| Home>

Acrosphaera murrayana (Haeckel, 1887)

Description - Add description

Shell spherical, with large circular or roundish pores of unequal size, two to four times as broas as the bars. Ten to twelve pores in the half meridan of the shell. Margin of every porewith a coronal of six to nine short and acute spines, not longer htan half the diameter of the pores. No spines between the pores.

Dimensions.-- Diameter of the shell 0.16 to 0.2, of the pores 0.02 to 0.03; length of the spines 0.008 to 0.012.
Haeckel 1887
Benson, 1966, p.120-121; pl.2, fig. 3:

Choenicosphaera murrayana Haeckel

Choenicosphaera murrayana Haeckel, 1887, Challenger Rept., Zool., vol. 18, pp. 102-103, Pl. 8, fig. 4.

Large, spherical to subspherical, single shell with large circular to subcircular pores, 9-14 on half the circumference, separated by smooth hyaline areas as wide as the pores. Pores subequal in size but with a few smaller pores scattered between the larger ones, with subregular arrangement; each pore surrounded by a raised rim surrounded by generally three, but ranging from zero to five, bladelike, triangular, coronal tooth-like spines of approximately equal length.

Measurements; based on 30 specimens from station 27: diameter of shell 139-200 Ám; length of teeth surrounding pores 5-25 Ám

Remarks. The only difference between the Gulf specimens of this species and those described by Haeckel (1887, pp. 102-103) is the presence of fewer coronal tooth-like spines in the former (0-5 as opposed to 6-9), but this feature is probably an intraspecific variation.

Distribution. This species is rare in the Gulf but is the dominant member of the family Collosphaeridae. It is absent north of station 115 as well as at the marginal station 64 and at station 95. It is present in greatest numbers at stations 27, 34, and 46 and is apparently an oceanic species little influenced by local conditions of upwelling.
This species was originally described by Haeckel from material collected in the Faeroe Channel, Gulf Stream, North Atlantic (Haeckel, 1887, p. 103). It was reported as common in this area. This may be a tropical or subtropical species because it was collected from the relatively warm waters of the Gulf Stream, but further formation on its distribution is lacking.

Benson 1966











Discussion / Comments


Web links