Search the Taxacom archive · Browse by month · Mirror of the former lists.ku.edu archive (1992–2025)

Taxacom: Calcisphaera Williamson, 1880 - microfossil incertae sedis (Calcitarcha) or charophyte?

Tony Rees tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 15 14:27:48 CDT 2025 

On further digging I have found out that the (the principal) Calcitarch
workers persist in using Calcisphaera for calcitarchs even though the type
species is admitted to be not a calcitarch, see
Vachard, D.; Krainer, K.; Lucas, S. G. (2012). Pennsylvanian (Late
Carboniferous) calcareous microfossils from Cedro Peak (New Mexico, USA).
Part 1: Algae and Microproblematica. *Annales de Pal?ontologie.* 98(4):
225-252.

Quote:
------------------------
 Class INCERTAE SEDIS Order CALCITARCHA Versteegh et al. Family
CALCISPHAERIDAE Williamson Genus Calcisphaera Willamson, 1881 emend.
Armstrong and Mamet, 1977

Type species. Calcisphaera laevis Williamson, 1881 subsequently designated
by Andrews, 1955; Browne and Pohl (1973) and Armstrong and Mamet (1977).

Discussion. Although the first, subsequently designated type species for
the genus Calcisphaera (C.robusta Williamson) is a Charophyta also named
Trochiliscus (SD by Miller, 1889; see also Horn af Rantzien, 1956;
H?ntzschel, 1975; Vachard, 1977, 1994; and Conil et al., 1980), Calcisphera
was rarely used in this sense. More usually, Calcisphaera is considered to
be defined by Calcisphaera laevis (SD by Andrews, 1955; see also Browne and
Pohl, 1973; Armstrong and Mamet, 1977; Mamet, 1991; and Mamet and Pr?at,
2010). [etc.]
------------------------

While clearly currently incorrect according to the Code per discussion
above (and alluded to thus by these authors), this usage should perhaps be
formally recognised somewhere, either by an application to the Commission
for a designation of a new type for the genus recognising its "more common"
usage, or proposal of a new name for those species of Calcisphaera of
differing taxonomic placement to the present type. Unfortunately neither of
these actions are really within my remit, as a humble organiser of
taxonomic information as currently produced by others...

