Lower to Middle Ordovician palynomorphs of the Canning Basin, Western Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detailed palynological analysis of 138 core samples from five boreholes drillednthrough Lower to Middle Ordovician sequences of the central northeastern CanningnBasin, Western Australia, reveals the presence of moderately diverse and variablynpreserved palynomorphs (acritarchs, prasinophytes, and chitinozoans). Thenpalynostratigraphic sequence, embracing the Oepikodus communis through Phragmodus-nPlectodina conodont zonal interval, spans (in ascending order) the Willara, Goldwyer,nand Nita formations, of inferred early Arenig to Llanvim age.n The palynomorph taxa, detailed systematically herein, comprise 66 species ofnacritarchs, six of prasinophytes, and 21 of chitinozoans. Of these, two species ofnprasinophytes and 13 acritarch species are newly established: Cymatiosphaera meandricanand Pterospermella franciniae; Aremoricanium hyalinus, A. Solaris, Baltisphaeridiumntenuicomatum, Buedingiisphaeridium aequalium, B. aspersum, Comasphaeridiumnsetarium, Gorgonisphaeridium crebrum, Martinia asperula, Micrhystridium infrequens,nPolyancistrodorus kunzeanense, Pylantius hadrus, Sertulidium amplexum, andnStelomorpha calix. Pylantius (typified by P. hadrus), Martinia (typified by M. asperula),nand Sertulidium (typified by S. amplexum) are defined as new acritarch genera. Threennew combinations are instituted: Baltisphaeridium pugiatum (PLAYFORD a MARTIN), B.nvariocavatum (PLAYFORD a MARTIN), and Sacculidium furtivum (PLAYFORD anMARTIN); and Ammonidium macilentum PLAYFORD a MARTIN is emended. A largennumber of palynomorph species are not formally named owing to lack of sufficient ornadequately preserved specimens, whereas others are compared but not positivelynidentified with previously instituted species.n Five, stratigraphically successive acritarch/prasinophyte assemblage zones, rangingnin age from early Arenig through early late Llanvim, are informally proposed as followsn(ascending order): Athabascaella rossii Assemblage Zone; Comasphaeridium setariumnAssemblage Zone; Sacculidium aduncum Assemblage Zone; Aremoricanium SolarisnAssemblage Zone; and Dactylofusa striatogranulata Assemblage Zone. Four chitinozoannassemblage zones, stratigraphically coinciding (within the limits of sampling) with thenacritarch/prasinophyte zones, are informally defined as follows (ascending order): Lagenochitina combazi Assemblage Zone (equivalent to the A. rossii and L.nheterorhabda Assemblage Zones); Conochitina langei Assemblage Zone; Conochitinansubcylindrica Assemblage Zone; and Belonechitina micracantha Assemblage Zone.nChronostratigraphic attributions are based principally on associated conodont faunas. Thenpalynozones facilitate intra-basinal Lower to Middle Ordovician correlations. Whereasnthe acritarch/prasinophyte zones bear scant similarities to those established elsewhere innthe world, the chitinozoan zones show significant affiliations with those known fromnLaurentia.n Palaeogeographically, the Canning Basin chitinozoan assemblages manifest clearnaffinities with coeval suites of low latitude, warm-water Laurentian regions (e.g.,nnortheastern Canada and western Newfoundland). On the other hand, the acritarchnassemblages exhibit some similarities to those of mid-latitude, temperate-water regionsn(i.e., South China and Baltica). In general terms, biogeographic inferences based on thenCanning Basin's graptolite and conodont faunas are in substantial agreement with thenpalynological evidence presented here, showing strong affinities with warm-water (i.e.,nLaurentia, North China, and Tarim) and temperate-water (i.e., South China) regions.n
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".