Ephydatia chileana Pisera and Sáez, 2003
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.4202/app.00354.2017 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A93569-FFCA-B661-FCDA-F8C44F73F770 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Ephydatia chileana Pisera and Sáez, 2003 |
status |
|
Ephydatia chileana Pisera and Sáez, 2003 View in CoL
Fig. 20 View Fig .
Type horizon: Late Miocene.
A 100 μm B 20 μm C
20 μm D 10 μm E 200 μm
Type locality: Quillagua Formation , Atacama region, Chile. References: Pisera and Sáez 2003 .
Description (emended from Pisera and Sáez 2003).—Three intact gemmules and many loose megascleres and gemmuloscleres preserved in a diatomite. No entire sponge bodies. Megascleres slightly curved, smooth oxeas (240–350 × 8–15 μm). Gemmules spherical to flattened (237–250 μm in diameter). Gemmuloscleres birotules (39–45 μm in length), with spiny shaft (5.5–7.2 μm in thickness) armed by a variable number (4–11) of strong, long conical spines of variable length. Rotules (usually 24.8–27.0 μm in diameter) with irregular margins, often deeply incised, and the resulting teeth (16 to 20–21 spines) not in the same plane vary greatly in length (ca. 11.0 μm at the longest); rotules upper surface, clear, flat, with a button-like central convexity (umbonate rotule). In one gemmule, many aberrant rotules bear a swelling in the middle of the shaft, along with rotules of normal morphology. Spines reduced to small tubercles on a bulbous-like termination of rotules and/or less numerous and irregularly developed.
Remarks.—The investigated material resembles the Recent cosmopolitan species Ephydatia fluviatilis but differs from it in having smaller diameters of gemmules, longer and thicker shafts of the gemmuloscleres, and larger diameter of rotules. E. chileana also has many long, conical spines on the gemmuloscleres’ shaft. The upper surface of the rotule is smooth in the investigated material, whereas in E. fluviatilis , it is often spiny to various degrees. Megascleres are of very similar size and smooth in E. chileana , whereas they are often microspinose in E. fluviatilis .
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.