Page 9 - Coletti_al2016

Carnets Geol. 16 (3)

Figure 6: Comparison of the size of roof pits between fossil samples. The long red bar indicates total range; the pale
red rectangle indicates the standard deviation around the average which is represented by the large vertical black
bar.

slightly higher value of H/D ratio, due to its Some differences may be observed in the
slightly higher than average conceptacle cham- morphology of roof pits (Fig. 3.G-H). While the
bers (Table 2). ANOVA testing of this morpho- number of cells composing the rosette around
logical parameter confirms that there is very the pore canals in the examined specimens is
little variation among the different samples and always 6 to 7, the diameter of the pits and the
that they probably belong to the same sta- length of the degenerate cells are quite variable
tistical population. (Table 2; Fig. 6). Most of the samples, espe-
cially those of the Tertiary Piedmont Basin,
Besides conceptacle size, all the other featu- have small and shallow pits (Fig. 3.A, G), but
res of the reproductive anatomy of the fossil the one from the upper part of the Lower
samples are remarkably similar. The number of Langhian of Romania has larger and deeper pits
cells that compose the roof and roof thickness (Figs. 3.C, H & 6). These differences cannot be
are uniform. Large conceptacles, created by the related to differential preservation of the
merging of two nearby conceptacles, were structures. Although mechanical and biological
observed in all the samples (Table 2). abrasion of coralline surfaces are common, the
Romanian sample shows preserved walls bet-

35