The Echinoid Directory

Limpasiaster Aziz & Badve, 2001, p. 49

Diagnostic Features
  • Test of small to medium size (holotype test length 25 mm), subcircular inflated, oral surface flat to slightly concave.
  • Apical system subcentral tetrabasal; number of gonopores not stated.
  • Petals of unequal length, anterior the longest and paired posterior petals the shortest; petals closing distally. Ambulacral plates beyond petals with single pores.
  • Periproct supramarginal, longitudinal, invaginated, short anal sulcus extending posteriorly with transverse subanal shelf.
  • Peristome anterior, transverse, subpentagonal.
  • Bourrelets well developed; basicoronal plates longer than wide.
  • Phyllodes single pored, broad, with two series in each half-ambulacrum in the type species.
  • Buccal pores present, small.
  • Naked sternal zone in interambulacrum 5.
  • Upper Cretaceous (Lower Maastrichtian) of southern India.
Name gender masculine
Limpasiaster ariyalurensis Aziz & Badve, 2001, p. 49; by original designation.
Species Included
  • Aziz & Badve (2001) included three species in this genus when erecting the genus, all from the same locality and horizon. The value of these is questionable.
  • L. ariyalurensis Aziz & Badve, 2001; Lower Maastrichtian, southern India.
  • L. pentagonalis Aziz & Badve, 2001; Lower Maastrichtian, southern India.
  • L. quadralis Aziz & Badve, 2001; Lower Maastrichtian, southern India.
Classification and/or Status

IIrregularia; Cassiduloida; Faujasiidae; Stigmatopyginae.

Poorly known, but probable subjective junior synonym of either Gongrochanus Kier, 1962 orStigmatopygus Lambert,1918.


Aziz & Badve (2001, p. 50) state that Limpasiaster resembles Cassidulus in having a similar outline and naked area in interambulacrum 5, but differs in having a tetrabasal apical system, closed short petals and strongly developed bourrelets. Aziz & Badve (2001, p. 50) also compare Limpasiaster with Rhychopygus but state that Rhychopygus differs in having a flat oral surface and phyllodes with pore-pairs non-aligned. Note however, that their phyllode drawings for Limpasiaster (given above) look highly schematic, appear to misinterpret sphaeridial pits for pores and probably do not give a good representation of the true phyllode structure.

Unfortunately Aziz & Badve (2001) failed to compare their Limpasiaster with Procassidulus or Gongrochanus, both of which have a similar flat oral surface, supramarginal periproct and bowed petals with the anterior petal distinctly longer than the rest. Procassidulus differs from Gongrochanus in having a more circular periproct lacking a subanal transverse shelf, and in having four rather than three gonopores. Should Limpasiaster turn out to have three gonopores it is best considered a subjective junior synonym of Gongrochanus.

S. A. Aziz & R. M. Badve. 2001. New echinoid fauna from the South Indian Cretaceous deposits. Gond. Geol. Magz., V. 16 (2), pp. 43-59.