Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-zeroSep 2017View details →

FIG. 1 in Paleozoic radiolarian biostratigraphy

FIG. 1. — Four assemblages presently recognized from the Cambrian in stratigraphic order are the: Palaeospiculum, Echidnina runnegari, Subechidnina and Ramuspiculum assemblages.

FIG. 17 in Radiolarian biostratigraphy of Paleogene deposits of the Russian Platform (Voronesh Anticline)

FIG. 17. — Early and middle-late Eocene Radiolarians from different localities; A, Druppatractus polycentrus Clark & Campbell, 1942, o/p 294/4, interval 6.3 m; B, Ellipsostylus anisoxyphos Clark & Campbell, 1942, o/p 294/6, interval 8.3 m; C, Hexacontium pachydermum Jørgensen, 1900, well 510C, interval 44.0 m; D, Heterosestrum formosum trispinum (Tochilina, 1972) emend., well 730C, interval 43.7 m; E, Lithomelissa sp. aff. ehrenbergi Bütschli, 1882, well 510C, interval 40.0 m; F, Euscenarium (?) sp., well 730C, interval 44.3 m; G, Theocorys anapographa Riedel & Sanfilippo, 1970, o/p 294/3, interval 5.3 m; H, Periphaena decora Ehrenberg, 1873, well 730C, interval 43.7 m; I, J, Periphaena pentasteriscus (Clark & Campbell, 1942), well 510C, interval 40.0 m; K, Tripocyrtis (?) sp., o/p 294/11, interval 12.8 m; L, Porodiscus charlestonensis Clark & Campbell, 1945, well 510C, interval 44.0 m; M, S, Spongodiscus ex. gr. cruciferus (Clark & Campbell, 1942), well 730C, interval 43.7 m; N, Lithomelissa sp. aff. spongiosa Bütschli, 1882, o/p 294/4, interval 6.3 m; O, Ommatogramma sp. aff. biconstrictus (Lipman, 1953), well 730C, interval 38.8 m; P, Q, Peripyramis magnifica magnifica (Clark & Campbell, 1942), well 730C, interval 43.7 m; R, Prunobrachium (?) sp., well 730C, interval 43.7 m. Scale bar: 100 µm.

FIG. 16 in Radiolarian biostratigraphy of Paleogene deposits of the Russian Platform (Voronesh Anticline)

FIG. 16. — Early and middle-late Eocene Radiolarians from different localities; A, F, Amphisphaera gonioxyphos (Clark & Campbell, 1942), o/p 294/11, interval 12.8 m; B, C, Periphaena quadrata (Clark & Campbell, 1942), well 510C, interval 36.0 m; D, Amphisphaera megaxyphos tetraxyphos (Clark & Campbell, 1942), o/p 294/4, interval 6.3 m; E, Carposphaera globosa Clark & Campbell, 1945, well 510C, interval 36.0 m; G, Dorylonchidium fructiforme Clark & Campbell, 1942, o/p 294/10, interval 12.2 m; H, I, Conoactinomma sp. aff. Conosphaera stilloformis Lipman, 1960, well 510C, interval 36.0 m; J, Calocyclas sp. aff. barbadensis Ehrenberg, 1875, well 730C, interval 43.7 m; K, L, Anthocyrtium sp., well 730C, interval 38.8 m; M, Theocotyle venezuelensis Riedel & Sanfilippo, 1970, o/p 294/11, interval 12.8 m; N-P, Tripodiscinus kaptarenkoae (Gorbunov, 1979), o/p 294/10, interval 12.2 m; Q, Calocyclas undella (Clark & Campbell, 1942), o/p 294/2, interval 4.3 m; R, Callimitra sp. aff. Tripilidium clavipes Clark & Campbell, 1945, o/p 294/6, interval 8.3 m; S, Tripodiscinus sp., well 730C, interval 38,8 m; T, Ceratocyrtis rhabdophora rhabdophora (Clark & Campbell, 1945), o/p 294/5, interval 7.3 m; U, Botryostrobus sp., well 730C, interval 38.8 m; V, Callimitra cf. atavia Goll, 1979, o/p 294/6, interval 8.3 m. Scale bars: 100 µm.

