A response “Comment to Wetzeliella and its allies ― the ‘hole’ story: a taxonomic revision of the Paleogene dinoflagellate subfamily Wetzelielloideae by Williams et al. (2015).”...

Autores
Williams, Graham L.; Damassa, Sarah P.; Fensome, Robert A.; Guerstein, Gladys Raquel
Año de publicación
2017
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
The paper by Williams et al. (2015) concerning a proposed taxonomic revision of the subfamily Wetzelielloideae has led to a Comment by Bijl et al. (2016) that questions the validity of our assumptions regarding recognition of the equiepeliform, latiepeliform, hyperepeliform and soleiform archaeopyle types nd their significance at the generic level. In this response we address the points that they raise, which are: the introduction of taxonomic criteria allegedly not followed in other fossil subfamilies; the erection of too many taxa; the unworkable nature of the proposed classification; and the reduction of stratigraphic applicability of many significant stratigraphic marker species. We have organized our response under the following topics: pragmatism versus theory; generic criteria: intergroup consistency; the genus Apectodinium and operculum attachment; stratigraphic utility; the number of taxa; and recognition problems. We also discuss specimens illustrated in the two plates included with the Comment. The variations in archaeopyle shapes and types of attachment of the operculum (the latter concept has been modified following more recent research) that we have used in part to separate the genera within the Wetzelielloideae have been previously applied to other peridiniaceans subfamilies, most notably the Deflandreoideae. As with that subfamily, we consider that our focus on archaeopyle shape and operculum attachment for differentiating wetzelielloidean genera introduces an approach that may help refine the stratigraphic ranges of individual species. While it is a fundamental truth that there are no ?correct? taxonomic ideas, we consider that new approaches should be tested with usage over time, not rejected out of hand prior to careful study.
Fil: Williams, Graham L.. Bedford Institute of Oceanography; Estados Unidos
Fil: Damassa, Sarah P..
Fil: Fensome, Robert A.. Bedford Institute of Oceanography; Estados Unidos
Fil: Guerstein, Gladys Raquel. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Geología. Laboratorio de Palinologia; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto Geológico del Sur. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Geología. Instituto Geológico del Sur; Argentina
Materia
Biostratigraphy
Dinoflagellate cysts
Evolution
Paleogene
Taxonomy
Wetzelielloideans
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/21676

id CONICETDig_9003aa3da1107274e8afb8561c3cb46f
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/21676
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling A response “Comment to Wetzeliella and its allies ― the ‘hole’ story: a taxonomic revision of the Paleogene dinoflagellate subfamily Wetzelielloideae by Williams et al. (2015).”Williams, Graham L.Damassa, Sarah P.Fensome, Robert A.Guerstein, Gladys RaquelBiostratigraphyDinoflagellate cystsEvolutionPaleogeneTaxonomyWetzelielloideanshttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.5https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1The paper by Williams et al. (2015) concerning a proposed taxonomic revision of the subfamily Wetzelielloideae has led to a Comment by Bijl et al. (2016) that questions the validity of our assumptions regarding recognition of the equiepeliform, latiepeliform, hyperepeliform and soleiform archaeopyle types nd their significance at the generic level. In this response we address the points that they raise, which are: the introduction of taxonomic criteria allegedly not followed in other fossil subfamilies; the erection of too many taxa; the unworkable nature of the proposed classification; and the reduction of stratigraphic applicability of many significant stratigraphic marker species. We have organized our response under the following topics: pragmatism versus theory; generic criteria: intergroup consistency; the