Regards - Tony


On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 at 04:14, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Paul. If this is indeed the case - and I have not missed anything
> else pertinent in the Code that would suggest otherwise e.g. for fossil
> taxa - then the AlgaeBase interpretation is correct, even though its cited
> source says the opposite... I will add a relevant explanation in IRMNG.
>
> Regards - Tony
> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cef672bbe00e04850453108dddc31db3d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638908828891078853%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dhbFNr8miLKlF4SXGwGw8Big1vk0yRbZqEG3m%2B%2FD%2B4k%3D&reserved=0
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cef672bbe00e04850453108dddc31db3d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638908828891099537%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=z3NRkZ1ws%2FjKHQO5FblZ2DtYnrlYiiwfTMZ6Uay1JdI%3D&reserved=0
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 at 18:07, Paul van Rijckevorsel via Taxacom <
> taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>> This appears to be eminently simple. The Preamble of
>> the ICNafp states: "This edition of the /Code/ supersedes
>> all previous editions." So if the type designation by Miller
>> meets the requirements for that action under the ICNafp,
>> it will have priority over whatever Williams did.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On 15/08/2025 08:13, Tony Rees via Taxacom wrote:
>> > For completeness, Miller's designation of robusta as the type is
>> available
>> > here:
>> > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F53798805&data%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cef672bbe00e04850453108dddc31db3d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638908828891114283%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=we3mTUo0tnavsDGHHqTOP7fmbdAD%2B%2Bps1Mj9LD0Xd00%3D&reserved=0
>> >
>> > With hindsight (though probably of no nomenclatural significance) this
>> > would seem possibly to be because robusta was the only species described
>> > from North America (the scope of Miller's book); Williamson admitted
>> this
>> > species to his genus on being sent some material, at the end of his
>> > description of the specimens he himself had collected, on which the
>> > remainder of the genus was based, which were from Wales.
>> >
>> > Williamson wrote:
>> > "I would call attention to some specimens, myriads of which constitute
>> > almost the mass of a ? Corniferous limestone? from the Devonian beds of
>> > Kelly?s Island, U.S.A., for specimens of which I am indebted to Mr.
>> Brady,
>> > and which we both believe to be closely related to the Welsh organisms
>> > ... Occasionally these ridges may be seen pursuing an oblique direction
>> > like the bands crossing the nucules of a Chara ... Though the
>> sphere-wall
>> > often exhibits a granular texture, I discover a radiating structure in a
>> > sufficient number of the specimens to convince me that, in this respect,
>> > they have closely resembled some of the Welsh objects. Since I cannot
>> learn
>> > that this American form has received a name, it may be designated
>> > Calcisphaera robusta."
>> >
>> > So the only one from North America, that also had some features of a
>> > charophyte, became Miller's type, leaving the others potentially
>> > misclassified...
>> >
>> > - Tony
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 at 15:51, Tony Rees via Taxacom<
>> taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I am seeking an answer as to whether the calcified microscopic fossil
>> genus
>> >> Calcisphaera Williamson, 1880 (treated mainly as a botanical form)
>> should
>> >> be treated as a microfossil incertae sedis (Calcitarcha) or assigned to
>> >> charophyta (as representing a charophyte spore aka gyrogonite).
>> Williamson,
>> >> 1880 originally assigned 7 species to the genus but failed to
>> designate a
>> >> type; of these, C. laevis (and possibly all of the others but one) is
>> today
>> >> considered a calcisphere microfossil in the group Calcitarcha, while C.
>> >> robusta is considered a charophyte spore. The correct assignment of the
>> >> genus therefore turns on which species is considered the type.
>> >>
>> >> Andrews (1955 and 1970) in "Index of Generic Names of Fossil Plants"
>> gives
>> >> the type as C. laevis, however Index Nominum Genericorum gives the
>> type as
>> >> C. robusta following Miller, 1889 who designated that species as the
>> >> lectotype. Apparently Andrews' designation (which was subsequently
>> >> supported by Peck & Morales, 1966 and Grambast-Fessard et al., 1989)
>> >> followed "Article PB. 4 of the [then current] International Code of
>> >> Botanical Nomenclature" which states: "The type of a genus of fossil
>> plants
>> >> is the first described species which shows such characters as are
>> necessary
>> >> for distinguishing the genus from other taxa."" (that text from Peck &
>> >> Morales, 1966), thus according to that logic, Miller's designation of
>> C.
>> >> robusta as the type was not only unnecessary but invalid.
>> >>
>> >> However subsequently Samoilova, 1985, in a proposal to Taxon,
>> recognised
>> >> Miller's designation of C. robusta as the type and treated
>> Calcisphaera as
>> >> a charophyte genus, with apparent priority over another genus,
>> Trochiliscus
>> >> Karpinsky, 1906, if the two genera are treated as synonymous. Bu in a
>> >> response to that proposal, Grambast-Fessard et al., 1989 stated: "The
>> taxon
>> >> Calcisphaera has not been retained [in Charophyta] as it includes
>> species
>> >> belonging to distinct taxonomic units; the first one described, C.
>> laevis,
>> >> designated as the type species, is not a charophyte but belongs to the
>> >> animal kingdom (Peck and Morales, 1966: 314)."
>> >>
>> >> Later, Versteegh et al., 2009, on formally proposing the group
>> Calcitarcha,
>> >> noted the earliest forms to be those described by Williamson, 1880
>> >> as Calcisphaera, and included that genus name in their list of
>> Calcitarcha
>> >> genera without further comment regarding its typification.
>> >>
>> >> Currently AlgaeBase offers a confused statement: it recognises
>> Calcisphaera
>> >> as a charophyte, with C. robusta as type species, but references
>> >> Grambast-Fessard et al., 1989 as the most recent treatment followed (in
>> >> fact as stated above, those authors state the exact opposite).
>> >>
>> >> So the question arises, does the current (or perhaps even a former)
