OROSCENIDAE Haeckel, 1887

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 : 534-536

Family OROSCENIDAE Haeckel, 1887 n. stat.

Oroscenida Haeckel, 1887: 1593 [as a subfamily]. — Borgert 1901: XV-9 [as a subfamily].

Orosphaerida Haeckel, 1887: 1541, 1590-1593 [nomen dubium, as a family]. — Bütschli 1889: 1997 [as a family]. — Borgert 1901: XV-2, XV-9 [as a family]. — Anderson 1983: 31 [as a family of Phaeodaria].

Oronida Haeckel, 1887: 1593 [nomen dubium, as a subfamily]. — Borgert 1901: XV-9 [as a subfamily].

Orosphaeridae – Haecker 1908: 408-428 [nomen dubium, in Collodaria ]. — Lankester et al. 1909: 144. — Wetzel 1933: 5. — Hollande & Enjumet 1953: 107, 130 [in Collodaria ]. — Campbell 1954: D46, 48 [in Collodaria ]. — Dogiel & Reshetnyak 1955: 46 [in Spumellaria ]. — Chediya 1959: 239 [in Phaeodaria]. — Friend & Riedel 1967: 221. — Riedel 1967b: 294; 1971: 650. — Nakaseko et al. 1975: 166. — Nakaseko & Sugano 1976: 118. — Riedel & Sanfilippo 1977: 861. — Dumitrica 1979: 19; 1984: 94-95. — Kozur & Mostler 1982: 410 [in Entactinaria ]. — Anderson 1983: 37. — Petrushevskaya 1984: 125, 128 [in Collodaria ]. — Cachon & Cachon 1985: 284 [in Sphaerocollina]. — Petrushevskaya 1986: 123 [in Collodaria ]. — Gourmelon 1987: 35. — van de Paverd 1995: 33. — Kiessling 1999: 44 [in Entactinaria ]. — Tan & Chen 1999: 120. — De Wever et al. 2001: 185 [in Entactinaria ]. — Afanasieva et al. 2005: S276 [in Order Cancelliata ]. — Afanasieva & Amon 2006: 115.

Orosphaerinae – Campbell 1954: D48 [nomen dubium].

Orosceninae – Campbell 1954: D48.

TYPE GENUS. — Oroscena Haeckel, 1887: 1597 [type species by subsequent designation ( Campbell 1954: D48): Oroscena gegenbauri Haeckel, 1887: 1597 ].

INCLUDED GENERA. — Orodapis Friend & Riedel, 1967: 222 . — Orodendrum Haeckel, 1887: 1598 (= Oroplegma , Oroplegmium , synonymized by Friend & Riedel 1967: 228). — Oropelex Friend & Riedel, 1967: 223 (= Oropagis n. syn.). — Oroscena Haeckel, 1887: 1597 (= Oroscenium with the same type species; Orothamnus n. syn.). — Orostaurus Friend & Riedel, 1967: 271 .

NOMINA DUBIA. — Orodictyum , Orona , Oronium , Orosphaera .

DIAGNOSIS. — Oroscenidae consist of a one millimeter- to centimeter-sized empty spherical shell, made of polygonal frames. The present radial spines are club-shaped or form a finely-branched network. The radial spines and network extend in a downward direction in some genera. A single large central capsular, white in color, is located in the shell. No algal symbionts are present.

STRATIGRAPHIC OCCURRENCE. — Late Eocene-Living.

REMARKS

The family name “ Orosphaeridae ” is replaced by “ Oroscenidae ” due to the nomen dubium status of Orosphaera . The taxonomic position of the Oroscenidae has repeatedly changed among Collodaria (e.g., Haecker 1906; 1908; Hollande & Enjumet 1953; Petrushevskaya 1984), Spumellaria (e.g., Dogiel & Reshetnyak 1955), Phaeodaria ( Chediya 1959) and Entactinaria ( Kozur & Mostler 1982; Kiessling 1999; De Wever et al. 2001). Molecular study clearly indicates a close relationship to the Collodaria ( Nakamura et al. 2020) . Reports identify this group as a deep-water member (> 200m). Nestell & Nestell (2010: 20, 22) included the late Guadalupian of the Permian (Capitanian) subfamily Polyedroentactiniinae into the Oroscenidae , but this grouping needs further study due to the stratigraphic gap between the Polyedroentactiniinae and the Cenozoic Oroscenidae . A “living” image is only obtained for Orodendrum ( Suzuki & Zhang 2016: 39) . Skeletal structure is illustrated for Orodictyum ( Keany & Kennett 1972: fig. 4.6), Orodendrum ( Nakamura et al. 2020: figs 2.G-2.I), and Oroscena ( Kling 1978: fig.11).

VALIDITY OF GENERA

Orodendrum

Oroplegma has the same type species as Oroplegmium . Since Friend & Riedel (1967: 228) synonymized Oroplegmium with Orodendrum , Oroplegma is also automatically a synonym of Orodendrum . All were established simultaneously in Haeckel (1887: 1598 for Orodendrum, 1599 for Oroplegma, 1600 for Oroplegmium ). Regarding the first revision between Orodendrum and Oroplegmium, Orodendrum is selected as the valid name.

