Siliceous and Delicious

My best intentions to get started early on this second “big push forward” were thwarted by inclement weather today—I was out on an 8-mile run (about as far away from the house as I could be) when the heavens opened up and sent down unspeakable volumes of rainwater accompanied by one terrifying thunderclap after another, lasting for the rest of my run. Things got complicated when my iPhone died (quite literally, I’m afraid—resuscitation attempts are currently underway in a zip-lok bag full of Drierite™) in the middle of a call to Kati, who was on her way to rescue me… Some chaos ensued. The more dramatic effect seems to have been on traffic, which had apparently crawled to a complete halt as a result of the weather, and so my bus ride ended up taking a full hour…

Well, complaints aside, I’ve now arrived and put out the most burning e-mails on the e-mail pyre, I mean pile, and I’m ready to launch into the task at hand: killing off my morphospace characters (which makes it sound like I’m writing a science fiction novel…).

The taxon I appear to have left off on last time is Fenestrella. Round has no entry and refers to a publication from 1863 (by Greville), which I doubt will have any sort of useful information in it. Better to see what google has to say. I wonder if there is a comparable technical note for the diatoms, analogous to the one I was using during the last BTDP? A google search reveals no such document. A reference by Mitlehner (1994) keeps cropping up, but it turns out it’s an unpublished PhD thesis, and thus not available. Then, suddenly and out of nowhere, a reference pops up on the fifth page of google search results: “The fossil diatom genus Fenestrella, its morphology, systematics, and paleogeography.” Slam dunk. The journal is held in the Farlow, apparently, so the reference goes on my list and I move on to the next taxon.

That’s Glyphodiscus. Again, nothing in Round except for a reference to an 1862 paper by Greville. So on to the search engines, hopeful as ever for another such success. This time, Web of Science first. Nothing. Many pages of searching lead to nothing, the best I can muster is a lousy entry in the Van Heurck (1896) paper. It’s going to have to be good enough. Moving on.

Goniothecium is next on the chopping-block. Round (p. 52) seems to suggest this may be another Chaetoceros resting stage or spore, citing Tappan, 1980, but then refers to Hargraves, 1986 for a dissenting view. That paper is in the library, so I’m moving on.

Grunowiella is spelled Grunoviella in Round, who refers only to Van Heurck. The spelling Grunowiella, used in Neptune, brings up a AlgaeBase entry regarding some (florideophyte or bangiophyte) benthic green alga, so it’s apparently misspelled. In a couple of other papers, though, Grunowiella is mentioned in a context that makes it clear it’s a diatom genus being talked about. Whatever. I need a description of it, however it’s spelled. In Sims’ “Evolution of the diatoms” paper, she refers to fossil diatoms of Grunowiella, and that’s a somewhat trusted resource, I think, so perhaps there’s just some inconsistency in spelling. In any case, although Sims mentions this genus 8 times in the paper, there seems to be nothing in the way of a usable description nor pictures to be found, so I’m stuck again with what’s in Van Heurck. Eventually I found a few extra words in a paper by Fenner from the ODP SR from leg 114, decided to run with that, and run with it.

After lunch I proceeded on to Huttonia. There’s nothing in Bolli, nothing in Round but a reference to an 1887 paper (Grove & Sturt, J. Quekett Microscop. Club), and synonymy with Huttoniella and, as far as I can tell, Neohuttonia. Started following a description from Boyer, 1927 and a paper from Brazil (Garcia, 2004), but found myself confused by the terminology, particularly in the absence of images in the older publication. What exactly is meant by septa again? Aha, vertical divisions in the frustule interior, thinner than costae, I suppose. It was a slog, but I got through it, and got to move on to the next genus (although by this time it was past cookie hour!). Time is flying by.

Next up: Ikebea. This little bitch has a nice description in a Japanese paper that, bizarrely, is written in German. After some translational nightmares (thankfully, I eventually found a German diatom terminology glossary), onwards.

Katathiraia is another subject of a Japanese creation. A quick stab with the German glossary, and on I go to the next taxon.