genus Apectodinium and operculum attachment; stratigraphic utility; the number of taxa; and recognition problems. We also discuss specimens illustrated in the two plates included with the Comment. The variations in archaeopyle shapes and types of attachment of the operculum (the latter concept has been modified following more recent research) that we have used in part to separate the genera within the Wetzelielloideae have been previously applied to other peridiniaceans subfamilies, most notably the Deflandreoideae. As with that subfamily, we consider that our focus on archaeopyle shape and operculum attachment for differentiating wetzelielloidean genera introduces an approach that may help refine the stratigraphic ranges of individual species. While it is a fundamental truth that there are no ?correct? taxonomic ideas, we consider that new approaches should be tested with usage over time, not rejected out of hand prior to careful study.Fil: Williams, Graham L.. Bedford Institute of Oceanography; Estados UnidosFil: Damassa, Sarah P..Fil: Fensome, Robert A.. Bedford Institute of Oceanography; Estados UnidosFil: Guerstein, Gladys Raquel. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Geología. Laboratorio de Palinologia; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto Geológico del Sur. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Geología. Instituto Geológico del Sur; ArgentinaTaylor & Francis2017-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/21676Williams, Graham L.; Damassa, Sarah P.; Fensome, Robert A.; Guerstein, Gladys Raquel; A response “Comment to Wetzeliella and its allies ― the ‘hole’ story: a taxonomic revision of the Paleogene dinoflagellate subfamily Wetzelielloideae by Williams et al. (2015).”; Taylor & Francis; Palynology; 1-2017; 1-190191-61221558-9188CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01916122.2017.1283367info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1080/01916122.2017.1283367info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-03T09:52:16Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/21676instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-03 09:52:16.491CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv A response “Comment to Wetzeliella and its allies ― the ‘hole’ story: a taxonomic revision of the Paleogene dinoflagellate subfamily Wetzelielloideae by Williams et al. (2015).”
title A response “Comment to Wetzeliella and its allies ― the ‘hole’ story: a taxonomic revision of the Paleogene dinoflagellate subfamily Wetzelielloideae by Williams et al. (2015).”
spellingShingle A response “Comment to Wetzeliella and its allies ― the ‘hole’ story: a taxonomic revision of the Paleogene dinoflagellate subfamily Wetzelielloideae by Williams et al. (2015).”
Williams, Graham L.
Biostratigraphy
Dinoflagellate cysts
Evolution
Paleogene
Taxonomy
Wetzelielloideans
title_short A response “Comment to Wetzeliella and its allies ― the ‘hole’ story: a taxonomic revision of the Paleogene dinoflagellate subfamily Wetzelielloideae by Williams et al. (2015).”
title_full A response “Comment to Wetzeliella and its allies ― the ‘hole’ story: a taxonomic revision of the Paleogene dinoflagellate subfamily Wetzelielloideae by Williams et al. (2015).”
title_fullStr A response “Comment to Wetzeliella and its allies ― the ‘hole’ story: a taxonomic revision of the Paleogene dinoflagellate subfamily Wetzelielloideae by Williams et al. (2015).”
title_full_unstemmed A response “Comment to Wetzeliella and its allies ― the ‘hole’ story: a taxonomic revision of the Paleogene dinoflagellate subfamily Wetzelielloideae by Williams et al. (2015).”
title_sort A response “Comment to Wetzeliella and its allies ― the ‘hole’ story: a taxonomic revision of the Paleogene dinoflagellate subfamily Wetzelielloideae by Williams et al. (2015).”
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Williams, Graham L.
Damassa, Sarah P.
Fensome, Robert A.
Guerstein, Gladys Raquel
author Williams, Graham L.
author_facet Williams, Graham L.
Damassa, Sarah P.
Fensome, Robert A.
Guerstein, Gladys Raquel
author_role author
author2 Damassa, Sarah P.
Fensome, Robert A.
