identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03E587B6FFD7A21DFF11FB90A4B8C389.text	03E587B6FFD7A21DFF11FB90A4B8C389.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Biconcava Hamaoui 1965	<div><p>Genus Biconcava Hamaoui, 1965 emended Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc, 1970</p><p>Type Species: Biconcava bentori Hamaoui, 1965 emended Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc, 1970</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFD7A21DFF11FB90A4B8C389	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFD7A202FF11FB1DA4FEC224.text	03E587B6FFD7A202FF11FB1DA4FEC224.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Biconcava bentori Hamaoui 1965	<div><p>Biconcava bentori Hamaoui, 1965 emended Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc, 1970</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Hamaoui (in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985), Pl. 13, figs. 1-7, p. 34.</p><p>The valid source of the original description of the genus Biconcava and its type species B. bentori has been disputed. They were described and illustrated (in a limited way) as a new genus and species by Hamaoui (1965) in a report for the Israel Geological Survey on the type Hazera Formation (Cenomanian) (see also Arkin et al., 1965; Hamaoui, 1966; Arkin &amp; Hamaoui, 1967; Lipson-Benitah, 2009). However, Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc (1970) presented additional description and illustrations (Plates 18-21) and regarded this as the type description (see also Hamaoui in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985). Nonetheless, as noted by Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1988), the 1965 citation by Hamaoui is valid, thus we adopt the type designation as “ Hamaoui, 1965 emended Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc, 1970 ” for both genus and species.</p><p>The illustrations and description in Hamaoui in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) are adequate for reference purposes and mostly derive from Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc (1970) and Saint-Marc (1974a). See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>A biumbilicate form with up to 24 chambers in the final whorl, and about three and a half whorls (up to 4) in adult specimens, it is superficially similar to Biplanata peneropliformis . B. bentori has a more lenticular test (i.e., is less flattened than B. peneropliformis), a slower rate of chamber size increase, and possesses a characteristic Vshaped chamber cross-section which B. peneropliformis lacks. The internal dental plate in Biconcava as mentioned by Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc (1970 p. 302) is simply bifurcated but becomes complete and occupies the medial plane of the chamber in Biplanata . The plate is very small and is shown and annotated in Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc on one figure only (1970, plate 21 figure 1). However, its presence is disputed by Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1988). Biconcava can be distinguished from other planispiral taxa such as Daxia (which is less evolute and has no internal dental plate) and Charentia (which has a pseudokeriothecal test structure and no internal dental plate).</p><p>Biconcava is also distinguished from Daxia in minor apertural details (an opening in a vertical groove rather than a single opening just above the base of the apertural face) but these are almost impossible to distinguish in thin-section.</p><p>A new species described as Biconcava ribbata by Shahin &amp; Elbaz (2013) from the late Cenomanian in two sections from Sinai, Egypt appears to conform externally to the generic concept of Biconcava but is not supported by internal views or comments about the dental plate (if present). It does not appear to have been recorded subsequently and the “ribbed” appearance is most likely a taphonomic effect on B. bentori specimens (Dr Lorenzo Consorti, pers. comm., 2023).</p><p>Records by Sinanoglu &amp; Erdem, 2016; Sinanoglu et al., 2020 and Sinanoglu, 2021, of occurrences of B. bentori (along with other mid Cretaceous taxa) together with demonstrably Maastrichtian taxa in the Garzan Formation of Turkey are intriguing. Some appear superficially similar to B. bentori, but the assigned age is clearly anomalous and an approximate 30 My age-range for a single species would seem unusual. Additional illustrations of her specimens kindly provided by Dr. Sinanoglu to the authors suggests that these specimens may be of a Biconcava, but if so, probably not B. bentori sensu Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc (1970) and Saint-Marc (1974a). In equatorial section, the type B. bentori has between 18-24 chambers in the final whorl (the Turkish specimens have no more than 12) and the chambers of typical B. bentori are short and high when viewed from the side compared with the equi-dimensional, almost “square” chambers of the Turkish material. The possibility of mid Cretaceous homeomorphs in the Maastrichtian has been considered (Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam, 2022a, who recognise the genus Neodubrovnikella in the Cenomanian and Maastrichtian with a ‘ghost range’ in between) and this may be an example of that.</p><p>The specimens identified as Biconcava sp. by Tasli et al. (2006) from the Coniacian-Santonian of the Cehennemdere Formation of southern Turkey (Fig. 7; A &amp; B internal views) would appear superficially at least to conform to the generic concept, but in thin-section the number of chambers in the final whorl is fewer than in the type description and illustration for B. bentori .</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Early - late Cenomanian.</p><p>B. bentori was regarded by Hamaoui (in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985) as ranging from the middle Cenomanian to the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary (see also Arnaud et al., 1981 with tentative extensions into the early Cenomanian and basal Turonian). Plausible illustrated records of B. bentori by Bravi et al. (2004) from central Italy, Ghanem et al. (2012) from Syria and Saint-Marc (1981) from Lebanon indicate the presence of this species in early Cenomanian sediments, as old as the base of the stage. This species is commonly recorded in the literature, but most records are not substantiated by illustration. Similarly, few records are supported by independent age verification, which hinders assessment of the true stratigraphic range. Overall, records are almost entirely confined to the Cenomanian although these are skewed towards the middle – late Cenomanian.</p><p>Rare, anomalously younger records (e.g., Ghaseminia et al., 2016 – Coniacian to Santonian; Luperto-Sinni, 1976; Luperto-Sinni &amp; Richetti, 1978 – Santonian – Campanian; Šribar &amp; Pleničar, 1990 – late Turonian; Velić, 2007 – early Cenomanian to early Campanian; Solak et al., 2015 – Turonian to Campanian) are not substantiated by plausible illustrations (see also remarks above concerning occurrences reported in the Maastrichtian by Sinanoglu and others).</p><p>Weidich &amp; Al-Harithi (1990) illustrate a plausible form from Jordan, noting that the species has middle Albian to Cenomanian range there. This is the most viable evidence that the species ranges older than Cenomanian, but the specimen illustrated is actually from Cenomanian strata. An illustrated record from an interval of “latest Albian to early Cenomanian” age from the Sarvak Formation of the Iranian Zagros (Mohseni &amp; Javanmard, 2020) is not of B. bentori (instead a simple unrelated taxon). Thus, illustrated records from Albian strata are lacking.</p><p>Those references which are supported by definite (or at least plausible) illustrations mostly indicate a middle – late Cenomanian age (or at least general undifferentiated Cenomanian age). These include:</p><p>Morocco: Ettachfini &amp; Andreu (2004) and Ettachfini (2006) illustrate a form attributed to Moncharmontia aff. apenninica from the late Cenomanian of Morocco, but which seems more compatible with B. bentori (see also unillustrated by Piuz &amp; Meister, 2013).</p><p>Tunisia: Bismuth et al. (1981) (see also unillustrated by Touir et al., 2017)</p><p>Portugal: Berthou (1973)</p><p>Italy: Foglia (1992); Tentor et al. (1993); Tentor &amp; Tentor (2007) and Chiocchini et al. (2012) (see also an uncertain illustration by Simone et al., 2012; and unillustrated by Chiocchini, 2008a; Chiocchini et al., 2008; Di Stefano &amp; Ruberti, 2000; Borghi &amp; Pignatti, 2006; Spalluto &amp; Caffau, 2010; Spalluto, 2011; Consorti et al., 2015 and Frijia et al., 2015 - the latter reference is useful as the occurrences it describes are well-calibrated to ammonite zones and carbon isotope data as upper middle – late-but-not-latest Cenomanian)</p><p>Croatia: Velić &amp; Vlahović (1994) (see also unillustrated by Husinec et al., 2009 and Korbar et al., 2012)</p><p>Serbia and Kosovo: Radoičić (1974a)</p><p>Greece: Fleury (1971), Charvet at al. (1976) (see also unillustrated by Fleury, 1980 and Zambetakis-Lekkas, 2006)</p><p>Southern Turkey: Tasli et al. (2006); Sari et al. (2009); Solak et al. (2019); Solak (2021) (see also uncertain records by Koç, 2017; Simmons et al., 2020 b and Solak et al., 2020)</p><p>Egypt / Sinai: Kerdany et al. (1973) as “ Peneroplis turonicus ”; El-Sheikh &amp; Hewaidy (1998) (see also uncertain records by Samuel et al., 2009; Orabi et al., 2012 and Shahin &amp; Elbaz, 2013; and unillustrated by Kuss, 1994; Ismail &amp; Soliman, 1997; Bauer et al., 2001; Bachmann et al., 2003; Ismail et al., 2009; Cherif et al., 1989; Orabi &amp; Hamad, 2018; El Baz &amp; Khalil, 2019; El Baz &amp; Kassem, 2020)</p><p>Iranian Zagros: Sartorio &amp; Venturini (1988); Rahimpour-Bonab et al. (2012); Afghah et al. (2014); Ezampanah et al. (2020); Yazdi-Moghadam &amp; Schlagintweit (2020, 2021) and Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2020, 2021) (see also unillustrated by Fourcade et al., 1997; Afghah &amp; Fadaei, 2014; Omidvar et al., 2014a, b; Consorti et al., 2015; Dehghanian &amp; Afghah, 2021; Omidi et al., 2021 and Mohajer, 2022a, 2022b).</p><p>Southern Iraq: An illustration of Pseudorhapydionina laurinensis by Al-Dulaimy et al., (2022) from the late Cenomanian Mishrif Formation is probably B. bentori .</p><p>Saudi Arabia: Dr Wyn Hughes (pers. comm., 2022)</p><p>Other illustrated references include occurrences which are difficult to verify based on preservation or orientation of the thin-section cut. As such they are classed as “possible” B. bentori at best. These include Omaña et al. (2019) from Mexico (see also unillustrated by Hernández-Romano et al., 1997; Aguilera-Franco et al., 2001; Aguilera-Franco, 2003 (but a specimen illustrated as Moncharmontia apenninica may be B. bentori); Aguilera-Franco &amp; Hernández-Romano, 2004 and Aguilera-Franco &amp; Allison, 2004); Andrade (2018) from Portugal; Božović (2016) from Montenegro; and Ghanem &amp; Kuss (2013) from Syria (see also unillustrated by Mouty et al., 2003) from Syria. Most assigned ages are middle – late Cenomanian with occasional early Cenomanian.</p><p>Illustrated references which are not, in fact, of B. bentori include Decrouez (1978) from Greece (nothing compatible in photomicrograph); Velić &amp; Sokač (1979) from the Dinarides (simple unrelated indeterminate form); Ghaseminia et al. (2016) (simple unrelated indeterminate form), Assadi et al. (2016) [= Praetaberina bingistani], Kiarostami et al. (2019) (indeterminate, but not biconcave), Mohajer et al. (2021a) (indeterminate but not biconcave), Asghari et al., (2022) (indeterminate, but not biconcave) and Esfandyari et al. (2023) (indeterminate but incompatible with B. bentori: too few chambers) from the Iranian Zagros, and Ezzulddin &amp; Ibrahim (2022) (simple, probably trochospiral foraminifera) from southern Iraq.</p><p>References which record B. bentori, but which are not substantiated by illustration are numerous – more than double those with definite, plausible and possible illustrations. The occurrences are, however, also predominantly assigned to a middle – late Cenomanian age with occasional early Cenomanian records, as well as some possible early Turonian records although the latter are questionable. Those not yet mentioned above include Diaz Otero et al. (2001) from Cuba; Berthou &amp; Lauverjat (1979), Crosaz-Galletti (1979), Berthou (1984a, 1984b), Calonge et al. (2002, 2003), Cabral et al., (2008), Caus et al. (2009), Vicedo et al. (2011) and Consorti et al. (2016b) from Iberia; Deloffre &amp; Hamaoui (1979) from France; Boix et al. (2009) from the Mediterranean or western Tethys; Schulze (2003) and Schulze et al. (2004) from Jordan; Mohammed (2007), Al-Dulaimy &amp; Al-Sheikhly (2013), Al-Dulaimy et al. (2022) and Al-Salihi &amp; Ibrahim (2023) from southern Iraq; Youssef et al. (2019) from Kuwait; Menegatti (2004) from Dubai; and Scott et al. (2000), Piuz &amp; Meister (2013) and Piuz et al. (2014) from Oman.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Neotethys and?Caribbean.</p><p>The records mentioned above substantiate by illustration definite occurrences in the Zagros-Turkey-North Africa, Eastern and Western Mediterranean region. There are numerous additional records unverified by illustration that could, if proven by new data, further demonstrate the geographic distribution of this species and extend it much more widely. These additional records (west to east) include from Mexico, Cuba, Iberia, Iraq, Kuwait and Oman (see above for references).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFD7A202FF11FB1DA4FEC224	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFC8A202FF11FA4CA64FC298.text	03E587B6FFC8A202FF11FA4CA64FC298.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Daxia Cuvillier & Szakall 1949	<div><p>Genus Daxia Cuvillier &amp; Szakall, 1949</p><p>Type Species: Daxia cenomana Cuvillier &amp; Szakall, 1949</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFC8A202FF11FA4CA64FC298	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFC8A200FF11FA0AA044C10E.text	03E587B6FFC8A200FF11FA0AA044C10E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Daxia cenomana Cuvillier & Szakall 1949	<div><p>Daxia cenomana Cuvillier &amp; Szakall, 1949</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Arnaud-Vanneau and Prestat (in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985), Pl. 1, figs. 1-8, p. 15.</p><p>The genus Daxia, along with the type species, D. cenomana, was introduced by Cuvillier &amp; Szakall (1949) based on material from the late Cenomanian of western France. It is a biumbonate to flattened form, planispirally enrolled and evolute, with numerous (~ 15 in macrospheric forms; ~ 22 in microspheric forms) sickle or teardrop shaped chambers, wider at the base than at the outer wall. Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1988) confirmed that the aperture of Daxia is a single areal opening, just above the base of the apertural face. The suggestion that Daxia has a “spiral canal” (as in many rotaloideans including nummulitids) (Laug &amp; Peybernès, 1979) was demonstrated as invalid by Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1980).</p><p>Daxia is similar to Biconcava, which is more evolute and, in particular, to Mayncina Neumann (type species Daxia orbignyi Cuvillier &amp; Szakall, described alongside D. cenomana). In axial sections M. orbignyi has a more inflated profile, compared to the acute periphery of D. cenomana, and in megalospheric forms, a much larger proloculus (up to 190 μm, compared to up to 100 μm in D. cenomana). Note the sickle-shaped chambers in equatorial sections of D. cenomana, that reduce in height from base to outer wall in comparison to the more regular chamber height in M. orbignyi (Dr. Felix Schlagintweit, pers. comm., 2022). See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>The key difference of a single aperture in Daxia and multiple apertures in Mayncin a (Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1988) can be difficult to observe in thin-section. Many random thin-sections cannot be separated at the generic level. Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1988) pointed out that specimens of D. cenomana illustrated by Neumann (1965) are in fact M. orbignyi (an error overlooked by Arnaud &amp; Prestat in Schroder &amp; Neumann, 1985).</p><p>Other potential confusion taxa include a number of poorly known forms such as Deuterospira Hamaoui (type species Deuterospira pseudodaxia) reported only from the Cenomanian of Israel and Iraq (see Hamaoui, 1979) which has a low number (typically only 2) of coils, a basal/interio-marginal aperture and a sharp, angular periphery (see herein). Another similar genus, but poorly known, is Stomatostoecha Applin, Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1950 (Type species: Stomatostoecha plummerae Applin, Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1950) described from the Albian of Texas.</p><p>It is said to differ from Daxia by the presence of an extensive slit-like aperture (Maync, 1972). However, Mikhalevich (2004b) regarded the aperture as a vertical row of rounded openings based on the figures of the holotype in Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1988). It has recently been mentioned from the mid-Cretaceous of Tibet (e.g., BouDagher-Fadel et al., 2017) but without illustration. Finally, Phenacophragma Applin, Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1950 (Type species: Phenacophragma assurgens Applin, Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1950) is similar but with an aperture as a slit at the top of the apertural face. See also Phenacophragma oezeri Solak &amp; Tasli described from the Albian of Turkey (Solak &amp; Tasli, 2020). All these potential confusion taxa require thorough taxonomic revision.</p><p>Daxia minima Laug &amp; Peybernès is a smaller and older form of Daxia, first described from the Aptian of Spain; Laug &amp; Peybernès, 1979) and has relatively thicker septa and more depressed sutures. However, the dimensions for D. cenomana given by Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) and compared with those given for D. minima by Laug &amp; Peybernès (1979) – see below – do show some slight overlap which means that smaller macrospheric specimens of D. cenomana might be confused with larger specimens of D. minima .</p><p>D. minima D. cenomana</p><p>Equat. Diam. 0.37 – 1.10 mm 0.73 – 1.60 mm Axial Diam. 0.14 – 0.30 mm 0.28 – 0.65 mm</p><p>Proloc. Diam. 40 – 50 microns 40 – 100 microns</p><p>Arnaud-Vanneau &amp; Prestat (1985) do however state that their measurements are taken from ‘A’ (macrospheric) forms only. ‘B’ form (microspheric) measurements of D. cenomana based on earlier data from Neumann (1965, 1967) quoted in Laug &amp; Peybernès (1979) but not quoted in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) are larger: Equatorial diameter = 2.0 – 2.7 mm, Axial diameter = 1.0 mm.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Late Albian – late Cenomanian.</p><p>D. cenomana was first described from the late Cenomanian of Landes, France (Cuvillier &amp; Szakall, 1949; Saint-Marc, 1966). More recently, Andrieu et al. (2015) report D. cenomana from the middle and late Cenomanian of Aquitaine with good stratigraphic calibration from carbon isotopes but provide no illustration.</p><p>It was regarded by Arnaud-Vanneau &amp; Prestat (in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985) as restricted to, but ranging throughout the Cenomanian, but only limited evidence was provided in support. Nonetheless, subsequent more globally extensive records (see below), would suggest that a range throughout the Cenomanian and older into the late Albian is likely.</p><p>For example, records from Spain are extensive (see also Arnaud-Vanneau &amp; Prestat (in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985) and include beautifully illustrated material by Hottinger (1967), illustrated middle Cenomanian occurrences by Bilotte (1973, 1985), and records from the early Cenomanian by Calonge et al. (2002, 2003, not illustrated) and from the early-middle Cenomanian by Caus et al. (2009, not illustrated). Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1998, not illustrated), also report undifferentiated early – middle Cenomanian records from Spain, whilst Gräfe (2005, not illustrated) notes that the species is common in undifferentiated Cenomanian sediments of northern Spain. Hofker (1965) illustrated it as Haplophragmoides cenomana from the Aptian - Albian transition of Spain, where it was said to range from Aptian – Cenomanian – this may be because of inclusion of taxa now regarded as D. minima in the species concept (see also Arnaud-Vanneau, 1980). Finally, Ramirez del Pozo (1972) records the species from the Cenomanian of Spain as Haplophragmoides cenomana, but the illustrations are insufficient to confirm identification.</p><p>Dr Felix Schlagintweit (pers. comm., 2022) has indicated that D. cenomana can be found in the late Albian of the Iranian Zagros, and possibly Tibet, where it is said to be common in the Langshan Formation (Albian – early Cenomanian) (see also Smith &amp; Juntao, 1988 illustrated as Daxia sp. and thought to be late Albian based on associated orbitolinids; and Fossa Mancini, 1928 - unnamed foraminifera pl. XXII, fig. 10). Yang et al. (2015); BouDagher-Fadel et al. (2017); Xu et al. (2019, 2021); and Rao et al. (2020) mention but do not illustrate Daxia from Tibet.</p><p>Berthou &amp; Lauverjat (1979) and Berthou (1984b) indicated that the species can be found throughout the Albian – middle Cenomanian of western Portugal but provided no illustration (see also Berthou &amp; Schroeder, 1978; Boavida, 2013; Cabral et al., 2014, not illustrated). Andrade (2018) has illustrated the species from the Cenomanian of Portugal (pl. M2, fig. 1) but other illustrations (e.g., pl. M5, fig. 5) are equivocal and may be M. orbignyi .</p><p>Luger (2018) described and illustrated an equatorial section of “ Daxia cf. cenomana ” from the “latest Albian” of Somalia. As noted by Luger (2018), the specimen has a much smaller proloculus than the material described by Arnaud-Vanneau &amp; Prestat (in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985), and the identification is hard to validate from a single equatorial section.</p><p>The suggestion by Omidvar et al. (2014a, 2014b) that it may occur in Turonian strata in the Iranian Zagros is neither substantiated by illustration nor associated microfauna. Rare occurrences recorded from the Turonian Buttum Formation in Egypt by Samuel et al. (2009) are also unsubstantiated by illustration and/or are likely misidentified.</p><p>Well-illustrated, independently biostratigraphically or chemostratigraphically calibrated records of this species are required.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Possibly Pan-Neotethyan.</p><p>Arnaud-Vanneau &amp; Prestat (in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985) only noted limited records from France and Spain. Since then, there are many more published records, which if valid, extend the distribution from the middle – late Cenomanian of Mexico in the west (Omaña et al., 2012, 2016, 2019, illustrated, but specimens may be M. orbignyi) to the Cenomanian of Tibet in the east (see above).</p><p>The species has been commonly reported from the early – late Cenomanian of Egypt (e.g., Shahin &amp; Kora, 1991; Kora et al., 1994; Shahin, 2007; Ismail et al., 2009; Shahin &amp; Elbaz, 2013, 2014; Deaf &amp; Tahoun, 2018; El Baz &amp; Khalil, 2019; El Baz &amp; Kassem, 2020, but only material illustrated by El-Sheikh &amp; Hewaidy, 1998 from supposedly late Cenomanian strata approaches plausibility based on illustration, although the critical axial section mentioned in the plate caption is missing from the actual plate).</p><p>There are many (mostly unillustrated) records from the Iranian Zagros (e.g., Afghah &amp; Fadaei, 2014; Kiarostami et al., 2019; Dehghanian &amp; Afghah, 2021; Omidi et al., 2021) but only the illustration of Mohajer et al. (2021a) approaches plausibility, from supposedly late Cenomanian strata. Illustrations by Afghah et al. (2014) (= Pseudorhipidionina ex gr. casertana-murgiana) and Jamalpour et al. (2018) (too few low chambers, nondeterminable simple specimen) are not this species. Elsewhere in the Middle East there are possible records from Kuwait (El-Naggar &amp; Al-Rifaiy, 1973, not illustrated).</p><p>Other unillustrated records include Parente et al., (2007) who reported it from the late Cenomanian of Italy, co-occurring with Cisalveolina fraasi (Gümbel); from the Cenomanian of Albania (Peza &amp; Pirdeni, 1994); Provence (southern France) (Babinot et al., 1988) and Algeria (Alloul, 2019).</p><p>A record from Jordan (Weidich &amp; Al-Harithi, 1990) is indeterminate. A record from Armenia (Danelian et al., 2014) is of Charentia cuvillieri .</p><p>In summary, despite multiple records of this species from many locations, substantive illustrations are lacking. Only Cenomanian records are shown on Figure 8.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFC8A200FF11FA0AA044C10E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFCAA200FCB6F9B9A171C1A1.text	03E587B6FFCAA200FCB6F9B9A171C1A1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Deuterospira Hamaoui 1965	<div><p>Genus Deuterospira Hamaoui, 1965 emended Hamaoui, 1979</p><p>Type Species: Deuterospira pseudodaxia Hamaoui, 1965 emended Hamaoui, 1979</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFCAA200FCB6F9B9A171C1A1	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFCAA206FCB6F922A037C3AA.text	03E587B6FFCAA206FCB6F922A037C3AA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Deuterospira pseudodaxia Hamaoui 1965	<div><p>Deuterospira pseudodaxia Hamaoui, 1965 emended Hamaoui, 1979</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Hamaoui (1979), Fig. 2, p. 342.</p><p>Only two illustrations of this genus and species are thought to be published (in Hamaoui, 1966, 1979 and in Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1988).</p><p>Reported as a new genus and species by Hamaoui (1965) in a Geological Survey of Israel report, it was neither described nor illustrated. It was illustrated by Hamaoui (1966) in another GSI report but not otherwise described. This was corrected in both respects by Hamaoui (1979). Overall, Deuterospira is broadly similar to Daxia cenomana and Biconcava bentori, although it is believed to have only two full coils (from which the name is derived). Daxia and Biconcava on the other hand, can have up to 4-5 coils. The chamber divisions can apparently only be seen in the second coil, the first coil (in the holotype) is believed to be filled with agglutinated material which obscures any view of chamber partitions such as septa or inward projections into the chamber lumen as in Demirina (see below) which could suggest possibly synonymy with D. meridionalis (see also Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1988). The foramina are distinctly basal/interiomarginal in equatorial views (in the second coil at least) but are suggested to become more areal in later chambers ( Daxia ’s are areal throughout) although illustrated evidence is lacking. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>Mayncina is also similar, but that genus is broadly biconvex compared with Biconcava, Daxia and Deuterospira and Mayncina also has multiple areal apertures.</p><p>D. pseudodaxia is also characterised by the sharpest periphery of the genera and species mentioned. Nonetheless, this genus and species remains very poorly known and more research on topotypic material is required to improve our understanding of its identity.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>(Late?) Cenomanian.</p><p>Deuterospira pseudodaxia is rarely reported in the literature. Hamaoui (1965, 1966) described it from the Zafit - Avonon Members of the Hazera Formation of Israel, attributing a Cenomanian age (“probably upper part”) to the interval.</p><p>Hamaoui &amp; Brun (1974) reported it (unillustrated) from the Mishrif Formation of Iraq, also attributing a Cenomanian (lower – upper) age (see also Hamaoui, 1979). Note that according to modern literature (e.g., Bromhead et al., 2022), the Mishrif Formation of southern Iraq is typically late Cenomanian – early Turonian, although usage varies.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Eastern Neotethys.</p><p>Limited distribution (see references mentioned above).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFCAA206FCB6F922A037C3AA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFCCA206FCB6FADDA0C5C20E.text	03E587B6FFCCA206FCB6FADDA0C5C20E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Mayncina Neumann 1965	<div><p>Genus Mayncina Neumann, 1965</p><p>Type Species: Daxia orbignyi Cuvillier &amp; Szakall, 1949</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFCCA206FCB6FADDA0C5C20E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFCCA204FCB6FA98A78BC1A1.text	03E587B6FFCCA204FCB6FA98A78BC1A1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Mayncina orbignyi (Cuvillier & Szakall 1949)	<div><p>Mayncina orbignyi (Cuvillier &amp; Szakall, 1949)</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Arnaud-Vanneau &amp; Prestat (in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985), Pl. 2, figs. 1-9, p. 16.</p><p>The genus Mayncina was introduced by Neumann (1965) with Daxia orbignyi (mistakenly referred to as “ Daxia d’orbignyi ” by Neumann) as the type species. Mayncina is similar to Biconcava and, in particular, Daxia . It is the most involute and broadly biconvex of the three genera and has tiny multiple (areal) apertures while the other two genera have single openings. Other potential confusion taxa include Stomatostoecha (Type species: Stomatostoecha plummerae) described from the Albian of Texas. It has an aperture variously described as extensive slit-like (Maync, 1972) or a vertical row of rounded openings (Mikhalevich, 2004b) based on the figures of the holotype in Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1988). Finally, Phenacophragma (Type species: Phenacophragma assurgens) is similar but with an aperture as a slit at the top of the apertural face. All of these potential confusion taxa are difficult to separate in random thin-sections. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>M. orbignyi is superficially very similar to Daxia cenomana (see that species discussion for key differences between the two, but note than in addition to the apertural difference, M. orbignyi is more inflated and distinctly biumbilicate). Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1988) pointed out that specimens of D. cenomana illustrated by Neumann (1965) are in fact M. orbignyi (an error overlooked by Arnaud &amp; Prestat in Schroder &amp; Neumann, 1985).</p><p>M. orbignyi is the youngest species of Mayncina . Mayncina bulgarica Laug, Peybernès &amp; Rey is a smaller form with a tendency to uncoil and become peneropliform (see comprehensive description by Maksoud, 2015), and has predominantly been referred to as occurring within the “Neocomian” (= approximately Berriasian – Hauterivian), with possible Albian records – for example, see Husinec et al. (2009) and Solak et al. (2021). Some Jurassic species have also been referred to Mayncina in the literature (e.g., Mayncina termieri Hottinger) though should properly be referred to Lituolipora Gušić &amp; Velić as discussed by Kabal &amp; Tasli (2003) and Fugagnoli &amp; Bassi (2015).</p><p>Mayncina hasaensis Basha is a poorly known species introduced from material from the late Cenomanian of Jordan (Basha, 1978). From the limited illustrations it may have some affinity to Charentia cuvillieri .</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>(Late Albian?) middle Cenomanian.</p><p>M. orbignyi was first described from the middle Cenomanian of Charente, France (Cuvillier &amp; Szakall, 1949; Neumann, 1965). It was regarded by Arnaud-Vanneau and Prestat (in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985) as restricted to the middle Cenomanian, with tentative extension into the latest early Cenomanian and earliest late Cenomanian, but only limited evidence was provided in support. The only plausible well biostratigraphically calibrated records are those from the middle Cenomanian, with older records being unsubstantiated.</p><p>Decrouez (1978) recorded “ Mayncina d’orbignyi ” from the latest Albian – early Cenomanian (and possibly middle Cenomanian) of Greece, but without illustration, whilst Steuber et al. (1993) reported but did not illustrate a “cf.” form from the Cenomanian of Greece. Smith et al. (1990) and Orabi &amp; Hamad (2018) also cite a middle Cenomanian age from Oman and Egypt respectively, but without adequate illustration. Both El Baz &amp; Kassem (2020) and Shahin &amp; El Baz (2021) record M. orbignyi from the supposed early – middle Cenomanian of the Gulf of Suez, but the illustrations are of disaggregated specimens and cannot have their identity confirmed. Likewise, an early-middle Cenomanian age is cited by Cherif et al. (1989) and by Orabi (1992), both from Sinai but without illustration. Shahin &amp; Elbaz (2013) also cite a general Cenomanian age from Sinai, however their illustration is of an external (SEM) view and inadequate to determine the genus or species. Lastly concerning Egypt, El Baz and Khalil (2019) define a “ Daxia cenomana – Mayncina d'orbignyi Interval Zone” for the early Cenomanian of Sinai but provide no illustrations. A middle Cenomanian specimen from France illustrated by Bilotte (1985) cannot be confirmed as being this species.</p><p>De Castro (1991) mentions a “ Mayncina ” biozone for the Turonian carbonate platform in the central Apennines of Italy, but based on the limited information provided, it is difficult to assess this statement. However, it would appear not to refer to M. orbignyi or possibly Mayncina at all in the sense used herein but rather to Pseudocyclammina sphaeroidea Gendrot, which De Castro considered to belong in Mayncina .</p><p>Cenomanian records from Jordan (Basha, 1978, 1979) are not confirmed by illustration, but an illustrated “cf.” form is recorded (as rare) from low in the (undifferentiated) Cenomanian or even “?Upper Albian” interval of Jordan by Weidich &amp; Al-Harithi (1990). From the illustration of a single poorly preserved specimen its identity cannot be confirmed. Peybernès (1984) recorded, but did not illustrate, the species from the late Albian of the Pyrenees. Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1982) reported, but did not illustrate, a “cf.” form from the late Albian of Spain.</p><p>The illustrated records of M. orbignyi from the Barremian – Early Aptian of Sinai by Abu-Zied (2007) are most likely Choffatella decipiens Schlumberger.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Western/southern Neotethyan?</p><p>Arnaud-Vanneau &amp; Prestat (in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985) only noted limited records from France and questionably Jordan. Additional reports cited above (whether identification is confirmed or not) indicate at best sporadic occurrences around the western and southern Neotethyan margins. An unusual record is that of Motamed al Shariati et al. (2016) who recorded but did not illustrate the species from the undifferentiated late Albian – early Cenomanian of the Lut Block in eastern central Iran. Specimens attributed to D. cenomana, but which may be M. orbignyi have been recorded from the middle to late Cenomanian of Mexico (Omaña et al., 2012, 2019). Firm identification requires illustration of further material, not least axial sections. Records ascribed ‘cf.’ status or generic status only are not included in this geographic summary, nor are records from outside the Cenomanian.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFCCA204FCB6FA98A78BC1A1	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFCEA204FF11F8C3A41CC024.text	03E587B6FFCEA204FF11F8C3A41CC024.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Biplanata Hamaoui & Saint-Marc 1970	<div><p>Genus Biplanata Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc, 1970</p><p>Type Species: Biplanata peneropliformis Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc, 1970</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFCEA204FF11F8C3A41CC024	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFCEA20AFF11F8AEA698C10E.text	03E587B6FFCEA20AFF11F8AEA698C10E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Biplanata peneropliformis Hamaoui & Saint-Marc 1970	<div><p>Biplanata peneropliformis Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc, 1970</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc (1970), Pls. 1-11, Fig. 1, p. 262- 282.</p><p>The description and illustrations of the types in the original publication are excellent and comprehensive. See also Saint-Marc (1974a: plate 5) although some images are duplicated. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>Biplanata possesses an internal plate centrally located within each chamber, which serves to distinguish from similar planispiral forms such as Daxia, Mayncina, Charentia, and Neodubrovnikella turonica . Superficially similar to Biconcava bentori, B. peneropliformis has a more flattened, disc-like test, has faster-growing chambers and lacks the V-shaped chamber cross section of the former. Externally it is a virtually complete homeomorph of Choffatella (see Fig 13a herein).</p><p>Whittaker et al. (1998), after re-examining Henson’s types of Mangashtia viennoti (Henson, 1948) and comparing them with the description of B. peneropliformis by Hamaoui and Saint-Marc (1970), suggested that Henson’s specimens were similar and that Mangashtia viennoti Henson was therefore the senior synonym of B. peneropliformis . In our view (and that of Dr Felix Schlagintweit, pers. comm., 2023) Henson’s material conforms to the concept and (emended) definition of M. viennoti by Fourcade et al. (1997; see figs. 5-7) much closer than it does to B. peneropliformis . Mangashtia may include a small juvenile planispiral growth phase (Henson, 1948, but not observed by Fourcade et al., 1997) but is primarily annular/cyclic in adult growth. The presence of structures in the centre parts of the chambers give the impression of a two-layered mode of growth which in axial and subaxial sections somewhat resembles the presence of the bisecting dental plate in Biplanata . Mangashtia however has many more annular chambers and Biplanata is entirely planispiral (and later uncoiled). The periphery of B. peneropliformis is also much more angular than that of M. viennoti . Fourcade et al. (1997) suggested a clear stratigraphic separation of the occurrence of B. peneropliformis (Cenomanian) and M. viennoti (Turonian) in their studied section in the Iranian Zagros. Nonetheless, it is possible that some records of M. viennoti in the literature may be misidentifications that are in fact B. peneropliformis (e.g., Omidvar et al., 2014a, b).</p><p>Biplanata differs from Demirina and Merlingina (all three genera are in the Nezzazatidae family) in being flatter throughout and having a fairly uniform axial chamber width throughout the height of the chamber compared with the distinctly wider parts in the middle and upper parts of the chamber height in Demirina and Merlingina respectively.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Uppermost early?/middle - late (but not latest?) Cenomanian.</p><p>The genus Biplanata (as nomen nudem – no type species) was first mentioned by Hamaoui (1965), based on material found in the Cenomanian Hazera Formation of Israel. Biplanata and B. peneropliformis were subsequently formally described from the Cenomanian (undifferentiated) of the Negev, Israel, and the late Cenomanian of Lebanon (Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc, 1970). It is worth noting that Arkin &amp; Hamaoui (1967) regarded Biplanata as ranging throughout the Cenomanian of Israel, but this view was not held by Hamaoui (in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985) who described B. peneropliformis as having a range from the upper part of the early Cenomanian to the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary.</p><p>This species is commonly recorded in the literature, but most records are not substantiated by illustration. Similarly, few records are supported by independent age verification, which hinders assessment of stratigraphic range. Overall, records are almost entirely confined to the Cenomanian although skewed towards the middle – late Cenomanian.</p><p>Rare younger (e.g., Turonian) records (e.g., Philip et al., 1978; Arnaud et al., 1981) are not substantiated by plausible illustration. Fragmentary specimens from “Senonian” strata from southern Italy (Luperto- Sinni, 1976) described as B. peneropliformis, cannot be confirmed as these species, and can be discounted.</p><p>Extension of the range of B. peneropliformis into (basal) Turonian strata is based on information from Lebanon (e.g., Saint-Marc, 1974a, 1978, 1981), and as with a number of other taxa, this age assignment needs review. The species occurs in beds that from associated ammonite data appear to straddle the Cenomanian – Turonian boundary, but the precise stratigraphic position of B. peneropliformis occurrences relative to these ammonite occurrences is uncertain. Given this, and the lack of any other substantiated Turonian records, B. peneropliformis is excluded from the Turonian. This agrees with the (unillustrated) record of Parente et al. (2008) who use carbon isotope stratigraphy to suggest B. peneropliformis does not extend about the geslinianum ammonite zone. See also Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2022a) for discussion of Turonian records from Lebanon. A possible illustrated record from the alleged Santonian of the Zagros (Kiarostami et al., 2019) must be a drafting error as the section contains Pseudolituonella reicheli Marie and Chrysalidina gradata d’Orbigny amongst other typically Cenomanian taxa.</p><p>The oldest records of B. peneropliformis are poorly constrained by independent age calibration, but the plausible illustrated records from Serbia (Radoičić, 1974a); southern Turkey (Tasli et al., 2006; Sari et al, 2009; Koç, 2017; Solak et al., 2020; Solak, 2021; and Simmons et al., 2020b), the Iranian Zagros (Sampò, 1969 (as Nezzazata sp.); Ezampanah et al., 2020; Mohajer et al., 2021a; Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam, 2022a; plus numerous unverified records (e.g., Afghah et al., 2014; Mehmandsoti, 2021); central Italy (Chiocchini et al., 2012 – see also Foglia, 1992; Bravi et al., 2006; Borghi &amp; Pignatti, 2006; Parente et al., 2007, 2008; Chiocchini, 2008a and Simone et al., 2012 for unillustrated records); and Albania-Kosovo (Consorti &amp; Schlagintweit, 2021a) are mostly middle – late Cenomanian based on associated microfauna, with only possible extension into the early Cenomanian (the upper part) for some. Other plausible records such as those from Greece (Fleury, 1971), Croatia (Velić &amp; Vlahović, 1994), Syria (Ghanem &amp; Kuss, 2013 – but not figure 14/40 which might be more compatible with Merlingina cretacea) and Egypt (Shahin &amp; Elbaz, 2013), are in keeping with this stratigraphic range assessment. Records that show B. peneropliformis ranging throughout the Cenomanian (e.g., Velić, 2007 for the Dinarides (see also Husinec et al., 2000, 2009)) are typically unsubstantiated by illustration.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Caribbean – Neotethys.</p><p>In addition to the records mentioned above, a key reference that extends the palaeogeographic range of this species is Bomou et al. (2019) who illustrate the species from the late Cenomanian of Mexico (see also no or uncertain illustration by Michaud et al., 1984; Hernández-Romano et al., 1997; Aguilera-Franco et al., 2001; Aguilera-Franco, 2003 and Aguilera-Franco &amp; Allison, 2004).</p><p>There are numerous records with either no or questionable illustration that could, if proven by new data, further demonstrate the geographic distribution of this species and extend it much more widely. These records (west to east) include; Morocco (Ettachfini, 2006; Piuz &amp; Meister 2013), Iberia, including Spain and Portugal (Berthou, 1984b; Calonge et al., 2003; Gräfe, 2005; Caus et al., 2009; Vicedo et al., 2011; Consorti et al., 2016b), southern France (Deloffre &amp; Hamaoui 1979); Kosovo (Consorti &amp; Schlagintweit, 2021b); Libya (Dufaure et al., 1984); Slovenia (Jež et al., 2011); Greece (Decrouez 1976, 1978; Tsaila-Monopolis, 1977; Fleury, 1980; Pomoni-Papaaioannou &amp; Zambetakis-Lekkas, 2009); Jordan (Al-Rifaiy et al., 1994; Schulze, 2003 and Schulze et al., 2004), southern Iraq (Bernaus &amp; Masse 2007); and Oman (Smith et al., 1990; Kennedy &amp; Simmons, 1991; Piuz and Meister, 2013).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFCEA20AFF11F8AEA698C10E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFC0A20AFCB6F9B9A002C1E3.text	03E587B6FFC0A20AFCB6F9B9A002C1E3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Demirina Ozcan 1994	<div><p>Genus Demirina Özcan, 1994</p><p>Type Species: Demirina meridionalis Özcan, 1994</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFC0A20AFCB6F9B9A002C1E3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFC0A208FCB6F964A721C4E4.text	03E587B6FFC0A208FCB6F964A721C4E4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Demirina meridionalis Ozcan 1994	<div><p>Demirina meridionalis Özcan, 1994</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Özcan (1994), Pls. 1-2, Fig. 2, p. 3-4.</p><p>The broadly diamond-shaped apertural face with an acute to subangular periphery, and inner partitions (septula) which project inwards from the chamber wall leaving an empty space in the median part of the chamber is characteristic (Kaminski, 2000; Mikhalevich, 2004b). The internal partitions are more numerous and complex than in Merlingina and the periphery of the adult chamber is angular/subangular rather than broad and “flat”. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>Deuterospira pseudodaxia may be a synonym, but poor illustrations make confirmation difficult.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>?Early-middle? Cenomanian.</p><p>D. meridionalis was first described from the undifferentiated Cenomanian Karadut Formation of south-east Turkey (Özcan, 1994), where it occurs reworked into synchronous (?) deeper-water deposits. It is recorded from the lower part of the formation with Praealveolina grp. cretacea, Orbitolina sp. and Rotalipora sp., suggesting an age no younger than middle Cenomanian. It was subsequently reported from the platformal Derdere Formation of south-east Turkey by Özkan &amp; Altiner (2019).</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Eastern Neotethys.</p><p>So far reported only from southeast Turkey.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFC0A208FCB6F964A721C4E4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFC2A208FF11FC0FA771C31F.text	03E587B6FFC2A208FF11FC0FA771C31F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Merlingina Hamaoui 1965	<div><p>Genus Merlingina Hamaoui 1965 emended Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc, 1970</p><p>Type Species: Merlingina cretacea Hamaoui 1965 emended Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc, 1970</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFC2A208FF11FC0FA771C31F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFC2A20EFF11FB88A6B2CF5F.text	03E587B6FFC2A20EFF11FB88A6B2CF5F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Merlingina cretacea Hamaoui 1965	<div><p>Merlingina cretacea Hamaoui 1965 emended Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc, 1970</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc (1970), Pls. 22-27, Fig. 4, p. 306- 320.</p><p>This description and associated illustrations are excellent and comprehensive. See also Saint-Marc (1974a: plate 6) and Hamaoui in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985: plate 15).</p><p>The introduction of Merlingina and its type species M. cretacea has a somewhat complex history. Hamaoui (1961) first recognised the taxon as “Gen? (aff. Nezzazata sp.)” from Cenomanian limestones from the Israeli subsurface. The genus and species were first formally described by Hamaoui (1965) with inadequate illustration and limited and inaccurate description. This was acknowledged by Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc (1970) who regarded the 1965 description as nomen nudum and therefore provided much more comprehensive and accurate diagnoses and descriptions for the genus and species. Nonetheless, Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1988) regarded the 1965 description as “available” (i.e., valid), thus the most suitable way to describe the authorship of the genus and species is as “ Hamaoui 1965 emended Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc 1970 ”.</p><p>Essentially, Merlingina is irregularly planispiral throughout; asymmetrical (planoconvex) in the early stage but later becoming more bilaterally symmetrical. In the late stage it tends to uncoil, and the chambers rapidly increase in width so that the apertural face is broad, subcircular, and flattened. The aperture is a U or V-shaped slit (see Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc, 1970: fig. 4). Slightly sinuous ribs are prominent in external view. A noticeable characteristic in oblique thin-section views is the combination of widening of later chambers and relatively deep sutures that lead to a (sometimes distinctly pronounced) “saw-tooth” periphery. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>In thin-section (equatorial view) it is similar to Biplanata peneropliformis which is regularly planispiral throughout and lacks the increased width of the later chambers in Merlingina and therefore the ‘saw-tooth’ periphery. It differs from Biconcava bentori by being asymmetrical in the early stage and plano-convex, not bilaterally biconcave. Trochospira avnimelechi is distinctly trochospiral and with a single angular periphery compared with a tendency to form two, subangular peripheries in later chambers of M. cretacea which is best visible in axial view (see Fig. 17b).</p><p>Demirina and Merlingina can appear similar especially in equatorial view where Demirina has a circular and relatively smooth periphery and Merlingina’s periphery attains the least “saw- tooth” appearance. The internal partitions of Demirina are also more numerous (and exoskeletal) but may appear similar to the (fewer) toothplates of Merlingina and its widest chamber width is across the centre rather than nearer the periphery.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>(Early?) middle – late Cenomanian.</p><p>Most records of M. cretacea are from the middle, late, or undifferentiated middle – late Cenomanian. This follows Saint-Marc (1974a, 1978) who stated the range was middle – late Cenomanian in Lebanon, a range with which Saint-Marc (1981), Arnaud et al. (1981), and Hamaoui in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) concurred but extending the range into the basal Turonian (sometimes questionably). This has led to a certain degree of circular reasoning in subsequent age assignments of the occurrence of the species, in that its presence has been used to argue for an age no older than middle Cenomanian (e.g., Smith et al., 1990; Palci et al., 2008). In fact, it is possible that in the original records of the species from Israel (Hamaoui, 1961, 1965, 1966), it occurs in the early Cenomanian. This was noted by Lipson-Benitah (2009) who gave the taxon an intra-early Cenomanian inception in Israel. The records of Hamaoui (1961, 1965, 1966) do not subdivide the Cenomanian, but long ranges are indicated, and the co-occurrence with such taxa named as “ Trocholina arabica ”, “ Orbitolina concava ”, “ Praealveolina iberica ”, is suggestive of an early Cenomanian age, although the identity of these taxa needs to be confirmed. A further caveat is that the 1961, 1965, and 1966 records by Hamaoui may use a concept of the taxon different from that established by Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc (1970).</p><p>It is curious that Hamaoui himself gave no indication of an early Cenomanian age in his 1985 review of this species (Hamaoui in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985), but his statement on the age range of the species contains little supporting data.</p><p>Records whose ranges include an attributed early Cenomanian age are infrequent and provide no illustrative material confirming identification. They include Schulze (2003) and Schulze et al. (2004) (Jordan); Ghanem et al. (2012, Syria) and Solak et al. (2020, Turkey; undifferentiated early – middle Cenomanian). Amongst these, of note is that Schulze (2003) and Schulze et al. (2004) who recorded M. cretacea from the Naur Formation unit b at one locality (RM2) in Jordan. Using ammonites and calcareous nannofossils they attributed the Naur b to the early Cenomanian M. mantelli ammonite zone equivalent. Ghanem et al. (2012) recorded M. cretacea in strata containing the planktonic foraminifera Rotalipora globotruncanoides and Rotalipora balernaensis, which would strongly suggest an early Cenomanian age, but neither have they illustrated any of these forms for confirmation.</p><p>Caus et al. (2009) recorded M. cretacea from the Santa Fe, Villa de Ves (see also Consorti et al., 2016b) and Moraillas Formations of Spain, which together they assigned an age range of early – late Cenomanian, but only indicated a late Cenomanian age for this species on their accompanying range chart (and with no verification by illustration).</p><p>Berthou &amp; Lauverjat (1979) recorded a taxon referred to as Merlingina cf. cretacea from the latest Albian to earliest Cenomanian from Portugal, but this taxon was unillustrated and undescribed, and its identity cannot be verified.</p><p>Shahin &amp; Elbaz (2013, 2014, 2021) illustrate plausible disaggregated specimens of M. cretacea from Sinai. These records are said to be early Cenomanian, but the logic of this age assignment is suspect. The presence of M. cretacea is one of the reasons for the age assignment, but misreporting information from publications in which the age is actually given as middle to late Cenomanian (e.g., Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985).</p><p>Plausible illustrations in the relatively recent literature are all middle – late Cenomanian and include Aguilera-Franco (2000) (Mexico); Ghanem &amp; Kuss (2013) (Syria); Rahimpour-Bonab et al. (2012, 2013) and Mohajer et al. (2021a) (Iranian Zagros); Sari et al. (2009) and Solak (2021) (Turkey); Chiocchini et al. (2012) (central Italy). That of Chiocchini et al. (2012) straddles their early – late Cenomanian boundary and is thus broadly equivalent to middle Cenomanian.</p><p>Uncertain illustrated occurrences are reported by Smith et al. (1990) (Oman, see also Simmons &amp; Hart (1987); Kennedy &amp; Simmons (1991), and Philip et al. (1995) for unillustrated records); Bomou et al., 2019; Omaña et al. (2012, 2019), and Rosales-Dominguez et al. (1997) (Mexico, see also (e.g.) Michaud et al. (1984) Aguilera-Franco et al. (2001) and Aguilera-Franco (2003) for unillustrated records); Navarro-Ramirez et al. (2017) (Peru, see also Jaillard (1986), Jaillard &amp; Arnaud-Vanneau (1993) and Consorti et al. (2018) for unillustrated records); Hamaoui &amp; Brun (1974) (southern Iraq); Menegatti (2004) (Dubai). Almost all these records are middle – late Cenomanian, albeit with a certain degree of circular reasoning, excluding Navarro-Ramirez et al. (2017) who used carbon and oxygen isotope age proxies (as subsequently followed by Consorti et al. (2018)). The exception to the middle – late Cenomanian range is Michaud et al. (1984) who cite their occurrence of M. cretacea within undifferentiated early – middle Cenomanian strata.</p><p>Occurrences illustrated as M. cretacea, but which are not that species include Mohseni and Javanmard (2020) (= simple biserial foraminifera); Kiarostami et al. (2019) (indeterminate, but incompatible with M. cretacea) and Rikhtegarzadeh et al. (2016) (simple biserial to uniserial foraminifera) (all Iranian Zagros – note there are also many unillustrated records from this region e.g., Fourcade et al., 1997). A form illustrated as “ Merlingina cf. cretacea ?” from the undifferentiated Upper Cretaceous of Central Iran (Rahiminejad &amp; Hassani, 2016) is not related to true M. cretacea . It appears to be a simple trochospiral foraminifera. Fragmentary specimens from “Senonian” strata from southern Italy (Luperto-Sinni, 1976; see also Luperto-Sinni &amp; Ricchetti, 1978) described as M. cretacea, cannot be confirmed as this species, and can be discounted, as can an unillustrated record from the Turonian of the Iranian Zagros (Shapourikia et al., 2021).</p><p>In previous reviews, extension of the range of M. cretacea into (basal) Turonian strata is based on information from Lebanon (e.g., Saint-Marc, 1981), and as with a number of other taxa, this age assignment needs review. The species occurs in beds that from associated ammonite data appear to straddle the Cenomanian – Turonian boundary, but the precise stratigraphic position of M. cretacea occurrences relative to these ammonite occurrences is uncertain. Given this, and the lack of any other substantiated Turonian records, M. cretacea is excluded from the Turonian.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Neotethys and Caribbean,?S. America.</p><p>In addition to those previously mentioned above, other locations where M. cretacea has been recorded (unillustrated) include Algeria (Benyoucef et al., 2012; Slami et al., 2022); Tunisia (Touir et al., 2017); France (Aquitaine) (Deloffre &amp; Hamaoui, 1979); Portugal (Lauverjat, 1976); Croatia (Velić &amp; Vlahović, 1994; Husinec et al., 2000; Velić, 2007; Husinec et al., 2009); Greece (Decrouez, 1978; Fleury, 1980; Pomoni-Papaioannou &amp; Zambetakis-Lekkas, 2009); and Slovenia (Palci et al., 2008).</p><p>From the preceding discussion of stratigraphic distribution, it is possible that this species may have originated in the Levant region in the?early Cenomanian but was very widespread throughout Neotethys by middle – late Cenomanian times.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFC2A20EFF11FB88A6B2CF5F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFC6A20CFCB6FCA0A01CC4E4.text	03E587B6FFC6A20CFCB6FCA0A01CC4E4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Charentia Neumann 1965	<div><p>Genus Charentia Neumann, 1965</p><p>Type Species: Charentia cuvillieri Neumann, 1965</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFC6A20CFCB6FCA0A01CC4E4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFC6A20CFF11FF48A4ADC7B3.text	03E587B6FFC6A20CFF11FF48A4ADC7B3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neodubrovnikella Schlagintweit & Rashidi 2018	<div><p>Genus Neodubrovnikella Schlagintweit &amp; Rashidi, 2018</p><p>Type Species: Neodubrovnikella maastrichtiana Schlagintweit &amp; Rashidi, 2018</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFC6A20CFF11FF48A4ADC7B3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFC6A20CFF11FED4A122C407.text	03E587B6FFC6A20CFF11FED4A122C407.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neodubrovnikella turonica (Said & Kenawy 1957)	<div><p>Neodubrovnikella turonica (Said &amp; Kenawy, 1957)</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2022a), Figs. 4 (A-F), 5 &amp; 6, p. 4-8.</p><p>The recent review by Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2022a) has clarified the taxonomic status of this species which had for many years been assigned to the porcellaneous genus Peneroplis based on its clearly ‘peneropliform’ shape. However, the true nature of its wall as finely agglutinated and pseudokeriothecal (which is not always discernible) excludes it from the porcellaneous Miliolida and it was transferred to the agglutinated biokovinids within the genus Neodubrovnikella . Interestingly, as long ago as 1967 Peneroplis turonicus (= Neodubrovkinella turonica) was considered as possibly belonging to the agglutinated foraminifera (genus Stomatostoecha) (Banner et al., 1967). This notion was largely ignored until the revision of Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2022a). See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics. Dimorphism is distinct in this species (see Fig. 19a &amp; 19c herein).</p><p>Peneroplis parvus De Castro is very similar except N. turonica has a large proloculus in megalospheric forms, tends to uncoil rapidly with chambers also enlarging rapidly and with septa not ‘obviously’ perforated. Peneroplis is also always planispirally coiled whereas N. turonica is frequently not perfectly planispiral (see drawings of holotype in Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam, 2022a: fig. 4(B, D)). Notwithstanding these differences N. turonica can be regarded as an agglutinated isomorphic form of Peneroplis .</p><p>Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2022a) note the following: “In the literature, N. turonica has been confused several times with Pseudolituonella reicheli . This Cenomanian species also displays a pseudo-keriothecal wall, but the morphology is different, with a reduced coiled part and continuously widening and uncompressed chambers in the prominent uncoiled part. The septa and the marginal chamber walls are equal in thickness, the foramina larger, cribrate over the apertural face (not in a row) and surrounded by apertural lips that might protrude widely into the chamber lumen”.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>(Late early?) middle – late Cenomanian.</p><p>Originally suggested as a Turonian species and therefore named accordingly, Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2022a) regard N. turonica as a Cenomanian-restricted species based on a reassessment of the age of the types from Egypt, their studies of the Sarvak Formation in the Iranian Zagros, together with a review of the literature from numerous other areas (see below) and a biostratigraphic assessment of their associated microfaunas. The vast majority of records are from the middle and late Cenomanian, with extension into the upper part of the early Cenomanian only indicated by data from Greece (Decrouez, 1975; Charvet et al., 1976) and the Iranian Zagros. According to Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2022a) Turonian records can be revaluated as Cenomanian based on updated stratigraphic information and/or reassessment of associated microfauna.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Neotethys.</p><p>Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2022a) have recently reviewed the literature on the distribution of N. turonica (commonly recorded by others as “ Peneroplis turonicus ” but sometimes recorded as P. cf. turonicus and mistakenly as Pseudolituonella reicheli or Peneroplis parvus). This species is confirmed from Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Kosovo, Serbia, Greece, Lebanon, Syria, Morocco, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFC6A20CFF11FED4A122C407	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFC6A231FCB6FC6EA11AC1A1.text	03E587B6FFC6A231FCB6FC6EA11AC1A1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Charentia cuvillieri Neumann 1965	<div><p>Charentia cuvillieri Neumann, 1965</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Arnaud-Vanneau in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985), Pl. 3, p. 17-18. See also Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1985), Pl. 3, p. 6 and Maksoud (2015) Pl. 41, p. 134-138 (with extensive synonymy list, especially of Early Cretaceous occurrences).</p><p>The genus Charentia was introduced by Neumann (1965) and has a broad planispiral, lenticular test similar to Mayncina but often with a late uncoiled portion of up to 4 rectilinear chambers, following 11-13 chambers in the last whorl of up to 4 whorls. Internally the wall structure is pseudokeriothecal (see excellently illustrated material and description by Hottinger (1967) of material from the Cenomanian of Spain) with an imperforate outer layer similar to that seen in the subglobular Moncharmontia although Charentia is more lenticular and tends to uncoil (and also possesses a different apertural type). Rather thin septa with a build-up at the base of each (= characteristic chomata-like nodes, Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1985, p. 98) and the aperture varies in shape with ontogeny – a triangular arch progressing to a 3-prong opening with the “vertical” part of the opening becoming longer and ending in a narrow slit along the apertural face. This can be seen in rare external views of Cenomanian material from Egypt (Hassanien &amp; Sigal, 1983) and Somalia (Luger, 2018). Nautiloculina Mohler is similar but has a simpler (i.e., non pseudokeriothecal) wall and noticeably thicker septa. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1985) provide a useful review of synonyms of Charentia and C. cuvillieri .</p><p>The Late Jurassic genus Tonasia Gorbachik is considered as a synonym of Charentia (see discussion of the type species Tonasia evoluta Gorbachik below), whilst Hemicyclammina praesigali Banner (see below) from the Aptian – Albian of Spain is considered a synonym of C. cuvillieri . They note that the Barremian – Aptian genus Melathrokerion Brönnimann &amp; Conrad is similar to Charentia by virtue of its pseudokeriothecal wall and general morphology, but has a thicker wall, a more nautiloid shape, fewer chambers per whorl, and a broadly rounded periphery. Cribrostomoides paralens Omara described from the Cenomanian of Egypt (Omara, 1956) is referred to Charentia by Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1985). If it proves to be a synonym of C. cuvillieri it will have priority (access to type material is being sought at the time of writing).</p><p>A superficially similar form to C. cuvillieri is Everticyclammina greigi (Henson) which is clearly distinguished by its alveolar wall (Banner &amp; Higton, 1990). Additionally, E. greigi is less inflated and the chamber sutures are more consistently depressed. Comaliamma Loeblich &amp; Tappan is superficially similar to Charentia in the discoid early stage and tendency to uncoil but differs in the nature of the aperture and simple rather than canaliculate walls and septa.</p><p>Arnaud-Vanneau in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) identifies two morphotypes of C. cuvillieri – one large (1.2 – 1.4 mm equatorial diameter) with a thicker wall; the other small (0.780 – 0.830 mm equatorial diameter) with a thinner wall and fewer chambers (9-11) in the last whorl. Material described by Hofker (1965) from the Aptian – Albian of Spain as Haplophragmoides greigi (Henson) and later as Hemicyclammina praesigali Banner (Banner, 1966) conforms to C. cuvillieri sensu lato, suggesting that the smaller morphotype (0.6-0.8 mm cited diameter) might have a pseudokeriothecal wall texture. Small morphotypes of C. cuvillieri were described by Gollestaneh (1965) in an unpublished Ph.D. thesis as “ Haplophragmoides persica n. sp. ” from the Barremian – Aptian of the Iranian Zagros belt (Schlagintweit, 2015).</p><p>The two forms also appear to have different ranges with small forms found from around the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary (e.g., Altiner, 1991; Schlagintweit &amp; Ebli, 1999; Ivanova &amp; Kolodziej, 2004; Chiocchini et al., 2012; Kobayashi &amp; Wernli, 2014; Bucur et al., 2014, 2020) to the Cenomanian, and the larger forms from the Cenomanian only. However, a full taxonomic review of the many reported occurrences of the species and its possible synonyms from the latest Jurassic to mid-Cretaceous is required to confirm this stratigraphic separation.</p><p>Some small specimens have been tentatively recorded from the Late Jurassic – Early Cretaceous as Charentia evoluta (Gorbachik) (= Tonasia evoluta) (e.g., Bucur et al. (1996) from Italy; Krajewski &amp; Olszewska (2007) from Crimea; Kobayashi &amp; Vuks (2006) from Japan and Pleş et al. (2015) from Romania) although Schlagintweit &amp; Wagreich (2005: p. 117) state that these small morphotypes “can hardly be distinguished from C. cuvillieri ”. Records of Charentia spp ., including C. evoluta from the mid-Cretaceous of central Iran (Rahiminejad &amp; Hassani, 2015, 2016) require further investigation. Most illustrations are potentially of haplophragminids, small and lacking any form of distinctive wall structure.</p><p>Charentia nana Arnaud-Vanneau is a very small species of Charentia (equatorial diameter 0.365 – 0.480 mm) (Arnaud-Vanneau, 1980) that is even smaller than the small forms of C. cuvillieri, and with only 2.5 – 3 whorls and 7.5 – 8 chambers in the last whorl. A pseudokeriothecal wall structure remains to be demonstrated for this species.</p><p>Radoičić (1974a) described a new species from the late Cenomanian of Kosovo called Charentia kosovica which she said differed from C. cuvillieri by having a more rounded test, being slightly smaller and having fewer (9- 10) chambers in the whorl. This corresponds somewhat with Arnaud-Vanneau in Schroeder &amp; Neumann’s (1985) description of the smaller morphotype (see above), but the latter’s illustrations of the smaller form show a smooth, but clearly more angular periphery in axial view, leading to a lenticular test. Radoičić’s specimens have well-rounded peripheries (see also Saint-Marc, 1974a: pl. 1, fig.11) and a much less lenticular profile. Nonetheless, Rey et al. (1977) placed C. kosovica in synonymy with C. cuvillieri, which if correct, provides evidence for a late Cenomanian age for this species (see below). Arnaud-Vanneau in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) does not mention C. kosovica (i.e., she does not synonymise it with any other taxon). Specimens illustrated by Weidich &amp; Al-Harithi (1990) from the Albian of Jordan as Charentia cf. cuvillieri and compared to C. kosovica do not appear to be Charentia . They possess large, broad chambers, separated by short septa, with a marked basal layer. More research is required to assess their identity.</p><p>Charentia hasaensis Basha and Charentia rummanensis Basha are poorly known species introduced from material from the late Cenomanian of Jordan (Basha, 1978). They appear to have only been mentioned in their type descriptions. From the limited illustrations they may be partly synonymous with Hemicyclammina whitei (Henson) . Another species from the same publication, Mayncina hasaensis Basha might have closer affinity with C. cuvillieri . The type material of all these species needs to be re-examined. Likewise, Charentia granulosa Kerdany &amp; Eissa, described from the late Cenomanian of Egypt (Kerdany et al., 1973), may include H. whitei amongst its types.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Latest Jurassic – late Cenomanian.</p><p>C. cuvillieri was originally described from the middle Cenomanian of western France (Neumann, 1965) and was described as ranging from Albian and older to the top of that substage by Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985). A range chart in Saint-Marc (1981) gave the Neotethyan range of this species to be throughout the Cenomanian, but gave an Albian restricted-range for its occurrence in Lebanon (although the text indicates extension into the earliest Cenomanian). Illustrations in Saint-Marc (1974a) suggest that it is the “small” form of C. cuvillieri (equatorial diameter &lt;0.525 mm) that is being referred to for the Lebanese occurrences. As noted by Arnaud-Vanneau (1980) they may be comparable with her species C. nana . Since the publications of Saint-Marc (1981) and Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) there have been a great many records of the species published (although relatively few with plausible illustration) and these confirm that the species if treated sensu lato pending a full taxonomic study of the genus is long ranging from around the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary to the top of the Cenomanian. A middle Turonian record (Cherif et al., 1989) from Egypt is not this species. The external-only views are difficult to determine, but the test lacks the broad, lenticular profile of C. cuvillieri .</p><p>It is possible that Charentia can be found in strata younger than Cenomanian. Luperto-Sinni (1976) and Luperto-Sinni &amp; Richetti (1978) illustrated specimens termed “ Navarella ? Sp.” from the Santonian and Maastrichtian of southern Italy. These are undoubtedly not Navarella Ciry &amp; Rat and were considered as synonymous with specimens termed Lituola ? Sp. from the Coniacian-Santonian of Austria (Schlagintweit, 1992). Some of the Austrian specimens have hints of a pseudokeriothecal wall. Despite gross morphological similarities with Charentia, more material and research are required before drawing any conclusions regarding range extension.</p><p>Late Cenomanian occurrence is demonstrated by Ettachfini &amp; Andreu (2004) from Morocco (see also unillustrated by Ettachfini et al., 1989, 2005; Lézin et al., 2012). If C. kosovica proves to be a synonym of C. cuvillieri (see above), this provides further support for a late Cenomanian age. Other illustrated late Cenomanian records are less dependable. A specimen illustrated from Egypt by El-Sheikh &amp; Hewaidy (1998) cannot be confirmed from the illustration provided which looks close to Hemicyclammina whitei (Henson) . Nonetheless, the species has been plausibly illustrated from the Cenomanian of Egypt (Hassanien &amp; Sigal, 1983). A late Cenomanian illustration of Charentia sp. from southern France by Rineau et al. (2021) is completely unrelated to this genus – it appears to be an indeterminate, but simple trochospiral taxon.</p><p>Other relatively biostratigraphically well-constrained records from the Cenomanian include Schlagintweit &amp; Wagreich (2005) from the early Cenomanian of Austria; Simmons et al. (2020b) from the middle Cenomanian of south-east Turkey; and Aguilera-Franco (2000) from Mexico. A single specimen illustrated by Ghanem et al. (2012) from the early Cenomanian of Syria is probably C. cuvillieri but cannot be confirmed. Dr. Ian Sharp (pers. comm.) has provided the authors with a plausible illustration of C. cuvillieri from the lower Sarvak Formation of the Iranian Zagros and hence early Cenomanian in age (Bromhead et al., 2022) (see also unillustrated from the Zagros by Kiarostami et al. (2019) and Omidvar et al. (2014a, b).</p><p>Berthou (1973) recorded and illustrated this species from the early Cenomanian of Portugal, but the illustrations are poor. Rey et al. (1977) illustrated the species from what they termed late Albian strata, although based on the orbitolinids present from the same beds, the age could well be early Cenomanian at least in part (see Berthou &amp; Schroeder, 1978). Later Berthou and Lauverjat (1979) revised the range in Portugal to early Albian to top Cenomanian (unillustrated, see also Rey, 2009), and then Berthou (1984b) extended the range into the early Turonian but provided no further illustrations (see also Andrade (2018) with uncertain illustration).</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Neotethys and Caribbean.</p><p>A plausible illustrated record from the Cenomanian of the Tajik Basin (Central Asia, Kaya, 2020) represents an interesting palaeogeographic extension to the distribution of this species (see also Kaya et al., 2020). Dufaure et al. (1984) illustrated C. cuvillieri from the undifferentiated Cenomanian of Libya, close the border with Chad. It has been illustrated as Daxia cenomana from Armenia (Danelian et al., 2014) and from Tunisia (Abdallah et al., 1995) as Nummofallotia apula Luperto-Sinni (and as Charentia cf. cuvillieri) (see also unillustrated records by Bismuth et al. (1981) and Touir et al. (2017).</p><p>Additional unconfirmed (because of lack of illustration or uncertain illustration) occurrences in the Cenomanian include from Croatia and the Balkans (Husinec et al., 2000, 2009; Velić &amp; Vlahović, 1994; Velić, 2007 and Radoičić &amp; Schlagintweit, 2007); Greece (Steuber et al, 1993); Egypt (Kerdany et al., 1973; Bachmann et al., 2003; Abu-Zied, 2007; Ismail et al., 2009; Shahin &amp; Elbaz, 2013, 2014; Orabi &amp; Hamad, 2018; El Baz &amp; Khalil, 2019); Levant (Bachmann &amp; Hirsch, 2006); Spain (Cherchi &amp; Schroeder, 1982; Calonge et al., 2002, 2003; Calonge García &amp; López Carrillo, 2003; González-Fernández et al., 2004; Caus et al., 2009; Consorti, 2017; Consorti et al., 2014, 2016b; Gräfe, 2005; and Vicedo et al., 2011); Turkish Taurides (Solak et al., 2020); central Iran (Naraki et al., 2015); Mexico (Aguilera-Franco et al., 2001; Aguilera-Franco, 2003 and Omaña et al., 2019); Algeria (Laouidji &amp; Hafiani, 2021, Slami et al., 2022); southern Iraq (Mohammed, 1996); and Oman (Simmons &amp; Hart, 1987; Rabu, 1993).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFC6A231FCB6FC6EA11AC1A1	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFFBA237FCB6F8AEA427C0DB.text	03E587B6FFFBA237FCB6F8AEA427C0DB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Fleuryana gediki Solak 2020	<div><p>Fleuryana gediki Solak et al., 2020</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Solak et al. (2020), p. 19, Figs. 14 (A-E) &amp; 15.</p><p>This Turonian species (so far only known from its type locality in Turkey – Solak et al., 2020) is included herein because of its close similarity to Moncharmontia apenninica (De Castro) which can occur in the Cenomanian (see entry for that species). F. gediki is similar to M. apenninica in overall shape and structure but differs in having a single, arched slit basal aperture (see Solak et al., 2020, fig. 15G for an axial view), a thinner test wall (8 μm vs 17 μm) and fewer chambers (8, rarely 9 vs 9-10.5). It is also smaller (&lt;0.40mm) in equatorial diameter than M. apenninica (&gt; 0.40mm). In equatorial view its chambers are longer than high compared with M. apenninica’s which are shorter than high. Moncharmontia compressa (De Castro) is somewhat more compressed and lacks the well-rounded periphery. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>F. gediki differs from the type species of Fleuryana, F. adriatica De Castro, Drobne &amp; Gušić (described originally from the latest Maastrichtian of Croatia), in having a well-rounded, hemiglobular shell (cf. lenticular), fewer chambers and having the aperture in a basal position rather than central as in F. adriatica . The chambers in F. gediki are also distinctly rectangular in equatorial section. Biometric differences between F. gediki and M. apenninica &amp; F. adriatica are tabulated by Solak et al. (2020; table 2).</p><p>The “canaliculate” wall (=pseudokeriothecal) described by Solak et al. (2020) is only highlighted on 3 out of 25 illustrations in their paper and is evidently not easy to determine in the relatively thin walls of F. gediki therefore its presence remains equivocal. The definitive presence of such a feature could also call for taxonomic separation of F. gediki from the genus Fleuryana (see discussion in Schlagintweit &amp; Septfontaine (2023) for the species Siphopfenderina geyikensis (Solak)) . However, until better material becomes available this taxon can be retained in Fleuryana .</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Turonian –?Coniacian.</p><p>Reported from “ levels following the extinction of Cenomanian benthic foraminifera… in the Bornova Flysch Zone and Bey Daglari [of SW Turkey]” (Solak et al., 2020). The type locality is from Turonian strata ( Pseudocyclammina sphaeroidea Zone sensu Solak et al., 2020) but it is also known from undifferentiated Turonian – Coniacian strata in the region close to the type locality.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Central Neotethys.</p><p>So far only recorded from the Taurides of SW Turkey (Solak et al., 2020).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFFBA237FCB6F8AEA427C0DB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFFDA237FF11F86CA7B0C0B8.text	03E587B6FFFDA237FF11F86CA7B0C0B8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Moncharmontia De Castro 1967	<div><p>Genus Moncharmontia De Castro, 1967</p><p>Type Species: Neoendothyra apenninica De Castro, 1966</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFFDA237FF11F86CA7B0C0B8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFFDA235FF11F82BA1EFC33E.text	03E587B6FFFDA235FF11F82BA1EFC33E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Moncharmontia apenninica (De Castro 1966)	<div><p>Moncharmontia apenninica (De Castro, 1966)</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>[Note: also misspelled as Montcharmontia in several publications]</p><p>De Castro (1966), Figs. 5-6, Pls. I-V (not pl. III, figs. 4- 8), p. 328-333.</p><p>The original comprehensive description (De Castro, 1966, 1967) of the genus and two species ( Moncharmontia apenninica (type species) and Moncharmontia compressa De Castro) describes a planispiral (though the final whorl may be slightly irregular compared to the initial planispiral coiling), involute and biumbilicate test with a wall that consists of “one calcareous microgranular layer, apparently perforate” (i.e., pseudokeriothecal) (see also Tešović et al., 2001). The aperture is cribrate with numerous small circular openings in the middle and lower parts of the apertural face – well illustrated in thin-section examples by Chiocchini et al. (2012) and Arriaga et al. (2016). Up to ten chambers can be present in the final whorl, with up to two and half whorls present. In equatorial section, the chambers have a trapezoidal shape, and the septa are straight to slightly convex. On average, the equatorial diameter of shells with two entire whorls is 0.47 mm and the maximum thickness is 0.27 mm (Arriaga et al., 2016). See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>The genus Fleuryana is very similar but differs in by having slightly fewer chambers in the final whorl (8 cf. 9- 10), thinner walls and a single, basal aperture (Solak et al., 2020, see Appendix).</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Upper middle Cenomanian – Maastrichtian.</p><p>The FAD of M. apenninica has long been considered (e.g., Sartorio &amp; Venturini, 1988; Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1988; Moro &amp; Jelaska, 1994; Koch et al., 1998; Korbar &amp; Husinec, 2003; Velić, 2007; Sari et al., 2009; Chiocchini et al., 2012; Frijia et al., 2015; Arriaga, 2016; Arriaga et al., 2016; Özkan &amp; Altiner, 2019; Solak et al., 2020) to represent the appearance of a new taxon in the Turonian and has been related to faunal renewal after the largescale extinction event that occurred towards the end of the Cenomanian, linked to OAE2 and calibrated to the geslinianum ammonite zone (Parente et al., 2008).</p><p>Nonetheless, a plausible specimen of M. apenninica was illustrated by Bignot &amp; Poisson (1974) from undoubted Cenomanian strata in the Turkish Taurides. Moreover, plausible illustrated occurrences in Cenomanian strata were recently recorded by Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2021) from the Cenomanian part of the Sarvak Formation of the Iranian Zagros. Co-occurrence with Chrysalidina gradata, Cisalveolina fraasi and Simplalveolina simplex (Reichel) clearly points to a Cenomanian age. Also, Mohajer et al. (2021a) illustrated possible M. apenninica from the late Cenomanian part of the Sarvak Formation (and note its occurrence in the Turonian part), whilst Rikhtegarzadeh et al. (2017) mention Moncharmontia sp. from the Cenomanian part of the Sarvak, but provide no illustration.</p><p>Therefore, Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2021) have suggested the FAD of M. apenninica occurs “somewhere in the upper part of the middle Cenomanian”. They also pointed out Cenomanian occurrences in Mexico (Omaña et al. (2012, 2013) but these are not supported by illustration - see also Aguilera-Franco et al., 2001; Aguilera-Franco &amp; Romano, 2004; Aguilera-Franco &amp; Allison, 2004). There is also an illustrated, but misidentified record (possibly Biconcava bentori) (Aguilera-Franco, 2003).</p><p>Koç (2017) mention M. apenninica in association with a clearly Cenomanian foraminiferal assemblage from the Turkish Taurides. Plausible specimens are illustrated, but these may be from younger stratigraphy (the caption is unclear). Also, from the Taurides, Solak et al. (2020) describes “ Moncharmontia ? sp.” from the uppermost Cenomanian (see also Sağaltici &amp; Koç (2021) unillustrated). The specimens are almost certainly this genus, but species identification is not possible. Shanin &amp; Elbaz (2013) record the species from the Cenomanian of Sinai, but the disaggregated specimens illustrated cannot confidently be identified as this species. Another (but unillustrated) record from the Cenomanian comes from the Natih Formation of Oman by Piuz &amp; Meister (2013). Ettachfini &amp; Andreu (2004) and Ettachfini (2006) illustrate a form attributed to Moncharmontia aff. apenninica from the late Cenomanian of Morocco, but which seems more compatible with Biconcava bentori .</p><p>Records from strata attributed to the Turonian should be checked for “circular reasoning” – i.e., a Turonian lower age limit is attributed to M. apenninica (and the strata it is found in). For example, the illustrations of M. apenninica from the upper Derdere Formation of Turkey attributed to the Turonian by Özcan &amp; Altiner (2019) are reasonably plausible. However, these records co-occur with Cuneolina pavonia d’Orbigny, Nezzazata simplex Omara and Nezzazatinella picardi (Henson); all taxa that could be as old as Cenomanian (see Simmons et al., 2020b for further discussion on the age attribution of the Derdere Formation).</p><p>Similar arguments can be applied to the records by Rahimpour-Bonab et al. (2012, 2013) and Omidvar et al. (2014a, 2014b) from the Sarvak Formation in the Iranian Zagros where the presence of M. apenninica is used to infer a Turonian age. These records may be Turonian, but evidence other than the occurrence of Moncharmontia (plausibly illustrated by these authors) should be sought. Recent strontium isotope calibrated ages (Mehrabi et al., 2022a, 2022b) are helpful in this respect and suggest that some M. apenninica occurrences in the Iranian Zagros are indeed Turonian. Nonetheless, the statement by Omidvar et al. (2014a, 2014b) that M. apenninica is an index fossil for ages no older than Turonian in the Iranian Zagros is incorrect. On the other hand, there is little doubt that the local inception of M. apenninica (for example in the type area of the Italian Apennines) occurs within the Turonian (e.g., Frijia et al., 2015). It may be that as suggested by Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2021) the species arose elsewhere within the Cenomanian and migrated to the Mediterranean region in the Turonian, occupying palaeoecological niches vacant by the Cenomanian/Turonian boundary extinction event. Lack of comprehensive supporting data is an ever-present challenge to LBF biostratigraphy.</p><p>The youngest verifiable record of this species is Maastrichtian (Sinanoğlu et al., 2020; Sinanoğlu, 2021, from Turkey). However, such a long range for a single species seems unusual and there may be further study required. On the other hand, Moncharmontia may have been very well adapted to the inner platform niche in which it lived, and as a relatively simple form, persisted through environmental perturbations (see also Consorti &amp; Rashidi, 2018, for a similar example in the genus Elazigina Sirel across the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary).</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Eastern Neotethys (and?Caribbean).</p><p>There are scattered records of M. apenninica from Cenomanian strata around Neotethys. However, the only proven occurrences are from the Turkish Taurides and the Iranian Zagros. Records from Sinai, Oman and south-east Turkey are unproven or of contentious age.</p><p>Records in strata younger than Cenomanian are numerous and widespread around Neotethys.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFFDA235FF11F82BA1EFC33E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFFFA23BFCB6FB76A180C441.text	03E587B6FFFFA23BFCB6FB76A180C441.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Moncharmontia compressa (De Castro 1966)	<div><p>Moncharmontia compressa (De Castro, 1966)</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>[Note: also misspelled as Montcharmontia in several publications]</p><p>Tasli et al. (2006), Fig. 7 (J-K) for illustration.</p><p>The original comprehensive description of the genus and the two species ( M. apenninica and M. compressa) by De Castro (1966) only states two differences between the species by referring to M. compressa as having heartshaped chambers in axial view and only one row of apertural openings compared with M. apenninica . However, the test is also clearly more laterally compressed than M. apenninica and has a more subrounded to subangular periphery.</p><p>These and other differences between M. apenninica and M. compressa are tabulated and illustrated by Tešović et al. (2001) and can be summarised by M. compressa being smaller (with an equatorial diameter of &lt;0.34mm), more compressed umbilically and with a smaller proloculus (&lt;0.08mm) compared with M. apenninica . Test wall thickness is also less in M. compressa (&lt;0.012mm). M. apenninica has a well-rounded periphery (some specimens can be almost subglobular in overall shape) compared with the somewhat more subangular periphery (broad lenticular and more obviously biumbilicate) of M. compressa . Both species have similar number of chambers in the first (7-8) and second whorls (9-10). See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>The records of Fleuryana adriatica from the Turonian of SW Turkey by Solak et al. (2020) are virtually indistinguishable from those of M. compressa (De Castro) . The only taxonomic difference between the two is that F. adriatica has a single apertural slit whereas M. compressa has a single row of apertural openings. This may be extremely difficult to see in thin section views. F. adriatica also ranges to the Maastrichtian and more work needs to be done to establish the degree of separation of these two taxa. Koch et al. (1998) have provided more compelling illustrations of F. adriatica from Turonian strata.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Early Cenomanian? – Maastrichtian.</p><p>Most plausible and definite illustrated records of M. compressa are confined to post-Cenomanian strata, ranging up into the Maastrichtian (Sinanoğlu, 2021, from Turkey). An illustrated form attributed to M. apenninica was recorded from the early Cenomanian of Syria (Ghanem et al., 2012) but the illustration has characteristics closer to M. compressa . Solak et al. (2017) illustrate a form they describe as “ Moncharmontia (?) sp.” from the mid- late Cenomanian of the Turkish Taurides. From the material illustrated this might be M. compressa or B. bentori .</p><p>Unillustrated records from the Cenomanian include from the Natih Formation of Oman by Piuz &amp; Meister (2013) and Piuz et al. (2014). Berthou &amp; Lauverjat (1979) record a form they term “ Moncharmontia (?) cf. apenninica compressa ” from the late Albian of Portugal. However, they provide no illustration.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Probably Eastern Neotethys.</p><p>Records of M. compressa from Cenomanian strata are all uncertain. The species is more widely and confidently reported from younger stratigraphy.