Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:03:24.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A new species of Abertella (Echinoidea: Scutellina) from the Gran Bajo del Gualicho Formation (Late Early Miocene–Early Middle Miocene), Río Negro Province, Argentina

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Sergio Martinez ,
Valeria Reichler  and
Rich Mooi
Sergio Martinez
Affiliation:
Facultad de Ciencias, Departamento de Evolución de Cuencas, Iguá 4225, (11400) Montevideo, Uruguay,
Valeria Reichler
Affiliation:
Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales Bernardino Rivadavia, División Paleoinvertebrados, Angel Gallardo 470, (C1405DJR) Buenos Aires, Argentina,
Rich Mooi
Affiliation:
California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California 94118-4599,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The genus Abertella Durham, 1953 initially was described to include one of several problematic species of Miocene sand dollars originally placed in Scutella Lamarck, 1816. Durham (1953) named Scutella aberti Conrad, 1842 as the type of Abertella, and later (1955) tried to resolve issues concerning familial relationships of North American scutellines by placing the genus in a monogeneric family, the Abertellidae. Durham (1953, p. 351) separated Abertella from other members in his assemblage of taxa related to Scutella because the former has: 1) an immediately submarginal periproct between the second pair of post-basicoronal plates; 2) moderately closed petaloids about three-quarters the length of the corresponding aboral ambulacrum (although he states this ratio as being two-thirds in the description itself); 3) widely disjunct oral interambulacra; 4) ambulacral basicoronals that are larger than interambulacral basicoronals (misstated, and corrected to say just the reverse in Durham [1955]); and 5) a well-developed notch in the posterior margin of the test. Abertella aberti (Conrad, 1842) is known from the coastal Miocene of the eastern United States, notably Maryland, North Carolina, and Florida (Durham, 1953; Cooke, 1959; McKinney, 1985).

Type
Paleontological Notes
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 79 , Issue 6 , November 2005 , pp. 1229 - 1233
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agassiz, A. 1872. Revision of the Echini. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, 3:1–762.Google Scholar
Barreda, V., and Palamarczuk, S. 2000. Estudio palinoestratigráfico del Oligoceno tardío–Mioceno en secciones de la costa patagónica y plataforma continental argentina. Correlación Geológica, 14:103–138.Google Scholar
Bellosi, E. 1990. Formación Chenque: Registro de la transgresión patagoniana (Terciario medio) de la Cuenca de San Jorge, Argentina. 11° Congreso Geológico Argentino, San Juan, 2:57–60.Google Scholar
Berg, A. 1898. Substitución de nombres genéricos. Comunicaciones del Museo Nacional de Buenos Aires, 1:16.Google Scholar
Brito, I. M. 1981. Contribuição à paleontologia do Estado do Pará. A ocorrência de Abertella (Echinoidea, Clypeasteroidea) na Formação Pirabas. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, n.s., Geologia, 23:1–8.Google Scholar
Camacho, H. H. 1974. Bioestratigrafía de las formaciones marinas del Eoceno y Oligoceno de la Patagonia. Anales de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales, 26:39–57.Google Scholar
Camacho, H. H. 1987. Una asociación novedosa de moluscos terciarios del Gran Bajo del Gualicho, Provincia de Río Negro. Patagoniana, 3:3–9.Google Scholar
Camacho, H. H. 1995. La Formación Patagónica (F. Ameghino, 1894): Su actual significación estratigráfica y paleontológica. Anales de la Academia Chilena de Ciencias, 5:117–151.Google Scholar
Conrad, T. A. 1842. Observations on a portion of the Atlantic Tertiary region, with a description of a new species of organic remains. Proceedings of the National Institute for the Promotion of Science, 2:171–194.Google Scholar
Cooke, C. W. 1942. Cenozoic irregular echinoids of eastern United States. Journal of Paleontology, 16:1–62.Google Scholar
