Improvement of the description of ostracods of the family TRACHYLEBERIDINAE

Keywords: ostracods, Middle Cretaceous, method of description, species variability, ontogeny


Introduction. The definition of criteria for separating closely related species of representatives of the genus Cythereis is currently incomplete. Ostracods of this genus have wide intraspecific variability and high adaptability to changing living conditions. These factors make it difficult to use these ostracod species for regional stratigraphic correlation. In addition to the selection of criteria for species separation, there is a problem of the imperfection of the terminological apparatus for describing ostracods, which complicates the description of species and omits potentially important information for the separation of related species.

Analysis of previous publications. Numerous works are devoted to the issue of the development of the terminological apparatus for describing ostracods, however, qualitative methods of description are inherent only to certain large taxa, where a separate method of description has been developed for each taxon. Ostracods of the genus Cythereis are widespread in the Cretaceous Tethys. Their wide variability is considered by various authors often without taking into account intraspecific variability and adaptation, which leads to the selection of subspecies or ignoring variability.

Materials and methods. Numerous ostracods of the species Cythereis hirsuta Damotte&Grosdidier from the Late Cenomanian and Cythereis ornatissima (Reuss) from the Turonian of Ukraine were used in the work. Ostracods were selected from different deposits according to the conditions of origin.

Results and discussion. The paper describes in detail the morphology of ostracods of the genus Cythereis with qualitative characteristics of morphological elements. The ontogenetic changes of the two species and the change in morphology depending on the conditions of existence are also described. The change in the morphology of juvenile forms depending on the conditions of existence is described separately.

Conclusions. Based on the study and description of numerous paleontological materials, a number of refinements were proposed to the descriptive characteristics of the morphological elements of ostracod valves of members of the family TRACHYLEBERIDINAE Sylvester-Bradley, 1948 and the genus Cythereis in particular. The proposed clarifications regarding the morphology of the mesosculpture made it possible to describe in detail the ontogenetic changes of the studied species and their differences in adult stages depending on the facial conditions of existence. It should be noted that a detailed scheme for describing the morphology of mesosculpture is proposed for the first time in the literature. The paleontological description of numerous materials from the Middle Cretaceous of Ukraine allowed to establish the morphological elements that are of primary importance for the separation of related species within the genus. The analysis of these elements suggests that some of the similar species from the outcrops of Europe and Asia are actually other species. The question of their phylogenetic ties can be solved under the condition of studying ontogenesis and expanding the geography of research. Based on this, the validity of the names of the studied species from the territory of Ukraine is also contradictory to the actual comparison with the holotype collection.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Vitalii Syniehubka, Ukrainian Scientific Research Institute for Natural Gases

Head of Laboratory


Andreev Yu. N. (1988). Cretaceous ostracods of Central Asia]. M., Geologicheskiy fakultet MGU im. Lomonosova, 38 [in Russian].

Andreev Yu. N. Nikolaeva I. A., Neustrueva I. Yu. (1999). A practical guide to the microphone. T. 7. Mesozoic Ostra-codi. SPb, VSEGEI, 235 [in Russian].

Dykan N. I. (2006). Systematics of Quaternary Ostracods of Ukraine. Kyiv, IGS NAS Ukraine, 430 [in Ukrainian].

Dykan, N., Dykan, K. (2013). Biostratigraphic criteria for reconstruction of phylogeny. Kyiv: Tektonika i stratyhrafi-ia, 40, 82-91 [in Ukrainian].

Didenko Yu. V. (2005). Ostracods of the Upper Cretaceous sediments of Volino-Podillia. Kyiv: IGS NAS Ukraine, 14 [in Ukrainian].

Naumcheva M. A. (2019). A new method of describing smooth-valved ostracods (for example, Permian and Triassic ostracods of Eastern Europe). Paleontologicheskiy zhurnal, 6, 59–72 [in Russian].

Negadaev-Nikonov K. N. (1970). Coordinate Method of Numerical Expressions of Ostracod Shell Elements for Solv-ing Problems of Morphology and Diagnostics. Kishinev: Primenenie matematicheskih metodov v paleontologii. Izd-vo AN Mold. SSR, 5–10 [in Russian].

Negadaev-Nikonov K. N. (1970). On the coordinate method for measuring the morphological elements of ostracod shells. Paleontol. zhurn. 3, 151–152 [in Russian].

Nikolaeva I. A., Pavlovskaya V. I., Karmshina G.I. (1989). Practical Guide to Microfun. T. 3. Ostracods of the Ceno-zoic. L., Nedra, 235 [in Russian].

Shornikov E. I., Mihaylova E.D. (1990). Ostracods of Bythocytheridae of the early stage of development. M., Nau-ka, 278 [in Russian].

Benson R. H. (1981). Form, function, and architecture of ostracode shells. Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 9, 59–80.

Benson R. H. (1982). On the measurement of morphology and its change. Paleobiology, 8 (4), 328–339.

Benson R. H. (1984). Estimating greater paleodepths with ostracodes, especially in past thermospheric oceans. Elsevier Science Publishers. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 48, 107-141.

Oertli H. J. (1985). Atlas des Ostracodes de France. Bull. Centres Rech. Explor.-Prod. Elf-Aquitaine, Mem. 9. Puo, 377.

Olempska, E. (1989). Gradual evolutionary transformations of ontogeny in an Ordovician ostracod lineage. Lethaia, 22, 159-168.

Pokorny V. (1963). The revision of Cythereis ornatissima (Reuss, 1846) (Ostracoda, Crustacea). Rozpravy Ceskoslovenska Akademie Ved, rada matematickych a prirodnich ved, 73 (6), 1-59.

Puckett T. (1991). Absolute paleobathymetry of Upper Cretaceous chalks based on ostracodes – Evidence from the Demopolis Chalk (Campanian and Maastrichtian) of the northern Gulf Coastal Plain. Geology, 19, 449-452.

Scott H. W (1961). Classification of Ostracoda. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Pt Q. Arthropoda 3. Crus-tacea. Ostracoda. Lawrence. Univ. Kansas Press, 74–92.

Slipper I. J. (2021). Ostracoda from the Turonian of South-East England Part 2. Cytherocopina, Monographs of the Palaeontographical Society, 174:657, 47-168, DOI:

Slipper I. J. (2019). Ostracoda from the Turonian of South-east England. Part 1, Monographs of the Palaeonto-graphical Society, 173:655, 1-46, DOI:

Slipper I. J. (1997). Turonian (Late Cretaceous) ostracoda from Dover, south-east England. Greenwich, 473.

Szczechura J. (1965). Cytheracea (Ostracoda) from the Uppermost Cretaceous and Lowermost Tertiary of Poland. Acta Palaeontol. Pol. 10 (4), 451–564.

Weaver Р. P. E. (1978). Cenomanian Ostracoda from Southern England their Taxonomy, Stratigraphy and Palaeo-ecology. Greenwich, 400.

Whittaker J. E. (2009). Ostracods in British Stratigraphy. London. The Micropalaeontological Society, Special Publication. The Geological Society, 485.

Witte L. (1992). Ostracods from the Albian/Cenomanian boundary in the Achterhoek area (eastern part of The Netherlands). Leiden: Scripta Geol., 33-84.

How to Cite
Syniehubka, V. (2023). Improvement of the description of ostracods of the family TRACHYLEBERIDINAE. Visnyk of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Series "Geology. Geography. Ecology", (58), 85-96.