Comment on ‘Wetzeliella and its allies – the ‘hole’ story: a taxonomic revision of thePaleogene dinoflagellate subfamily Wetzelielloideae’ by Williams et al. (2015)
Bijl, P.K.; Brinkhuis, H.; Egger, L.M.; Eldrett, J.S.; Frieling, J.; Grothe, A.; Houben, A.J.P.; Pross, J.; Sliwinska, K.K.; Sluijs, A. (2017). Comment on ‘Wetzeliella and its allies – the ‘hole’ story: a taxonomic revision of thePaleogene dinoflagellate subfamily Wetzelielloideae’ by Williams et al. (2015). Palynology 41(3): 423-429. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01916122.2016.1235056 In: Palynology. American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists: Austin, Tex. etc.. ISSN 0191-6122; e-ISSN 1558-9188, more |   |
| Author keywords | Comment; taxonomic revision; dinoflagellate cyst; Wetzelielloideae; stratigraphy |
| Authors | | Top | - Bijl, P.K.
- Brinkhuis, H., more
- Egger, L.M.
- Eldrett, J.S.
| - Frieling, J.
- Grothe, A.
- Houben, A.J.P.
| - Pross, J.
- Sliwinska, K.K.
- Sluijs, A.
|
| Abstract | The taxonomic revision of the dinoflagellate cyst subfamily Wetzelielloideae by Williams et al. (2015)places primary emphasis on the type of archaeopyle, and secondarily on wall ornamentation. Williamset al. (2015) argues that this provides more clarity for taxonomic differentiation within the subfamily ofWetzelielloideae, and adds to the stratigraphical significance of species within. We find, however, thattheir proposed revision (1) introduces taxonomic criteria that divert drastically from these in otherdinoflagellate cyst subfamilies, (2) unnecessarily erects and emends many new genera and species, and(3) poses serious practical limitations, which together (4) lead to profound reduction of the stratigraphicalapplicability of many marker species. In this contribution, we substantiate our concerns regarding theapproach and criteria used by Williams et al. (2015). We propose to retain the generic definitions ofWetzelielloideae that existed prior to the revisions by Williams et al. (2015), until a revision supported bythe community is available. |
|
