Siliceous and Delicious

It’s not exactly the crack of dawn, but it’s an improvement—I’m reporting for duty on the second day of the second push a good half an hour earlier than yesterday. And raring to go (sort of). Throwing myself right back into the swing of it, I’m looking at Neobrunia, which Round states is a substitue name for Brunia, the same situation I encountered when I was covering Bruniopsis. Now, perhaps I’m really getting better at this: thought I’d just do a quick googlation before moving on to the next taxon, and found a paper with a reference to a description of Bruniopsis, which will be helpful for both that and this taxon. Slammer.

Next up is Neodenticula, for which Round refers to a DSDP report and claims synonymy with Denticula kamtschatica, at least for the type species. The DSDP report has an adequate generic description. After a brief intermission to print my study card, get it signed, and carry it across campus (to avoid a $40 fine for missing today’s deadline), I moved on to the next taxon.

Odontotropis was first described by Grunow in 1884, according to Round. That’ll hardly be a useful reference. Bolli has a paragraph about O. klavsenii. It looks suspiciously hyaline, which—from what I’ve read over the course of compiling this character list—suggests it might be a resting stage rather than a vegetative cell…? Indeed, a search throws up a reference to this paper title: Suto, I., M. Watanabe, and R. W. Jordan (2008b), Taxonomy of the fossil marine diatom resting spore genus Odontotropis Grunow, Diatom Res., in press. That’s evidence enough for me to let it be and press ahead.

Opephoneis is next. It doesn’t appear in the generic names index of Round at all (which is unusual!), and nowhere on the internet, except in the listing of taxa in one ODP hole. There, it’s O. martyii, which is also the type species of Opephora, which I’ve already covered. I interpret this as a misspelling/invalid name—Opephora martyii is probably what was meant. Moving on.

Peponia is a little harder. There’s a paper in the “International Journal on Algae”, which is not available—in print or online. There seems to be very little else out there, which is frustrating. The IJA paper is for purchase for $35, which I’m certainly not willing to shell out. Stupid oopid. Eventually sent an ILL request for the paper and decided to move on.

Periptera. Here, again, Round suggests the genus may be a resting stage of Chaetoceros, much as with Goniothecium.

Pseudodimerogramma. Again, DSDP comes to the rescue. Woot.

Pseudoeunotia. Round refers to an 1881 Van Heurck paper. Yich. There’s a paragraph in Bolli, which helps a bit. A DSDP report has some LM images, and a reference to a description by Hustedt, which appears to be in the Farlow libary, in an English translation, even. Check and move on.

Pseudopodosira. A Jousé reference from 1949 is what Round has to offer. Nowt in Bolli. Added to my to-get list a conference volume allegedly containing a paper entitled “Morphology of the Diatom Genus Pseudopodosira” by Olshtynskaja. Moving on.

Pseudopyxilla. Found the original paper online, but in Italian. A more helpful (but incomplete) description in a Gersonde & Harwood paper. The original has a description in Latin:

Frustula libera, singula (vel bina, apiculis, ut videtur, inter se conjuncta aut conjugenda) plus minusve longe cylidrica, hyalina, vel, in margine tantum valvae exterioris, subtiliter granulata, apicem versus semper hyalina; valvae inaequales, exterior plerumque interiorem omnino amplectens; valva exterior in apiculum varier instructum plerumque abiens, sed etiam cupulata (ut in P. Tempereana); interior vice plerumque faciem opercularem delicatissimam, aegre conspicuam praebens, nunc superficiem subplanam, nunc leniter convexam ostendens.

Now, what does that mean? An online translation tool helpfully suggests the following:

To break to pieces free , alone ( or bina apiculis , when videtur , among himself to unite either conjugenda ) much little far cylidrica hyalina , or , upon margine only valvae exterioris , precision granulata , writing towards always hyalina valvae inaequales , foreign for the most part interiorem altogether to embrace valva foreign upon apiculum variety versed in for the most part to send away , but as yet cupulata ( when upon P. Tempereana ); to slay events for the most part the making opercularem delicatissimam , with displeasure striking to offer , now surface subplanam , now gently to shatter show.

Wow. That’s actually harder to understand than the Latin by itself. Remarkable. I guess I’m going to use what I can extract from the Gersonde & Harwood paper. And move on.

Pseudorocella. Not in Round. Turns out it’s a synonym of Macrora, and as I found out yesterday, thus not a diatom at all. Boom.

Pseudorutilaria. Diatom wiki has the relevant snippet from the original reference (of 1886) that says it’s basically the same as Rutilaria, but missing the central clasping apparatus. Easy.

Pseudostictodiscus. Tricky bastard. Various lone images in DSDP/ODP reports, but nothing in the way of a decent description anywhere. Ended up adding the original reference to the list of papers to get at the Farlow, and moved on.

Pterotheca. Round refers again to that ghastly Italian paper. Yech. There are some hints in snippets that this is also a resting stage… A passing remark in a paper by Suto is enough for me—it’s a resting stage, and I’m ignoring it. Moving on.

Pyrgupyxis. Round mentions this genus is very similar to Pyxilla and is seemingly agnostic as to whether it is truly separate or not, and also mentions the possibility of it being a resting stage (but does not support this idea strongly at all). Downloaded the original citation referred to in Round, which I eventually found (after much hunting) in the biodiversity heritage library as a PDF.

Rhaphidodiscus. Something in Bolli, but no picture or details. Original reference ancient and unlikely to be helpful. Found reference from 1988 in a book that’s in the Farlow that promises to be more helpful. It’s on the list, and on to the next taxon.

Riedelia. Round refers to Russian paper from 1971. That’s a no-good-thanks for me. I’ll stick with the Schrader & Fenner description of the only species in Neptune, R. claviger, which is in a language I can understand and a publication I can access. Rad. Moving on.

Rossiella. The original reference in Round is to an Indian paper from 1948. Found a way awesomer paper that describes the genus in excruciating detail (Yanagisawa 1995). Next!

Rouxia. Round helpfully points to a DSDP initial report with a relatively up-to-date (at the time of its publication!) description of R. californica, but unfortunately it’s not quite clear how generally applicable to the rest of the genus this description would be. I went with it anyway, and was satisfied—and thus decided to stop here for the day, it being 8:30pm, things going well, and being within 10 genera of the end of my list (at first pass, of course). If all goes well, I’ll blaze through those 10 genera tomorrow morning, and make my first trip to the Farlow library to get those references.

I think I’m doing pretty well.