Scholar
Galloway, J. J. 1933. A Manual of Foraminifera. Principia Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 483 p.Google Scholar
Green, H. W., Lipps, J. H., and Showers, W. J. 1980. Test ultrastructure of fusulinid foraminifera. Nature, 283:853–855.Google Scholar
Hayden, H. H. 1909. Fusulinidae from Afghanistan. Geological Survey of India Records, 38:250–256.Google Scholar
Haynes, J. R. 1981. Foraminifera. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 433 p.Google Scholar
Henbest, L. G. 1937. Keriothecal wall structure in Fusulina and its influence on fusuline classification. Journal of Paleontology, 11:212–230.Google Scholar
Henbest, L. G. 1963. Biology, mineralogy, and diagenesis of some typical late Paleozoic sedentary foraminifera and algal-foraminiferal colonies. Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research Special Publication, 6, 44 p.Google Scholar
Lipps, J. H. 1973. Test structure in foraminifera. Annual Review of Microbiology, 27:471–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loeblich, A. R., and Tappan, H. 1988. Foraminiferal Genera and Their Classification. Volumes 1 and 2. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 970 p. and 212 p. Google Scholar
Meek, F. B., and Hayden, F. V. 1858. Remarks on the Lower Cretaceous beds of Kansas and Nebraska, together with descriptions of some new species of Carboniferous fossils from the valley of the Kansas River. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 10:256–264.Google Scholar
Von Möller, V. 1878. Die spiralgewundenen Foraminiferen des russischen Kohlenkalks. Akademie Imperiale der Science, St. Petersburg, Memoir 7, 25(9):1–147.Google Scholar
Plummer, H. J. 1930. Calcareous foraminifera in the Brownwood Shale near Bridgeport. University of Texas Bulletin, 3019, 21 p.Google Scholar
Rauzer-Chernousova, D. M. 1936. On the question of the stratigraphic significance of the upper Paleozoic foraminifers. Akademiia Science USSR Classe des Science Matematiche e naturali, Geologicheskogo Seriia 1:61–86.Google Scholar
Reitlinger, E. A. 1950. Foraminifera of the middle Carboniferous deposits of the central part of the Russian platform (excluding the family Fusulinidae). Akademiia Nauk SSSR Geolgicheskiy Instituta Trudy, 126, Geologicheskogo Seriia, 47:1–127.Google Scholar
Ross, C. A. 1972. Paleobiological analysis of fusulinacean (Foraminiferida) shell morphology. Journal of Paleontology, 46:719–728.Google Scholar
Ross, C. A., 1982. Paleozoic foraminifera—fusulinids, p. 163–176. In Broadhead, T. W. (ed.), Foraminifera. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Simkiss, K., and Wilbur, K. M. 1989. Biomineralization. Cell Biology and Mineral Deposition. San Diego, California, 337 p.Google Scholar
Skinner, J. W., and Wilde, G. L. 1954. Fusulinid wall structure. Journal of Paleontology, 28:445–451.Google Scholar
Smil, V. 1991. General Energetics: Energy in the Biosphere and Civilization. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 369 p.Google Scholar
Tappan, H. 1971. Foraminiferida, p. 615–623. In McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, 5th edition, Volume elem-fus, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Thompson, M. L. 1951. Wall structures of fusulinid foraminifera. Contributions from the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research, 2:86–91.Google Scholar
Thompson, M. L. 1964. Fusulinacea, p. C358–C436. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part C, Protista 2, Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
White, M. P. 1932. Some Texas Fusulinidae. University of Texas Bulletin, 3211, 107 p.Google Scholar
Wood, A. 1949. The structure of the wall of the test in the foraminifera; its value in classification. Geological Society of London, Quarterly Journal, 104(2):229–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, S., Black, R. G., and Lipps, J. H. 1994. Morphological optimization in the largest living foraminifera: implications from finite element analysis. Paleobiology, 20:14–26.Google Scholar
Yang, X., and Zheng, H. 1993. The spirotheca of the foraminifer Quasifusulina . Lethaia, 26:319–325.Google Scholar
Zheng, H., and Yang, X. 1991. The SEM study of wall ultrastructure of Triticites cellamagnus . Stratigraphy and Paleontology of China, 1:183–225.Google Scholar