Advertisement

Thecamoebians from the Early Cretaceous Deposits of Ruby Creek, Alberta (Canada)

  • Franco S. Medioli
  • David B. Scott
  • Eric S. Collins
  • John H. Wall
Chapter
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (ASIC, volume 327)

Abstract

Microscopic organic objects extracted from the Cretaceous freshwater deposits of Ruby Creek (Alberta) are discussed and illustrated. The authors reach the conclusion that these objects are fossilized thecamoebian tests which, on the basis of the evidence available, comprise ten species and seven genera all new to Science, but contained in Families and Superfamilies already known.

Keywords

Type Species Early Cretaceous Side View Apertural Area Modern Genus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bradley, W.H. (1931) Origin and microfossils of the oil shale of the Green River formation of Colorado and Utah. U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 168, 58Google Scholar
  2. Collins, E.S., McCarthy, F.M.G., Medioli, F.S., Scott, D.B., Honig, C.A., this volume, Biogeographic distribution of modern thecamoebians in a transect along the Eastern North American Coast.Google Scholar
  3. Cushman, J.A. (1930) The Foraminifera of the Choctawhatchee Formation of Florida. Florida State Geological Survey, Bulletin, 4, 1–63Google Scholar
  4. Decloître, L. (1953) Recherches sur les Rhizopodes Thécamoebiens d’A.O.F.. Institut Français d’Afrique Noire, Memoires n°31, 1–149.Google Scholar
  5. Ehrenberg, G.C. (1832) Über die Entwicklung und Lebensdauer der Infusionsthiere, nebst ferneren Beiträgen zu einer vergleichung ihrer organischen Systeme. Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin Abhandlungen, 1831, Physikalische Abhandlungen, 1–154.Google Scholar
  6. Ehrenberg, G.C. (1843) Verbreitung und Einflussdes mikroskopischen Lebens in Sud- und Nord- Amerika. Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin Abhandlungen, 1841, Physikalische Abhandlungen, 291–446.Google Scholar
  7. Ehrenberg, G.C. (1848) Fortgesetzte Beobachtungen über jetzt herrschende atmosphärische mikroskopische Verhältnisse. Bericht über die zur Bekanntmachung geeigneten Verhandlungen der Königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 13, 370–381.Google Scholar
  8. Ehrenberg, G.C. (1872a) Übersicht der seit 1847 fortgesetzten Untersuchungen über das von der Atmosphäre unsichtbar getragene reiche organische Leben. Königliche Akademie der Wissenshaften zu Berlin, Physikalische Abhandlungen, 1871, 1–150.Google Scholar
  9. Ehrenberg, G.C. (1872b) Nachtrag zur Übersicht der organischen Atmosphärilien. Königliche Akademie der Wissenshaften zu Berlin, Physikalische Abhandlungen, 1871, 233–275.Google Scholar
  10. Frenguelli, G. (1933) Tecamebiani e Diatomee nel Miocene del Neuquen (Patagonia Settentrionale). Bollettino delia Società Geologica Italiana, 52, 33–43.Google Scholar
  11. Jung, W. (1942) Südchilenische Thekamöben (aus dem südchilenischen Küstengebiet, Beitrag 10). Archiv fur Protistenkunde, 95, 253–356.Google Scholar
  12. Kent, W.S. (1880) A manual of the Infusoria; including a description of all known flagellate, ciliate, and tentaculiferous Protozoa, British and foreign, and an account of the organization and affinities of the sponges. 1, 472, D.Bogue (London).Google Scholar
  13. Kövary, J. (1956) Thékamöbák (Testaceák) a magyarországy alsòpannòniai korú üled ékekböl. Földtani Közlöny, 86, 266–273.Google Scholar
  14. Lamark, J.B. (1816) Histoire Naturella des animaux sans vertèbres. 2, 568, Verdière (Paris)Google Scholar
  15. Leclerc, L. (1816) Note sur la difflugie, nouveau genre de polype amorphe, musee d’histoire naturelle, mémoires, paris, 2, 474–478.Google Scholar
  16. Leidy, J. (1879) Fresh-water rhizopods of North America. United States Geological Survey of the Territories, Report, 12, 1–324.Google Scholar
  17. Loeblich, A.R.jr. and Tappan, H. (1964) Sarcodina, chiefly “Thecamoebians” and Foraminiferida: in: Moore, R,C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part C, Protista 2, 1, i-xxxi + c1 - c510a. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  18. Mclean, J.R. and Wall, J.H. (1981) The Early Cretaceous Moosebar Sea in Alberta. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, 29, 334–377.Google Scholar
  19. Medioli, F.S., and Scott, D.B. (1983) Holocene Arcellacea (Thecamoebians) from Eastern Canada. Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research, Special Publication #21, 1–63.Google Scholar
  20. Medioli, F.S., and Scott, D.B. (1988) Lacustrine thecamoebians (mainly Arcellaceans) as potential tools for palaeolimnological interpretations. Paleogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 62, 361–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Medioli, F.S., Scott, D.B, and Wall, J.H. (1986) Early Cretaceous Arcellacea from Ruby Creek, Alberta. Abstract. Geological Society of America, Annual Meeting, San Antonio, 692.Google Scholar
  22. Medioli, F.S., Scott, D.B. and Abbott, B.H. (1987) A case study of Protozoan intraclonal variability: Taxonomic implications. Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 17, 28–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Medioli, F.S., Scott, D.B., Collins, E.S., and McCarthy, F.M.G., this volume, Fossil thecamoebians: the state of the art and prospects for the future.Google Scholar
  24. Miner, E.L. (1935) Paleobotanical examinations of Cretaceous and Tertiary coals. The American Midland Naturalist, 16, 585–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ogden, C.G. (1983) Observations on the systematics of the genus Difflugia in Britain (Rhizopoda, Protozoa). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), 44, 1–73.Google Scholar
  26. Penard, E. (1902) Faune rhizopodique du bassin du Léman. Henry Kündig, Genève, 714Google Scholar
  27. Perty, M. (1849) Über vertikale Verbreitung mikroskopischer Lebensformen. Naturforschende Gesellschaft in Bern Mittheilungen, 1849, p 17–45.Google Scholar
  28. Schulze, F.E. (1877) Rhizopodenstudien VI. Archiv für Mikroskopische Anatomie, 13, 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stein, S.F.N. von (1859) Über die ihm aus eigener Untersuchung bekannt gewordenen Süsswasser-Rhizopoden. Königliche Böhmische Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften Abhandlungen, ser.5, 10, 41–43.Google Scholar
  30. Thibaudeau, S.A. and Medioli, F.S. (1986) Carboniferous thecamoebians and marsh foraminifera: new stratigraphie tools for ancient paralic deposits. Abstract, Geological Society of America, Annual Meeting, San Antonio, 771.Google Scholar
  31. Thibaudeau, S.A., Medioli, F.S. and Scott, D.B. (1987) Carboniferous marginal-marine Rhizopods: a morphological comparison with recent correspondents. Abstract. Geological Society of America, Annual Meeting, Phoenix, 866.Google Scholar
  32. Vasicek, M., and Ruzicka, B. (1957) Namurian Techamoebina from the Ostrava-Karvina coal district. Sbornik Naradniho Musea v Praze, Rada B., Prirodni Vedy-Acta Musei Nationalis Pragae, ser.B; Historia Naturalis, 13, 333–340.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Franco S. Medioli
    • 1
  • David B. Scott
    • 1
  • Eric S. Collins
    • 1
  • John H. Wall
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Marine GeologyDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  2. 2.Institute of Sedimentary and Petroleum GeologyGeological Survey of CanadaCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations