Guangxidella bransoni
Creators: name: Leu, Marc
name: Bucher, Hugo
name: Vennemann, Torsten
name: Bagherpour, Borhan
name: Ji, Cheng
name: Brosse, Morgane
name: Goudemand, Nicolas
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Ozarkodinida
Gondolellidae
Guangxidella
Guangxidella bransoni

description: Guangxidella bransoni (Müller, 1956)
Figs. 15E; 16E.
*1956 Neoprioniodus bransoni n. sp.; Müller, p. 829, pl. 95, figs. 19–21.
1956 Neoprioniodus bicuspidatus n. sp.; Müller, p. 828, pl. 95, figs. 16, 17.
1979 Neospathodus bicuspidatus (Müller); Solien, p. 302, pl. 3, figs. 2, 3.
1989 Ozarkodina gigantea n. sp.; Tang, p. 409, pl. 31, figs. 10, 14.
1991 Guangxidella typica n. sp.; Zhang & Yang, p. 33, pl. 1, figs. 1a, b, 2a, b.
2009 Guangxidella bransoni (Müller); Orchard & Zonneveld, p. 780, fig. 15, parts 26–28.
2014 Guangxidella bransoni (Müller); Maekawa & Igo in Shigeta et al., p. 211, figs. 152.16–152.18, 153–159, 160.1–160.4
2018 Guangxidella bransoni (Müller); Maekawa in Maekawa et al., p. 24, figs. 14.7–14.10.
Number of specimens:>30
Description. Te segminate P1 element has variably discrete, laterally compressed denticles whose height decreases to the anterior and a very large, variably reclined, terminal cusp. Te basal margin is up-arched and the basal cavity is flat, cordiform and asymmetrical.
Remarks. Gu. bicuspidatus was differentiated from Gu. bransoni on the basis of its closer spaced denticles, the one in front of the cusp being almost as high as the latter (Müller, 1956). Yet, given the broad range of intraspecific variation present in large collections such as those illustrated by Shigeta et al. (2014), it is in our opinion no longer tenable to keep both species separated. Although both taxa are defined in the same paper by Müller (1956) and the definition of Gu. bicuspidatus appears before that of Gu. bransoni, we have decided to name them bransoni because the etymology of bicuspidatus refers to a 2-cusp element, which is not typical of the revised species. Furthermore, Müller’s holotype of Gu. bicuspidatus is broken, whereas his holotype of Gu. bransoni is better preserved (not broken), better illustrated (also in aboral view) and corresponds better to the revised type.
(See figure on next page.)
Occurrence. USA: Dinner Springs Canyon, Lower Triassic Meekoceras beds, Crittenden Ranch, Elko County, Nevada (Müller, 1956); Taynes Formation (Parachirognathus Zone, Utah, (Solien 1979). British Columbia, Canada (Orchard & Zonneveld, 2009). Taho Formation, Novispathodus ex. gr. waageni Zone) Southwest Japan (Maekawa et al., 2018). Nanpanjiang basin: Bac Tuy Formation, Owenites beds within the Novispathodus ex. gr. waageni Zone, North-eastern Vietnam (Shigeta et al., 2014). Luolou Formation, Neospathodus waageni Zone, Guangxi, China (Zhang & Yang, 1991).
description: Published as part of Leu, Marc, Bucher, Hugo, Vennemann, Torsten, Bagherpour, Borhan, Ji, Cheng, Brosse, Morgane & Goudemand, Nicolas, 2022, A Unitary Association-based conodont biozonation of the Smithian-Spathian boundary (Early Triassic) and associated biotic crisis from South China, pp. 1-61 in Swiss Journal of Palaeontology (19) (19) 141 (1) on pages 47-49, DOI: 10.1186/s13358-022-00259-x, http://zenodo.org/record/12000082