>> >> botanical Code support Peck & Morales, 1966 assertion that in fossil
>> plants
>> >> where no type is selected, the first mentioned species automatically
>> >> becomes the type? That statement appears to originate in the Paris Code
>> >> (1956), probably also in the 1952 Code, which indeed states:
>> >> "Article PB. 4. The type of a genus of fossil plants is the first
>> described
>> >> species which shows such characters as are necessary for
>> distinguishing the
>> >> genus from other taxa. The type of a species of fossil plants is the
>> first
>> >> described and figured specimen showing such characters as are
>> necessary for
>> >> distinguishing the species from other species." (
>> >> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iapt-taxon.org%2Fhistoric%2F1956.htm&data%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cef672bbe00e04850453108dddc31db3d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638908828891128975%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=O1m1Sp%2BC94vJdG0UPGmL8wb0%2FWs%2Fqtw1QdVihtwcPbQ%3D&reserved=0)
>> >>
>> >> So Andrews in 1955 would (according to my reading) be correct in using
>> C.
>> >> laevis as the tye species and ignoring Miller's subsequent designation
>> of
>> >> C. robusta.
>> >>
>> >> However I am not sure that is the situation today; the current ICNafp
>> does
>> >> not seem to contain this Article or wording; the nearest I can find
>> (which
>> >> is not specifically dealing with fossil plants is:
>> >> 10.5. The author who first designates (Art. 7.10, 7.11, and F.5.4) a
>> type
>> >> of a name of a genus or subdivision of a genus must be followed, but
>> the
>> >> choice may be superseded if the author used a largely mechanical
>> method of
>> >> selection (Art. 10.6). A type chosen using a largely mechanical method
>> of
>> >> selection is superseded by any later choice of a different type not
>> made
>> >> using such a method, unless, in the interval, the supersedable choice
>> has
>> >> been affirmed by its adoption in a publication that did not use a
>> >> mechanical method of selection.
>> >>
>> >> (A "mechanical method of selection" appears to comprise taking the
>> first
>> >> species listed).
>> >>
>> >> So where does this leave us? Is C. laevis or C. robusta the correct
>> type
>> >> for this genus, and accordingly, is it to be treated as Calcitarcha or
>> >> Charophyta? (If indeed it is to be placed as a charophyte, then C.
>> laevis
>> >> and other similar species would require a new generic name in order to
>> be
>> >> placed in the Calcitarcha).
>> >>
>> >> Your answers appreciated,
>> >>
>> >> Regards - Tony Rees, Interim Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera
>> >> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cef672bbe00e04850453108dddc31db3d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638908828891143147%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6VvzXcP%2BZeiSNLzLk9A5whN4SkGC%2FPBlWfEucZ8JWmc%3D&reserved=0
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> References in chronological order:
>> >>
>> >> Williamson, W.C. (1880). On the organization of the fossil plants of
>> the
>> >> coal-measures.?Part X. Including an examination of the supposed
>> >> radiolarians of the carboniferous rocks. Philosophical transactions of
>> the
>> >> Royal Society of London 171(2): 493-539, plates 14-21.
>> >> Available at
>> >> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Froyalsocietypublishing.org%2Fdoi%2Fepdf%2F10.1098%2Frstl.1880.0014&data%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cef672bbe00e04850453108dddc31db3d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638908828891157324%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xou%2BJEZPUmTRy298LxB8ZYGKhOUDcuGl9DPgD3EbUZc%3D&reserved=0
>> >>
>> >> Miller, S.A. (1889). North American geology and palaeontology for the
>> use
>> >> of amateurs, students, and scientists. pp. 664, 1194 figures.
>> Cincinnati:
>> >> Western Methodist Book Concern.
>> >>
>> >> Andrews, H.N. (1955). Index of generic names of fossil plants,
>> 1820?1950.
>> >> U.S.. Geological Survey Bulletin 1013: 1?262
>> >>
>> >> Peck, R.E. and Morales, G.A. (1966). The Devonian and Lower
>> Mississippian
>> >> charophytes of North America. Micropaleontology, 12(3), pp.303-324.
>> >> doi:10.2307/1484549
>> >>
>> >> R. B. Samoilova (1985). (781) Proposal to Conserve Trochiliscus against
>> >> Calcisphaeria and Moellerina (Fossil, Trochiliscaceae). Taxon, 34(1),
>> >> 157?158. doi:10.2307/1221585
>> >>
>> >> N. Grambast-Fessard, M. Feist and Z. Wang. (1989). Concerning Rejected
>> >> Proposal 781 to Conserve Trochiliscus (Fossil Charophyta). Taxon,
>> 38(4),
>> >> 641?643. doi:10.2307/1222654
>> >>
>> >> Versteegh, G.J., Servais, T., Streng, M., Munnecke, A. and Vachard, D.
>> >> (2009). A discussion and proposal concerning the use of the term
>> >> calcispheres. *Palaeontology*, *52*(2), pp.343-348.
>> >>   doi:10.1111/j.1475-4983.2009.00854.x
>> >>
>> >> AlgaeBase (2025). Calcisphaera W.C. Wiiliamson, 1880:
>> >> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.algaebase.org%2Fsearch%2Fgenus%2Fdetail%2F%3Fgenus_id%3D53072&data%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cef672bbe00e04850453108dddc31db3d%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638908828891170952%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7gdqNIHFge6Gz2YbnwqW7VidPYsKoVfHSA3LIAZLmCw%3D&reserved=0
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Taxacom Mailing List
>> >>
>> >> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for 38 years, 1987-2025.
>> >>
>> >> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to:taxacom at lists.ku.edu
>> >> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>> >> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
>> >> You can reach the person managing the list
>> at:taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Taxacom Mailing List
>> >
>> > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for 38 years, 1987-2025.
>> >
>> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to:taxacom at lists.ku.edu
>> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
>> > You can reach the person managing the list
>> at:taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>
>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for 38 years, 1987-2025.
>>
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
>> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
>>
>>
>>

More information about the Taxacom mailing list