Cooke, C. W. 1959. Cenozoic echinoids of the eastern United States. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 321:1–106.Google Scholar
del Río, C. J. 2004. Tertiary marine molluscan assemblages of Eastern Patagonia (Argentina): A biostratigraphic analysis. Journal of Paleontology, 78:1097–1122.Google Scholar
Desor, E. 1847. Sur quelques oursins fossiles de la Patagonie. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, (2) 4:287–288.Google Scholar
Dickerson, R. E., and Kew, W. S. W. 1917. The fauna of a medial Tertiary formation and the associated horizons of northeastern Mexico. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, series 4, 7:125–156.Google Scholar
Durham, J. W. 1953. Type species of Scutella . Journal of Paleontology, 27:347–352.Google Scholar
Durham, J. W. 1955. Classification of clypeasteroid echinoids. University of California Publications in Geological Sciences, 31:73–198.Google Scholar
Durham, J. W. 1957. Notes on echinoids. Journal of Paleontology, 31:625–631.Google Scholar
Durham, J. W. 1966. Clypeasteroids, p. U450–U491. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Pt. U(2). Echinodermata 3. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Haeckel, E. H. P. A. 1896. Systematische phylogenie Entwurf eines natürlichen Systema der Organismen auf Grund ihrer Stammesgeschichte. Thome 2. Systematische Phylogenie der Wirbellosen Thiere (Invertebrata). Berlin, 720 p.Google Scholar
Jackson, R. T. 1922. Fossil Echini of the West Indies. Publications of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, 306:1–104.Google Scholar
Lahille, F. 1898. Notes sur le nouveau genre de scutellidés Iheringia . Revista del Museo de la Plata, 8:439–451.Google Scholar
Lamarck, J. B. 1816. Histoire Naturelle des Animaux sans Vertèbres. III. Verdière, Paris, 586 p.Google Scholar
Leske, N. G. 1778. Additamenta ad Jacobi Theodori Klein naturalem dispositionem Echinodermatum et lucubratiunculam de aculeis echinorum marinorum. Lipsiae, Leipzig, 278 p.Google Scholar
Lizuaín, A. 1983. Descripción geológica de la Hoja 38 j, Salinas del Gualicho, Provincia de Río Negro. Boletín del Servicio Geológico Nacional, Buenos Aires, 195:1–48.Google Scholar
Lizuaín, A., and Sepúlveda, E. 1978. Geología del Gran Bajo del Gualicho (Provincia de Río Negro). 7° Congreso Geológico Argentino, Neuquén, 1:407–422.Google Scholar
Marchesini Santos, M. E. 1958. Equinóides Miocénicos da Formação Pirabas. Departamento Nacional da Produção Mineral, Divisão de Geologia e Mineralogia, Boletim, 179:1–24.Google Scholar
Martínez, S., and Mooi, R. 1997. “Karlaster” pirabensis from the Brazilian Miocene is a species of Abertella (Scutellina, Echinoidea), not a monophorasterid. 15° Congresso Brasileiro de Paleontologia, Sâo Paulo, 61.Google Scholar
Mckinney, M. L. 1985. The abundant ocurrence of the middle Miocene sand dollar Abertella aberti in the Hawthorne Formation of Florida. Southeastern Geology, 25:155–158.Google Scholar
Mooi, R. 1989. Living and fossil genera of the Clypeasteroida (Echinoidea: Echinodermata): An illustrated key and annotated checklist. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 488:1–51.Google Scholar
Mooi, R., Martínez, S., and Parma, S. G. 2000. Phylogenetic systematics of Tertiary monophorasterid sand dollars (Clypeasteroida: Echinoidea) from South America. Journal of Paleontology, 74:263–281.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez Roig, M. 1949. Paleontologia Cubana. I. Los equinodermos fosiles de Cuba. Compania Editora de Libros y Folletos, La Habana, 331 p.Google Scholar
Sepúlveda, E. 1983. Descriptión geológica de la Hoja 38 i, Gran Bajo del Gualicho, Provincia de Río Negro. Boletín del Servicio Geológico Nacional, Buenos Aires, 194, 61 p.Google Scholar
Sepúlveda, E., and Martínez-Macchiavello, J. C. 1985. La Formación Puerta del Diablo (Mioceno Superior–Plioceno inferior?) en el Gran Bajo del Gualicho (Río Negro, Argentina), y su paleoecología basada en diatomeas. Ameghiniana, 22:81–96.Google Scholar