ACTINOMMIDAE Haeckel, 1862

Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre & Dumitrica, Paulian, 2021, A new integrated morpho- and molecular systematic classification of Cenozoic radiolarians (Class Polycystinea) - suprageneric taxonomy and logical nomenclatorial acts, Geodiversitas 43 (15), pp. 405-573: 437-438

publication ID

http://doi.org/ 10.5252/geodiversitas2021v43a15

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:DC259A19-9B35-4B33-AD9F-44F4E1DA9983

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/038DDA73-FFB6-FE16-05C1-FDE6FEFF4880

treatment provided by

Felipe

scientific name

ACTINOMMIDAE Haeckel, 1862
status

 

Family ACTINOMMIDAE Haeckel, 1862 

sensu Suzuki emend. herein

Actinommatida Haeckel, 1862: 239, 412, 440 [as a tribe]. — Mivart 1878: 177 [as a subsection].

Cromyommida Haeckel, 1882: 453 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 208, 260 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 17 [as a subfamily].

Caryosphaerida Haeckel, 1882: 454 [nomen dubium, as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 60, 71 [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 5 [as a subfamily].

Staurocaryida Haeckel, 1882: 454 [as a tribe]; Haeckel 1887: 152, 167 [as a subfamily].

Actinommida [sic] – Haeckel 1887: 208, 251 (= Actinomminae   ) [as a subfamily]. — Schröder 1909: 17 [as a subfamily].

Sphaeropylida Dreyer, 1889: 11-12 [as a family].

Heterosphaerinae Mast, 1910: 49 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]. — Popofsky 1912: 93. — Campbell 1954: D62.

Sphaeropylidae – Poche 1913: 207.

Caryosphaerinae – Campbell 1954: D50 [nomen dubium]. — Chediya 1959: 72.

Actinommatinae [sic] – Campbell 1954: D64(= Actinomminae   ). — Pessagno 1976: 42.

Staurocaryinae – Campbell 1954: D58. — Chediya 1959: 89.

Cromyommatinae – Campbell 1954: D66.

Sphaeropyinae – Campbell 1954: D66.— Kozur & Mostler 1979: 13-14.

Stomatosphaerinae Campbell, 1954: D66. — Kozur & Mostler 1979: 44-45.

Actinommidae   – Loeblich & Tappan 1961: 222. — Riedel 1967b: 294 ( sensu emend.   ); Riedel 1971: 651. — Riedel & Sanfilippo 1971: 1587; 1977: 862. — Sanfilippo & Riedel 1973: 486; 1980: 1008-1009 ( sensu emend.   ). — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 167, 169. — Nakaseko & Sugano 1976: 122. — Kozur & Mostler 1979: 7-10 ( sensu emend.   ). — De Wever 1982b: 175. — Anderson 1983: 37. — Dumitrica 1984: 96; 1995: 22-23. — Sanfilippo & Riedel 1985: 586. — Sanfilippo et al. 1985: 651. — nec Gourmelon 1987: 35. — Blueford 1988: 247. — Takahashi 1991: 64. — Sashida & Igo 1992: 1306. — Kito & De Wever 1994: 125. — van de Paverd 1995: 118. — Sashida & Uematsu 1996: 48. — Hollis 1997: 32. — Boltovskoy 1998: 31. — Cordey 1998: 54. — Kozlova 1999: 67. — Amon 2000: 32. — Anderson et al. 2002: 1002. — De Wever et al. 2001: 119-121 ( sensu emend.   ). — Suzuki   & Gawlick 2003: 164. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S274-275. — Afanasieva & Amon 2006: 111. — Bragin 2007: 971; 2011: 742. — Chen et al. 2017: 152. — nec Suzuki   H. et al. 2020: 109.

Actinomminae   – Campbell & Clark 1944a: 17. — Chediya 1959: 98. — Petrushevskaya & Kozlova 1972: 515 ( sensu emend.   ). — Kozur & Mostler 1979: 10-11 ( sensu emend.   ).

TYPE GENUS. — Actinomma Haeckel, 1861a: 815   [type species by subsequent designation ( Campbell 1954: D64): Haliomma trinacrium Haeckel, 1861a: 815   ].

INCLUDED GENERA. — Actinomma Haeckel, 1861a: 815   (= Actinommetta   with the same type species; Haliommura   n. syn.,? Rhaphidococcus n. syn., Riedelipyle n. syn.; Dreyerella synonymized by Burridge et al. 2014: 51; Drymyomma   synonymized by Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 7; Cromyomma   synonymized by BjØrklund 1976: 114; Echinommura   , Heliosomura   , Sphaeropyle   synonymized by Petrushevskaya 1975: 568). — Cromyechinus Haeckel, 1882: 453   (= Cromyodrymus   synonymized by Kozur & Mostler 1979: 12). — Rhaphidocapsa Haeckel, 1887: 211   . —? Sphaeractis Brandt in Wetzel, 1936: 50. —? Staurocaryum Haeckel, 1882: 454   . — Stomatosphaera Dreyer, 1889: 26. —? Stuermeria Deflandre, 1964: 2119   .

INVALID NAME. — Heterosphaerina.

NOMINA DUBIA. — Acanthosphaera   , Caryosphaera, Echinomma, Echinommetta, Haliommetta, Heterosphaera, Parastomatosphaera   , Raphidodrymus, Rhaphidosphaera   , Sethosphaera   .

NOMEN NUDUM. — Dermatosphaera.

NOMEN OBLITUM. — Chilomma.