Guerstein, Gladys Raquel
author2_role author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Biostratigraphy
Dinoflagellate cysts
Evolution
Paleogene
Taxonomy
Wetzelielloideans
topic Biostratigraphy
Dinoflagellate cysts
Evolution
Paleogene
Taxonomy
Wetzelielloideans
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.5
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv The paper by Williams et al. (2015) concerning a proposed taxonomic revision of the subfamily Wetzelielloideae has led to a Comment by Bijl et al. (2016) that questions the validity of our assumptions regarding recognition of the equiepeliform, latiepeliform, hyperepeliform and soleiform archaeopyle types nd their significance at the generic level. In this response we address the points that they raise, which are: the introduction of taxonomic criteria allegedly not followed in other fossil subfamilies; the erection of too many taxa; the unworkable nature of the proposed classification; and the reduction of stratigraphic applicability of many significant stratigraphic marker species. We have organized our response under the following topics: pragmatism versus theory; generic criteria: intergroup consistency; the genus Apectodinium and operculum attachment; stratigraphic utility; the number of taxa; and recognition problems. We also discuss specimens illustrated in the two plates included with the Comment. The variations in archaeopyle shapes and types of attachment of the operculum (the latter concept has been modified following more recent research) that we have used in part to separate the genera within the Wetzelielloideae have been previously applied to other peridiniaceans subfamilies, most notably the Deflandreoideae. As with that subfamily, we consider that our focus on archaeopyle shape and operculum attachment for differentiating wetzelielloidean genera introduces an approach that may help refine the stratigraphic ranges of individual species. While it is a fundamental truth that there are no ?correct? taxonomic ideas, we consider that new approaches should be tested with usage over time, not rejected out of hand prior to careful study.
Fil: Williams, Graham L.. Bedford Institute of Oceanography; Estados Unidos
Fil: Damassa, Sarah P..
Fil: Fensome, Robert A.. Bedford Institute of Oceanography; Estados Unidos
Fil: Guerstein, Gladys Raquel. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Geología. Laboratorio de Palinologia; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto Geológico del Sur. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Geología. Instituto Geológico del Sur; Argentina
description The paper by Williams et al. (2015) concerning a proposed taxonomic revision of the subfamily Wetzelielloideae has led to a Comment by Bijl et al. (2016) that questions the validity of our assumptions regarding recognition of the equiepeliform, latiepeliform, hyperepeliform and soleiform archaeopyle types nd their significance at the generic level. In this response we address the points that they raise, which are: the introduction of taxonomic criteria allegedly not followed in other fossil subfamilies; the erection of too many taxa; the unworkable nature of the proposed classification; and the reduction of stratigraphic applicability of many significant stratigraphic marker species. We have organized our response under the following topics: pragmatism versus theory; generic criteria: intergroup consistency; the genus Apectodinium and operculum attachment; stratigraphic utility; the number of taxa; and recognition problems. We also discuss specimens illustrated in the two plates included with the Comment. The variations in archaeopyle shapes and types of attachment of the operculum (the latter concept has been modified following more recent research) that we have used in part to separate the genera within the Wetzelielloideae have been previously applied to other peridiniaceans subfamilies, most notably the Deflandreoideae. As with that subfamily, we consider that our focus on archaeopyle shape and operculum attachment for differentiating wetzelielloidean genera introduces an approach that may help refine the stratigraphic ranges of individual species. While it is a fundamental truth that there are no ?correct? taxonomic ideas, we consider that new approaches should be tested with usage over time, not rejected out of hand prior to careful study.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-01
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/21676
Williams, Graham L.; Damassa, Sarah P.; Fensome, Robert A.; Guerstein, Gladys Raquel; A response “Comment to Wetzeliella and its allies ― the ‘hole’ story: a taxonomic revision of the Paleogene dinoflagellate subfamily Wetzelielloideae by Williams et al. (2015).”; Taylor & Francis; Palynology; 1-2017; 1-19
0191-6122
1558-9188
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/21676
identifier_str_mv Williams, Graham L.; Damassa, Sarah P.; Fensome, Robert A.; Guerstein, Gladys Raquel; A response “Comment to Wetzeliella and its allies ― the ‘hole’ story: a taxonomic revision of the Paleogene dinoflagellate subfamily Wetzelielloideae by Williams et al. (2015).”; Taylor & Francis; Palynology; 1-2017; 1-19
0191-6122
1558-9188
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01916122.2017.1283367
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1080/01916122.2017.1283367
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Taylor & Francis
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Taylor & Francis
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1842269147322384384
score 13.13397