FIG. 15 in Radiolarian biostratigraphy of Paleogene deposits of the Russian Platform (Voronesh Anticline)

FIG. 15. — Middle-early late Eocene Radiolarian association, Sergeevka Village, outcrop 1, interval 14.3-15.5 m; A, Periphaena sp. aff. Heliodiscus hexasteriscus Clark & Campbell, 1942; B, Petalospyris sp.; C, D, Thecosphaera sp. A; E, Phacodiscinus (?) sp.; F, G, Actinommura sp. B; H, Lophocyrtis ex. gr. Theocyrtis andriashevi (Petrushevskaya, 1979); I, Lithomelissa spongiosa Bütschli, 1882; J, K, Ceratocyrtis sp. aff. Helotholus amplus Popofsky, 1908 or Tripodiscinus (?) sp.; L, Phormocyrtis sp. aff. ligulata Clark & Campbell; M, Thecosphaera sp. B; N, Lophocyrtis aspera (Ehrenberg, 1873); O, P, Periphaena heliasteriscus (Clark & Campbell, 1942). Scale bars: 100 µm.

FIG. 14. — A-I in Radiolarian biostratigraphy of Paleogene deposits of the Russian Platform (Voronesh Anticline)

FIG. 14. — A-I, Early and middle Eocene Radiolaria; A, Desmospyris anthocyrtoides (Bütschli, 1882), o/p 1, interval 35.5-39.3 m; B, Desmospyris sp. aff. anthocyrtoides Bütschli, 1882, o/p 1, interval 35.5-39.3 m; C, D, Thecosphaera magnaporulosa (Clark & Campbell, 1942), Well 510C, interval 40.0 m; E, Trypansosphaera sp. aff. Conosphaera abstrusa Moksyakova, 1970, o/p 294/7, interval 9.3 m; F, Theocyrtis litos (Clark & Campbell, 1945), o/p 294/2, interval 4.2 m; G, Theocyrtis scolopax (Ehrenberg, 1875), o/p 294/1, interval 3.2 m; H, Tholospyris acuminata Hertwig, 1879, o/p 294/6, interval 8.3 m; I, Tripodiscium sp., o/p 294/7, interval 9.3 m; J-T, middle-early late Eocene Radiolarian association from Sergeevka Village, o/p 1, interval 35.5-39.3m; J, Phormocyrtis sp. aff. embolum (Ehrenberg, 1873); K, Calocyclas extensa contracta Clark & Campbell, 1942; L, Druppatractus trichopterus Clark & Campbell, 1942; M, Pterocodon lex Sanfilippo & Riedel, 1979; N, Q, Ceratocyrtis stigi (Bjørklund, 1976); O, Amphisphaera megaxyphos megaxyphos (Clark & Campbell, 1942); P, Porodiscus sp.; R, S, Thecosphaera californica Clark & Campbell, 1942; T, Ceratocyrtis charlestonensis (Clark & Campbell, 1945). Scale bars: A, B, J-T, 100 mm; C-I, 50 µm.

FIG. 13 in Radiolarian biostratigraphy of Paleogene deposits of the Russian Platform (Voronesh Anticline)

FIG. 13. — Middle Eocene Radiolarian association, Pirogovo Village, Well 510C, interval 44.0 m; A, F, Lophocyrtis aspera (Ehrenberg, 1873); B, O, Calocyclas talwanii Bjørklund & Kellogg, 1972; C, D, Anthocyrtidium pupa Clark & Campbell, 1942; E, I, L, Calocycletta sp. aff. virginis Haeckel, 1887; G, H, Lophocyrtis norvegiensis (Bjørklund & Kellogg, 1972); J, K, Lophocyrtis auriculaleporis (Clark & Campbell, 1942); M, Lophocyrtis sinitzini (Lipman, 1949) sensu Kozlova 1999; N, Phormocyrtis sp. aff. proxima Clark & Campbell, 1942. Scale bars: A-H, J-N, 100 mm; I, O, 50 µm.

FIG. 10 in Radiolarian biostratigraphy of Paleogene deposits of the Russian Platform (Voronesh Anticline)

FIG. 10. — Early Eocene Radiolarian association, Petropavlovka Village, Well 730, interval 44.3 m; A, B, Periphaena perplexus (Clark & Campbell, 1942); C, F, J, Haliomma (?) faceta (Krasheninnikov, 1960); D, G, Heterosestrum formosum (Tochilina, 1970); E, Periphaena sp. aff. Heliodiscus inca (Clark & Campbell, 1942); H, K, Stylotrochus festivus Clark & Campbell, 1942; I, Heterosestrum (?) sp.; L, M, Amphicraspedium praemurrayanum Kozlova, 1999; N, Ommatogramma biconstrictus (Lipman, 1953). Scale bars: 100 µm.