Oropelex

Friend & Riedel (1967: 223), the authors of Oropelex , distinguished Oropelex from Oropagis in that its shell is single rather than double. At that time, the number of shells was applied systematically for genus, family, or higher taxonomic ranks without any concern about ontogenetic growth under Haeckel’s system. The type photo of Oropagis dolium, the type species of Oropagis, illustrates the supplementary growth coverage, called the “outer shell” in Friend & Riedel (1967: 226). This does not necessitate separating them at the genus level. Oropelex and Oropagis were published simultaneously in Friend & Riedel (1967). Oropelex is selected as the valid name because the type specimen looks better.

Oroscena

The difference is the absence of pyramidal or tent-like elevations in Orothamnus and their presence in Oroscena ( Campbell 1954: D48). These differences were applied for the subfamily levels distinguishing “Orosphaerinae” and “Orosceninae,” in the type-illustration of Oroscena arborescens ( Haeckel 1887: pl. 106, fig. 3); however, the type species of Orothamnus has obvious pyramidal or tent-like elevations. This difference is meaningless for these two genera. The subgenera in Orosphaerinae and Orosceninae were determined by whether the radial spines are branched, arborescent, or not. This difference is also seen at the species level. Both names were published simultaneously in Haeckel (1887: 1597 for Oroscena ; 1596 for Orothamnus ). Oroscena was selected as the valid name because real specimens have been photographed.

DOUBTFUL RADIOLARIA, NON-POLYCYSTINEA, BUT INITIALLY DESCRIBED AS POLYCYSTINEA

CORRESPONDING GENERA

Acanthometra Müller, 1855: 248 [ Acantharia].

Campanula Alvira-Martín, 1972: 206 [ incertae sedis].

Cannosphaeropsis Wetzel, 1933: 52 [Dinoflagellate].

Centrocolla Cachon & Cachon, 1985: 285 [ incertae sedis].

Conostylus Popofsky, 1907: 702 [Siliceous sponge spicule].

Dystympanium Haeckel, 1887: 1006 [Silicoflagellate].

Enjumetia Özdikmen, 2009: 245 [ incertae sedis].

Eutympanium Haeckel, 1882: 446 [ incertae sedis].

Halicalyptra Ehrenberg, 1846: 385 [Silicoflagellate] (= Acrocalpis ).

Hataina Huang, 1967: 178 [Siliceous sponge spicule].

Lithacanthus Popofsky, 1907: 699 [Siliceous sponge spicule].

Radiosphaera JØrgensen, 1905: 122 [ Acantharia].

Prismozoon Burchardt, 1900: 788 [Diatom].

Rhaphiophorasphaera Clark & Campbell, 1945: 18 [Diatom]

Sethodisculus Haeckel, 1887: 423 [Siliceous sponge spicule].

Sticholonche Hertwig, 1877: 324 [ Taxopodia ].

Tetracina Loeblich & Tappan, 1961: 221 [Siliceous sponge spicule].

Zygacantha Müller, 1859b: 51 [ Acantharia].

NOMINA DUBIA UNDER THE ICZN

Circotympanum , Echinocalpis , Parastephanus , Paratympanium, Spongasteriscinus.

INVALID NAME UNDER THE ICZN

Paratympanum.

JUNIOR HOMONYMS UNDER THE ICZN

Bathysphaera Hollande & Enjumet, 1960 (= Enjumetia ) nec Beebe, 1932; Spirillina Ehrenberg, 1859 nec Ehrenberg, 1843; Tetracanthus Popofsky, 1907 (= Tetracina) nec Hope, 1834.

REMARKS

Non-Polycystinea genera listed herein present certain difficulties regarding the meaning of “taxonomic availability” as some of these are treated under the International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants (ICN) ( Turland et al. 2018). First, the concept of “ type ” is quite different between ICN and the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). The ICN mentions that the junior synonym of living “plants” prioritizes the senior synonym of fossil “plants”. By contrast, the ICZN is applied independently of all other nomenclatural codes. It is for this reason that we simply present a list of genera which have repeatedly been questioned as radiolarians Polycystinea. One of the problems is posed by “ Hataina ” and “ Sethodiscus ” which are a siliceous ellipsoidal or spherical in shape and whose internal structures are made of radiated fine fibers. These forms belong to the Class Hexactinellidae of the Porifera ( Rigby 2004: 444-445). It has been known as “OST” in Japan since 1949 ( Morishima et al. 1949) and was originally thought of as a phaeodarian ( Challengeridae ). The origin of “OST” was specified by the discovery of ten-centimeter-colonies on the slope of Japan Trench, east of Tohoku region of Japan ( Inoue & Iwasaki 1975). Several “OST” has been formally described as new genera (e.g., Geodia Lamarck, 1815 ; Cydonium Fleming, 1828 ; Sethodisculus Haeckel, 1887 ; Hataia Huang, 1967 ; Silicosphaera Hughes, 1985 ; Concilaspongia Robinson & Haslett, 1995; in chronological order); however, we did not provide valid name for any “OST” because they are not belonging to Polycystinea.

Radiosphaera was questionably regarded as a Collodaria , but this genus is a protoplasmic remain of acantharians after the dissolution of strontium sulfate. This can be recognized by the presence of myonemes, muscle-like fiber bundles on the periphery of some cell membranes (capsular membrane) observed under normal light microscopy ( Hollande & Enjumet 1955: black bundles on fig. 10; Febvre 1981). “ Radiosphaera ” was definitely identified, by DAPI dyeing fluorescence microscopy, as an acantharian cell with multi-nuculi and many algal symbionts inside the cell membrane.