DIAGNOSIS. — Concentric spherical shells with many bladed radial beams. Three shells are present, one or two may also be observed in rare cases. The central structure consists of a double medullary shell. Both shells of the double medullary shell are latticed, of spherical shape, and are connected by many radial beams. Radial spines, if present, arise directly from these radial beams. Endoplasm fills the cortical shell in Actinomma   .

STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Middle Paleocene-Living.

REMARKS

The presence of radial spines is not a determining factor in identifying members of the Actinommidae   . The Actinommidae   are different from the Haliommidae   . The latter have non-bladed radial beams. Many junior synonyms of Actinomma   were determined by finding intermediate forms between three-shelled and four-shelled forms with a countless number of “ Actinomma   ” ( BjØrklund 1976; Suzuki   2006; Burridge et al. 2014). Cromyechinus   is validated in this catalogue, but several previous papers ( BjØrklund 1976: 114; Petrushevskaya 1975: 568; Matsuzaki et al. 2015: 7) presented it as a junior synonym of Actinomma   . The genus name Acanthosphaera   was used for a single cortical shell with numerous bladed spines, but the name-bearing type specimen of Acanthosphaera   , archived in the Ehrenberg collection, apparently displays some internal structure ( Suzuki   et al. 2009c: pl. 42, figs 1a-1c). For the classic Acanthosphaera   , the only viable solution is to apply the term Rhaphidocapsa   . However, classic representatives of Acanthosphaera   may be mixed with Actinomma   ( Actinommidae   ), Anomalosoma ( Hollandosphaeridae   ), Tetrapetalon   ( Hollandosphaeridae   ), a single shelled-form of Diplosphaera   (young form) ( Cladococcidae   ), Heliosphaera   ( Ethmosphaeridae   ), Centro- lonche ( Centrolonchidae   ), Stigmostylus   ( Centrolonchidae   ) or Stylosphaera   ( Stylosphaeridae   ) consisting of many radial spine-forms if their internal structure is missing, dissolved or unseen; such as in scanning electron microscopic photos. Several genera selected as members of this family (e.g., Rhaphidocapsa, Sphaeractis   , Staurocaryum   , Stuermeria   ) are still problematic. Unfortunately, this problem could not be resolved in this catalogue due to insufficient reports of these genera. Internal skeletal structure was illustrated for Actinomma   ( Nakaseko & Nishimura 1982: pl. 21, fig. 6; Suzuki   1998b: pl. 3, figs 6-8), Riedelipyle -form of Actinomma   ( Nakaseko & Nishimura 1982: pl. 25, fig. 1; Nishimura 2003; pl. 1, figs 6-9) and Sphaeropyle   -form of Actinomma   ( Suzuki   1998b: pl. 3, figs 13, 14; 2006: figs 3.1-3.15, 4.1- 4.10). Protoplasm is illustrated for Actinomma   ( KrabberØd et al. 2011: figs 1.A-1.D). Actinomma   can be infected with the Marine Alveolata Group I and II ( Ikenoue et al. 2016). Some still remain as undescribed genera (e.g., Nakaseko & Nishimura 1982: pl. 6, fig. 2; Sugiyama et al. 1992: pl. 1, figs 7, 8).

VALIDITY OF GENERA

Actinomma  

The combination of Actinomma   and Actinommetta   has the same type species. The morphological commonality among several available genera with Actinomma   is repeatedly explained in several previous studies ( Petrushevskaya & Kozlova 1972; BjØrklund 1976; Burridge et al. 2014; Matsuzaki et al. 2015).The lectotype of Acanthosphaera   has probably three concentric shells like Actinomma   ( Suzuki   et al. 2009c: pl. 42, figs 1a-1b) but it is regarded as a nomen dubium because the lectotype is insufficient to observe important distinguishing features such as the number of internal shells. The type species for Haliommura   was subsequently designated as Haliomma beroes   in the Atlas   due to the invalid designation status by Campbell (1954: D62) and the lectotype of this type species ( Suzuki   et al. 2009c: pl. 36, figs 1a-c) fits exactly with the morphological character of Actinomma   . Riedelipyle was established by Kozur & Mostler (1979: 14) with Sphaeropyle kuekenthalii   as type species. They differ from the Sphaeropyle   -form of Actinomma   by the empty space in the cortical shell, but the H.M.S. Challenger Station 267, the next to the Station 268, the type locality, includes “ Riedelipyle ” as the “ Sphaeropyle   ” specimen whose internal structure is lost (See supporting image of the Atlas   for Riedelipyle). The oldest available name is Actinomma   among them.

Cromyechinus  

Cromyodrymus   is characterized by branched radial spines and four concentric lattice shells ( Campbell 1954: D66). The branched part in the type-illustration of Cromyodrymu s is identical to the lateral spinule vertical to the radial spine. This kind of lateral spinules is a pre-development condition for a new cortical shell which is reported in the Sphaeropyle   - and Dreyeropyle -forms of Actinomma   ( Suzuki   2006; Burridge et al. 2014).

Loc

ACTINOMMIDAE Haeckel, 1862

Suzuki, Noritoshi, Caulet, Jean-Pierre & Dumitrica, Paulian 2021
2021
Loc

Suzuki

Suzuki & Caulet & Dumitrica 2021
2021
Loc

Suzuki

Suzuki & Caulet & Dumitrica 2021
2021
Loc

Actinomminae

Takahashi 1991
1991
Loc

Actinomminae

Takahashi 1991
1991
Loc

Actinomminae

Takahashi 1991
1991
Loc

Acanthosphaera

Lemmermann 1899
1899
Loc

Actinommidae

Haeckel 1882
1882