FIG. 12 in Radiolarian biostratigraphy of Paleogene deposits of the Russian Platform (Voronesh Anticline)

FIG. 12. — Middle Eocene Radiolarian association, Pirogovo Village, Well 510C, interval 44.0 m (except 8: 730C, 44.3 m); A, Ceratocyrtis charlestonensis (Clark & Campbell, 1945); B, E, F, Ceratocyrtis sp. aff. stigi (Bjørklünd, 1976); C, Lithomelissa spongiosa Bütschli, 1882; D, N, Giraffospyris didiceros (Ehrenberg, 1875); G, Patagospyris morkleyensis (Clark & Campbell, 1942); H, K, Giraffospyris sp. aff. didiceros (Ehrenberg, 1875); I, J, Petalospyris tumidula Kozlova, 1966; L, M, Peripyramis magnifica (Clark & Campbell, 1942) sensu Kozlova 1999; O, Heterosestrum formosum (Tochilina, 1970), saggittal view. Scale bars: 50 µm.

FIG. 9 in Radiolarian biostratigraphy of Paleogene deposits of the Russian Platform (Voronesh Anticline)

FIG. 9. — Early Eocene Radiolarian association, Petropavlovka Village, Well 730-C, interval 44.3 m; A, B, F, G, Phormocyrtis sp. aff. proxima Clark & Campbell, 1942; C, D, Pterocodon ampla longispina (Clark & Campbell, 1942) n. comb.; E, Lithostrobus picus (Ehrenberg, 1875); H, Pterocodon ex. gr. ampla (Brandt, 1936); I, J, Pterocodon ampla (Brandt, 1936); K, L(?), Petalospyris tumidula Kozlova, 1966; M, N, Phormocyrtis sp.; O, P, Rhopalocanium pyramis (Haeckel, 1887); Q, Rhopalocanium satelles (Kozlova, 1966); R-T, Dictyoprora urceolus Haeckel, 1887; U, V, Petalospyris sp. aff. septenaria Kozlova, 1966; W, Lychnocanoma cf. bellum Clark & Campbell; X, Y, Mita cf. regina (Campbell & Clark, 1944). Scale bars: 100 µm.

FIG. 11 in Radiolarian biostratigraphy of Paleogene deposits of the Russian Platform (Voronesh Anticline)

FIG. 11. — Middle-early late Eocene Radiolarian association, Pirogovo Village, Well 510C, 44.0 m; A, B, Anthocyrtidium pupa Clark & Campbell, 1942; C, Lophocyrtis aspera (Ehrenberg, 1873); D, Clathrospyris sandellae Goll, 1980; E, Callimitra clavipes (Clark & Campbell, 1945); F, Heterosestrum formosum bispinum (Tochilina, 1972) emend.; G, Theocorys anaclasta Riedel & Sanfilippo, 1970; H, Axoprunum visendum (Kozlova, 1966); I, Lophocyrtis ex. gr. Calocyclas semipolita Clark & Campbell, 1942; J, K, Hexacontium sp.; L, Lychnocanium sp. B; M Lophocyrtis norvegiensis (Bjørklund & Kellogg, 1972); N, Lophocyrtis auriculaleporis (Clark & Campbell, 1942); O, Lychnocanium sp. A; P, Desmospyris ex. gr. anthocyrtoides Bütschli, 1882. Scale bar: 100 µm.

FIG. 4 in Radiolarian biostratigraphy of Paleogene deposits of the Russian Platform (Voronesh Anticline)

FIG. 4. — Location of the wells and outcrops within the Voronesh Anticline territory. 1, Pirogovo Village, well 510C; 2, Petropavlovka Village, well 730C; 3, Sergeevka Village, outcrop S1; 4, Baltinovsky Village, outcrops 294 and 2484.

FIG. 8 in Radiolarian biostratigraphy of Paleogene deposits of the Russian Platform (Voronesh Anticline)

FIG. 8. — Early Eocene (3, 5-7, 9, 11-15) and middle-late Eocene (1, 2, 4, 8) Radiolarian association, Petropavlovka Village, Well 730, interval 44.3 m; A, Triactis triactis (Ehrenberg, 1873); B, D, Thecosphaera rotunda Borisenko, 1960; C, Heterosestrum formosum trispinum (Tochilina, 1972) emend.; E, I, Lithocyclia sp.; F, G, Periphaena heliasteriscus (Clark & Campbell, 1942); H, Stylodictya targaeformis (Clark & Campbell, 1942); J, Velicucullus sp. aff. oddgurneri Bjørklund, 1976; K, O(?), Spiromultitunica sp. aff. Prunopyle hayesi Chen, 1975; L, M, Spongoprunum (?) probus (Rüst, 1888); N, Hexacontium (?) sp. Scale bars: 100 µm.

