Marquezellinae, Plasencia & Kiliç & Baud & Sudar & Hirsch, 2018

Plasencia, Pablo, Kiliç, Ali Murat, Baud, Aymon, Sudar, Milan & Hirsch, Francis, 2018, The evolutionary trend of platform denticulation in Middle Triassic acuminate Gondolellidae (Conodonta), Turkish Journal of Zoology 42 (2), pp. 187-197 : 188

Superfamily Gondolellacea ( Lindström, 1970) Family Gondolellidae ( Lindström, 1970) Subfamily Marquezellinae n. subfam.

Type genus: Marquezella n. gen.

Derivation of the name: after Marquezella , one of the new genera.

Diagnosis (modified from Plasencia et al., 2007): Differential criteria of the octomembrate apparatus are the structure of the basal cavity in the P 1 element, of amygdaloid shape and progressively narrow, a relatively high blade, elongated and well denticulated (with at least 7 denticles or more in mature elements); the variable morphology of the P 2 element; and the simple S 3 element.

Description: Octomembrate apparatus composed of a pair of P 1, P 2, M, S 1, S 2, S 3, and S 4 elements, with a single S 0 element. The P 1 acuminate element develops several kinds of platforms in the course of its phylogeny; amygdaloid basal cavity, with tendency of the basal pit to shift towards the posterior end of the unit in the course of evolution; early species are platform-less ( Guexispathodus n. gen.), or with a ridge along the element blade. Later species may develop a platform-like cluster composed of denticles ( Pseudofurnishius ), while others may have the ridge develop into a wide platform, first unornamented ( Marquezella n. gen.) and later with nodes and denticles ( Kirilella n. gen.). Anterior denticles of the blade are initially directed upwards and inclined progressively towards the posterior end. Blade denticles are fused at least up to midlength, and in later specimens of Kirilella n. gen. posterior denticles are isolated. Basal cavity is of amygdaloid shape, narrow in the central third and gradually narrowing towards both ends; in some specimens of Kirilella n. gen. the cavity is wider and in some cases posteriorly bifid.

Preliminary remark: Chen et al. (2016a, 2016b) transcribed the term Pseudofurnishiinae from Pseudofurnishiidae Ramovš 1977, in replacement of Sephardiellinae Plasencia et al. 2007, based on ICZN Article 36.1. However, Ramovš (1977), not providing a description of the family Pseudofurnishiidae , herewith contradicts the requirements for names published after 1930 as shown in ICZN Article 13.1, which stipulates:

13.1. Requirements. To be available, every new name published after 1930 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and must

13.1.1. be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon, or

13.1.2. be accompanied by a bibliographic reference to such a published statement, even if the statement is contained in a work published before 1758, or in one that is not consistently binominal, or in one that has been suppressed by the Commission (unless the Commission has ruled that the work is to be treated as not having been published [Art. 8.7]), or

13.1.3. be proposed expressly as a new replacement name (nomen novum) for an available name, whether required by any provision of the Code or not.

This means that the name Pseudofurnishiidae cannot be valid and consequently neither Pseudofurnishiinae. Also, since Ramovš (1994 –1995) limits the family to the genus Pseudofurnishius it is clear that he considered Budurovignathus / Sephardiella to be part of family Gondolellidae .

Similar is the debate between the use of Sephardiella or Budurovignathus . Based on Kozur (1988) by page priority over March et al. (1988), and presenting no definition of the species, Kozur (1989) describes mainly characteristics of possible forerunners of the genus and some characteristics of different representatives of the genus, but lacks a correct definition that allows for differentiation of the genus from others. This is made clear by the fact that it was not done until Gullo and Kozur (1991), when the diagnosis and description of Budurovignathus was published for the first time. As March et al. (1990) present a full diagnosis and description of the genus Sephardiella , it has preeminence over the incorrectly defined Budurovignathus .

Orchard (2005) included both genera Sephardiella and Pseudofurnishius in the Subfamily Novispathodinae , after the genus Novispathodus . We do not consider the genera Sephardiella and Pseudofurnishius to be part of the same lineage as the genera Novispathodus , nor Triassospathodus Kozur, 1988 , and we therefore agree with Chen et al. (2016a) in differentiating the two subfamilies.

However, as in this paper the genus Sephardiella becomes an emptied genus, since it is now divided into the genera Marquezella n. gen. and Kirilella n. gen., their lineage having origin in the genus Guexispathodus n. gen., it is necessary to establish a new subfamily showing the phylogeny of the subfamily, for which we propose the name Marquezellinae n. subfam. In the phylogeny of the new subfamily Marquezellinae n. subfam. also belongs the genus Pseudofurnishius .