Daviesiconus mahallatensis Babazadeh, 2022

Daviesiconus mahallatensis Babazadeh, 2022

Daviesiconus Hottinger & Drobne, 1980 View in CoL differs from Coskinolina Stache, 1875 View in CoL mainly by the presence of main radial partitions (beams) whereas in the latter the marginal zone is undivided ( Fig. 3J View Fig ). Coskinolina View in CoL displays a pseudo-keriothecal wall while the one of Daviesiconus View in CoL is simple (non-canaliculate) ( Hottinger & Drobne, 1980). This feature is often masked by diagenetic alteration and therefore not included in the present discussion the more as none of the specimens illustrated by Babazadeh (2002) shows this type of wall structure also due to the lacking adequate magnifications. Last but not least, transverse sections of Daviesiconus View in CoL and Coleiconus View in CoL are almost indistinguishable as both have rather short primary beams only in case that the pseudo-keriothecal wall of the latter is not preserved or recognizable. With respect to (subaxial) sections of ‘ Daviesiconus mahallatensis ’ such as the holotype, these cannot be differentiated from sections of Coskinolina sistanensis Schlagintweit & Hadi, 2018 View in CoL described from the Eocene of Eastern Iran ( Fig. 3A View Fig versus 3G-H). In any case Coskinolina sistanensis View in CoL is different with its undivided marginal zone ( Fig. 3J View Fig ) and pseudo-keriothecal wall also not preserved/recognizable in all specimens. It is worth mentioning that the reference of C. sistanensis View in CoL has not been included by the authors and consequently also not been included in the discussion and comparisons. On the other side, the only oblique transverse section of ‘ D. mahallatensis ’ showing short radial main partitions (Babazadeh, 2022, fig. 7E) can be well compared with equivalent sections provided for ‘ Coleiconus View in CoL minimus’. In conclusions, we consider D. mahallatensis an invalid species representing a mixture of different taxa.