FIG. 7 in Radiolarian biostratigraphy of Paleogene deposits of the Russian Platform (Voronesh Anticline)

FIG. 7. — Early Eocene Radiolarian association, Petropavlovka Village, well 730, interval 44,3 m; A, B, Petalospyris sp. aff. argiscus Ehrenberg, 1875; C, D, Petalospyris (?) sp.; E, F, Pterocodon ampla (Brandt, 1936); G, Lychnocanoma bellum longipes (Kozlova, 1966); H, Podocyrtis cf. papalis Ehrenberg, 1875; I, Lychnocanoma sp. aff. bandyca Mato & Theyer, 1980; J, Cycladophora cf. Pterocorys bicornis Popofsky, 1908; K, Lithostrobus picus (Ehrenberg, 1875); L, Amphisphaera megaxyphos trixyphos (Clark & Campbell, 1942); M, Amphymenium splendiarmatum Clark & Campbell, 1942; N, Clathrocyclas ex. gr. universa Clark & Campbell, 1942; O, Prunopyle sp. aff. ovata Kozlova, 1966; P, Plectodiscus circularis (Clark & Campbell, 1942); Q, Petalospyris argiscus Ehrenberg, 1875; R, Anthocyrtidium sp. aff. pupa Clark & Campbell, 1942; S, Ommatogramma biconstrictus (Lipman, 1953). Scale bars: 100 µm.

FIG. 3 in Radiolarian biostratigraphy of Paleogene deposits of the Russian Platform (Voronesh Anticline)

FIG. 3. — Regional and local stratigraphic subdivisions, in italics: the names of Formations, after Semenov (1965).

Fig. 7 in Notes on the Occurrence of Tintinnid Ciliates, and the Nasselarian Radiolarian Amphimelissa setosa of the Marine Microzooplankton, in the Chukchi Sea (Arctic Ocean) Sampled each August from 2011 to 2020

Fig. 7. The growth in the list of tintinnid species reported from the Chukchi Sea beginning with the first sampling in 1953 up to and including our 2020 sampling. The list of the 60 species now known for Chukchi Sea, with sampling year first found for each species, and the reference, is given in the supplementary file. Data are from Bursa 1963, Matsuno et al. 2014, Li et al. 2016, Yokoi et al. 2016, Dolan et al. 2017, Xu et al. 2018, Wang et al. 2019, and this study.

Fig. 2. Sampling locations, 2011–2020 in Notes on the Occurrence of Tintinnid Ciliates, and the Nasselarian Radiolarian Amphimelissa setosa of the Marine Microzooplankton, in the Chukchi Sea (Arctic Ocean) Sampled each August from 2011 to 2020

Fig. 2. Sampling locations, 2011–2020 in Chukchi Sea. See supplementary file for details of station locations and sampling dates. Colored zones indicate water column depth.

Fig. 5 in Notes on the Occurrence of Tintinnid Ciliates, and the Nasselarian Radiolarian Amphimelissa setosa of the Marine Microzooplankton, in the Chukchi Sea (Arctic Ocean) Sampled each August from 2011 to 2020

Fig. 5. Morphological variability of Acanthostomella norvegica found in a single sample. The 18 cells shown were the first properly orientated cells encountered in sample aliquots from Station 17 of the 2017 cruise. Certain individuals shown (e.g., A and K) have lorica morphologies resembling those of a co-gener A. gracilis, first described as a variety of A. norvegica as they differ only in the near absence of an aboral horn. As shown here, the aboral point or horn appears to be quite variable.

Fig. 1 in Notes on the Occurrence of Tintinnid Ciliates, and the Nasselarian Radiolarian Amphimelissa setosa of the Marine Microzooplankton, in the Chukchi Sea (Arctic Ocean) Sampled each August from 2011 to 2020

Fig. 1. Examples of the distinct sea ice conditions in August encountered through the 10 cruises. Color-coding indicates areas of sea ice coverage varying from 100% to 0 %, or open water. The year 2012 was a record year of low sea ice extent while 2020 was year of sea ice extent more common in recent years.

Fig. 4 in Notes on the Occurrence of Tintinnid Ciliates, and the Nasselarian Radiolarian Amphimelissa setosa of the Marine Microzooplankton, in the Chukchi Sea (Arctic Ocean) Sampled each August from 2011 to 2020

Fig. 4. The distribution of lorica oral diameters (LOD) of the tintinnid species found over 10 years of sampling. The LOD of a species is related positively to the diameter of the preferred prey size, about 25% of the LOD. Note that the most common LODs are 19–30 µm and 35–42 µm, suggesting most species feed on small prey (5–10 µm diameter). Note also that excluding species found only once and species suspected to be morphological variants of another species (see Table 2) yields few changes in the distribution.