These ostracods have been recovered from the Inter-trappean beds of central India.
Fig. 1 - 3 are same and Fig. 4 shows the enlarged view of muscle scars of Fig. 3, and
Fig. 5 - 8 to me also looks same but may be different genera.
The scale bar for every SEM represents 100µm.
Sorry, forget to tell that these ostracods have been recovered from Deccan Inter-trappean beds (Maastrichtian) of Central India.
Thanks Isa, thanks for ur reply. Can u suggest me anybody else and one more thing, is it possible to identify ostracods based on their molecular studies??
Dear Arjun,
Please send these micrographs to my email: [email protected]
thanking you.
Habib.
Dear Arjun,
Thank you for sending ostracod micrographs to my email.
I checked them and to me:
-Fig. 2 may be Fossocytheridea sp.?
-Fig.3 may be Asciocythere sp.?
-Fig. 4, difficult to consider as muscle scars, because they are on the surface of carapace rather than being inside of the valve!?
-Fig.5 most probably Gomphocythere sp.?
-I have no idea about fig.1 and figs 6-8 which seems to be different view of same species.
To get better idea and comfirmation about the identification,I may suggest you to contact to JE Whittaker; RCWhatley; Ashu Khosla and Sunil Bajpai, who are expert in Late Cretaceous marine and brackish water ostracods of India.
Hope I could help you.
With best wishes,
Habib.
Dear Habib, Thanks for the reply. I will definitely consider your suggestions.
Sir, is it not possible that....Fig. 1, 2 & 3 belong to the same genera; and may be figs. 2 & 3 be the molds of the same genera as the outer part of the carapace has been destroyed may be while processing in the lab, whereas fig. 1 seems to be well preserved, and
Same is the case with figs. 6 - 8. These may also be the molds not exactly of fig. 5 (Gomphocythere?) but of the same genera. Here also the problem is same i.e. outer part of the carapace replaced, but it is not in case of fig. 5.
I may be wrong sir, but this is what I was thinking.
Thank you very much once again for your reply sir.
Regards
Arjun
Dear Arjun,
To me, figs. 1-3 are morphologically differ from each other. Fig.1 has very prominent nodes on its surface and is almost rectangular in shape, whereas figs. 2 and 3 are oval in shape. Fig.2 seems to be mold as you stated, but seems had smooth surface originally with overlapped valves. Fig.3 despite having nodes on its surface, but is not similar to fig.1, and muscle scar like objects on its surface, seems to be due to algae or other biological activity.
About figs 5-8, you may be are right, but please note that the number of present nodes on the surface of fig.5 and figs.6-8 are not the same and they are different.
With best wishes,
Habib.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Statistics
- Statistical Techniques
- Structural Equation Modeling