Oh dear, the next genus is Kisseleviella, which Round mentions only in reference to a Russian reference from 1962. Ick! That’s going to be a bitch. No help in the books elsewhere. Fortunately, there seems to be a translation of the genus description from that Russian paper in the diatom wiki, and a whole paper devoted to the genus with nice SEM images in Marine Micropaleontology from 2005. Swiftly, I extract what I can in terms of new characters, and move on.

Kozloviella next. It’s kind of unthinkable that I’ve only done 8 genera so far, and I still have about 40 left to do. And that’s not counting the ones I’ve gone through, found a reference for, and moved on—I also need to find those references in the Farlow library, copy them, and then go back and list their characters. Yikes. It’s going to be a long three days. And I’m not sure I’m going to be able to get it all done. But it would be pretty damn awesome if I did. So, with that attitude, let me press on ahead. I’ll trust that the 1974 Jousé reference in Round is something useful, put it on my list of things to get from the Farlow, and move on.

Liradiscus next. Round points to Greville, 1865 again. Yech. Anything else? Not Bolli. Ah, thank you Google—according to a paper in Micropaleontology, this is a diatom resting spore genus. I’m not interested in those, so I’m moving on.

Liriogramma next. The reference in Round is to the 1947-48 Reports on the Swedish Deep-Sea Expedition. The library is now closed, so I could always go back tomorrow, but it would be better to find something online, especially a more recent reference, perhaps with images. In the Proceedings of the 11th Diatom Symposium I read that ‘Liriogramma species are “malformations of some sort.”‘, with a reference to Simonsen, 1974, i.e. they actually belong to Asteromphalus. The Simonsen reference is itself an obscure publication (“The diatom plankton of the Indian Ocean expedition of RV Meteor 1964–1965”), so I’m not going to waste my day chasing that down. Ah… hang on! This is what Round means, I think… in the Index nominum genericorum he gives the type species of Liriogramma as L. petterssonii, which he equates to Asteromphalus pettersonii. I think this is enough for me to drop this taxon and make it synonymous with Asteromphalus.

Lisitzina is the last genus before dinner. For this there is a page on the diatom wiki, but this is totally useless—it is an incomprehensible machine translation of the description in the original generic description from Jousé, 1978 (the same reference cited by Round for this genus). So, I’m fucked here… or so I thought, until Bolli throws up a little paragraph—and even a teensy little LM figure! Not much information in there (again, nothing on portulae or pore occlusion), but I work with what I’ve got and move on.

Macrora turned out to be a freebie—Perch-Nielsen (1985, in the Bolli volume) lumps it with the silicoflagellates, and event there it’s incertae sedis. Racing onwards!

Mediaria looks Russian again, from the reference in Round. Found a basic description in the Bolli volume, and a much more detailed one in another japanese paper. For what it’s worth, the diatom wiki has a very shaky translation of the original Russian generic definition. Huzzah! Blazing right now!

As the last shimmer of daylight disappears into a deep, dark orange above the trees of the museum yard, it’s on to Monobrachia, which is apparently defined in a DSDP report, thank goodness. Easy peasy. Awesome. Moving on.

Muelleriella is next. Round refers to Van Heurck. This is a little confusing, to say the least, because the type species given is M. limbata. This is frighteningly close to M. limbata, the type species listed for Muelleriopsis—the next genus on my list. Even worse: the reference cited in Round for that genus is Hendey, 1972 (Beih. Nova Hedwigia), “Muelleriella limbata (Ehrenberg) Van Heurck in Eocene South Atlantic Cores”. I’m going to assume this means the two taxa are one and the same—or at least that this reference will clear things up.

Yet another Russian reference is given in Round for Naviculopsis. Confusingly, there seems to be a silicoflagellate genus by the same name—any Web of Science or Google search seems to throw up results for silicoflagellates. The synonym listed in Round—Diatomella salena var. septata—is also nowhere to be found. There does not appear to be much I can do. Can’t find the Russian journal in the library database either, so I’m giving up and moving on. Tomorrow. Because it’s quarter to nine at night, and it’s time to go to bed. After all, I’ve got another two days of pushing to do, so I don’t want to overdo it completely on the first day.