</p><p>Cenomanian “cyclamminids”</p><p>As throughout much of the Jurassic and Cretaceous, Cenomanian shallow-water carbonate platform sedimentary rocks (including marls) often contain relatively large, planispiral agglutinating foraminifera with alveolar walls. These are included in genera such as Pseudocyclammina Yabe &amp; Hanzawa, Buccicrenata Loeblich &amp; Tappan, and Hemicyclammina Maync, and can informally be termed “cyclamminids”, although their higher- level classification continues to be debated (e.g., Mikhalevich 2004a &amp; b; Kaminski, 2014; Albrich et al., 2015 and see above). Despite records of such taxa being known for several decades, there remains uncertainty on the precise identity and taxonomy of some of the genera involved, and a thorough taxonomic revision is required that is outside the scope of this primarily biostratigraphic review.</p><p>The genus Hemicyclammina has recently been revised by Simmons &amp; Bidgood (2022). That review is summarised herein, with a small amount of additional information that has come to light subsequently. More problematic are Buccicrenata and Pseudocyclammina and the species assigned to these genera. Further complications are introduced in that it is not always possible to see key features such as the nature of the aperture in random thin-sections, with even the presence of an alveolar wall sometimes being doubtful, especially in coarsely agglutinating specimens. Certainly, there are occurrences of Pseudocyclammina and Buccicrenata reported in the literature that would be better assigned to the non-alveolar walled genera Ammobaculites Cushman or Lituola Lamarck. On the other hand, disaggregated, three-dimensional specimens will not show critical internal features.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFFFA23BFCB6FB76A180C441	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFF1A23BFCB6FCE2A6BCC4C5.text	03E587B6FFF1A23BFCB6FCE2A6BCC4C5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Buccicrenata Loeblich & Tappan 1949	<div><p>Genus Buccicrenata Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1949</p><p>Type Species: Ammobaculites subgoodlandensis Vanderpool, 1933</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFF1A23BFCB6FCE2A6BCC4C5	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFF1A238FCB6FC41A4C8C4A7.text	03E587B6FFF1A238FCB6FC41A4C8C4A7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Buccicrenata (Vanderpool 1933) Loeblich & Tappan 1949	<div><p>Buccicrenata ex. gr. subgoodlandensis (Vanderpool, 1933)</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Loeblich and Tappan (1985) p. 100, pl. 2, figs. 4-10.</p><p>Filkorn &amp; Scott (2011) provide a recent review of Buccicrenata subgoodlandensis whilst reporting on its occurrence in the Albian of Mexico. The genus Buccicrenata was introduced by Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1949) with the type species being Ammobaculites subgoodlandensis Vanderpool. The possible alveolar nature of the wall of this species was doubted by Maync (1952, 1955), but mentioned and illustrated by Gohrbandt (1966) for his new species Buccicrenata libyca, and eventually proven for B. subgoodlandensis by Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1985). However, these authors (see also Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1988) suggested that the septa were not alveolar, an observation that has been contested by Banner &amp; Highton (1990), BouDagher-Fadel (2001) and BouDagher-Fadel et al. (2017). The presence of alveolar septa distinguishes Buccicrenata from Everticyclammina Redmond. Note that if the septa of Buccicrenata are proved to be non-alveolar, it would be the senior synonym of Everticyclammina, unless other differences can be identified. Similar to Pseudocyclammina, the alveoles in the wall of Buccicrenata are broad, can bifurcate, and are widely spaced compared to, for example, Choffatella Schlumberger. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>If both the wall and septa are alveolar as seems likely, then the key difference between Buccicrenata and Pseudocyclammina is the nature of the aperture, which is cribrate in Pseudocyclammina, but a single sinuous slit with projections in Buccicrenata (Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1949) . However, this feature is not always clear in thin-sections and BouDagher-Fadel (2001) noted that the sinuous nature of the slit aperture of Buccicrenata means that oblique cuts in thin-section can give the impression of multiple apertures being present. This illustrates a general challenge to LBF biostratigraphy in that access to good-quality material in thin section is desirable, but not always possible. Arnaud-Vanneau (1980) suggested that for Everticyclammina hedbergi (Maync) (= Buccicrenata hedbergi) the aperture varies with generation: a terminal slit in microspheric forms, and occasionally multiple in macrospheric forms. Her illustrations (hand drawn, external views of disaggregated specimens; fig. 178 on page 491) do not confirm this unequivocally but examination of more/better material may help with clarification. However, this somewhat controversial opinion has not been followed-up by subsequent workers. A practical distinction between Buccicrenata and Pseudocyclammina is the distinctive reniform shape of the chambers in Buccicrenata caused by the septa being continuous, smooth outgrowths of the chamber wall. All mid-Cretaceous species of Buccicrenata show a distinctive lobate, almost notched profile in equatorial view and can (as can Pseudocyclammina) have an uncoiled, rectilinear terminal stage. In Buccicrenata, the chambers are rapidly enlarging, whilst in Pseudocyclammina the chambers enlarge more slowly. Three species of Buccicrenata have been described from the mid-Cretaceous (see BouDagher-Fadel, 2001 for discussion of older species). These are B. hedbergi, B. subgoodlandensis, and B. libyca . B. hedbergi was first described as Pseudocyclammina hedbergi by Maync (1953a) from the Aptian-Albian of Venezuela; B. subgoodlandensis was first described from Albian strata in Oklahoma, USA (Vanderpool, 1933) with topotypes illustrated and described by Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1949, 1985) (note that in the 1949 publication it is arguable that alongside juvenile forms, more than one adult species is shown given the variations in chamber morphology); and B. libyca was first described from Cenomanian strata in Libya (Gohrbandt, 1966). All three species are remarkably similar (Table 2) in dimensions, shape, number of chambers, tendency to uncoil, and nature of the alveolar wall, such that pending detailed taxonomic studies, these species can be considered under the single name “ Buccicrenata ex. gr. subgoodlandensis ” when identifying random thin-section material. Indeed, Banner &amp; Highton (1990) suggested that B. libyca was a junior synonym of B. hedbergi . BouDagher-Fadel (2001) maintained three separate species but noted there were great similarities between them. Of the three species that fall within this grouping, it is B. hedbergi that is the most widely reported. Although the nature of the aperture of this species was not reported in its type description (Maync, 1953a), the illustrations presented suggest that it is a single slit and that it should be regarded as a species of Buccicrenata as noted by Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1985). There are also records of Everticyclammina virguliana (Koechlin) that are in fact B. ex. gr. subgoodlandensis (e.g., Gušić, 1975).</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Early Cretaceous – latest (?) Cenomanian.</p><p>The inclusion of B. hedbergi forms within the taxonomic grouping here places its inception within the Early Cretaceous (e.g., Simmons &amp; Hart, 1987 – see also for an illustration of B. ex. gr. subgoodlandensis from the late Albian of the Oman Mountains, and possibly from the Cenomanian as “ Buccicrenata? rugosa ”). For the purpose of this Cenomanian stratigraphic review, there are relatively few records under any plausible name, and even fewer with biostratigraphic calibration, meaning that its range within the Cenomanian is difficult to determine. Note that there are records of P. rugosa that are in fact B. ex. gr. subgoodlandensis, as noted herein.</p><p>Confirmed illustrated Cenomanian records of B. ex. gr. subgoodlandensis include the type description of B. libyca from Libya (association with Praealveolina tenuis Reichel suggests a middle – late Cenomanian age (Calonge et al., 2002); Pseudocyclammina cf. hedbergi from Libya (Banner, 1966, 1970); Pseudocyclammina aff. hedbergi from Abu Dhabi (Banner, 1966, 1970); P. hedbergi from Jordan (Weidich &amp; Al Harithi, 1990, see also Basha, 1978 for an unillustrated record of B. subgoodlandensis); Buccicrenata aff. hedbergi and possibly P. rugosa from Portugal (Andrade, 2018); and B. hedbergi from the middle Cenomanian (and older) sediments of north Somalia (Luger, 2018). Also recorded and illustrated as Pseudocyclammina cf. rugosa from the Cenomanian of the Iranian Zagros (Kalantari, 1976) and Israel (Hamaoui, 1965; Arkin &amp; Hamaoui, 1967); illustrated as Pseudocyclammina sp. from south-eastern Turkey (Özkan &amp; Altiner, 2019); and as P. rugosa from Serbia (Radoičić, 1974a).</p><p>An illustrated record from the Coniacian of Egypt (Ismail &amp; Soliman, 1997) cannot be confirmed as being of this species as the external view is non-diagnostic.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Neotethys.</p><p>In addition to the confirmed illustrated records noted above, B. subgoodlandensis is said to be abundant in the early Cenomanian of Sinai (Ayyad et al., 1997) but the illustrations are of disaggregated specimens only which precludes confident identification. Reports of B. libyca from Sinai and the Gulf of Suez are either not illustrated (El Baz &amp; Khalil, 2019) or illustrated by disaggregated specimens (Shahin &amp; El Baz, 2013, 2021) that are indeterminate. Illustrations of Pseudocyclammina lituus Yokoyama and Pseudocyclammina massiliensis Maync from the same Cenomanian strata are likely to be misidentifications (they are not typical Cenomanian taxa) and in any case cannot be confirmed from the disaggregated specimens presented. Records of B. subgoodlandensi s from the Cenomanian without illustration include from Spain (Ramirez del Pozo, 1972). B. hedbergi is reported but not illustrated from the early Cenomanian of Jordan (Schulze et al., 2004) and the Cenomanian of Kuwait (Youssef et al., 2019).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFF1A238FCB6FC41A4C8C4A7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFF2A238FF11FBC1A7F6C31B.text	03E587B6FFF2A238FF11FBC1A7F6C31B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudocyclammina Yabe & Hanzawa 1926	<div><p>Genus Pseudocyclammina Yabe &amp; Hanzawa, 1926</p><p>Type Species: Cyclammina lituus Yokoyama, 1890</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFF2A238FF11FBC1A7F6C31B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFF2A23EFF11FB8FA63BC460.text	03E587B6FFF2A23EFF11FB8FA63BC460.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudocyclammina rugosa (d'Orbigny 1850)	<div><p>Pseudocyclammina rugosa (d’Orbigny, 1850)</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Maync (1952), Pl. 12, figs. 6-10, p. 50 and Maync (1959a), Pl. 1, figs. 10-15.</p><p>Pseudocyclammina is a well-established genus, occurring throughout the Jurassic and Cretaceous, and well known from its type species, P. lituus, which can be common in suitable Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous facies from a number of locations across Tethys (e.g., Maync, 1959a; Banner, 1970; Kobayashi &amp; Vuks, 2006). The test of Pseudocyclammina is typically a subspherical planispire, with relatively thick alveolar walls and septa. There is often an uncoiled stage. The aperture is cribrate (which distinguishes it from Buccicrenata). Pseudocyclammina typically lacks the rapidly enlarging chambers and lobate equatorial profile of Buccicrenata . The alveoles are broad and less crowded than in Choffatella and similar genera.</p><p>The typical Cenomanian representative of the genus is P. rugosa, that despite illustration by Maync (1952, 1959a) remains poorly known. Lituola rugosa was introduced by d’Orbigny (1850) with a very short entry in a list of Cenomanian foraminifera, and there is no illustration. Maync (1952, 1959a) illustrated topotype specimens from the Cenomanian of Charente, France (see also BouDagher-Fadel et al., 2017) and discussed elements of the taxonomy (including his justification for placing the species in Pseudocyclammina) and differences with similar taxa.</p><p>P. rugosa appears to be relatively large (0.8 – 4.3 mm in external diameter of the coiled whorl according to Maync (1959a) although illustrations in Maync (1952, 1959a) indicate maximum diameter, including uncoiled to be 4.78 – 6.0 mm) and this, together with a large chamber height, strongly curved thick septa, a rounded periphery, a relatively large axial thickness (0.7-2.3 mm) (diameter – thickness ratio 1 – 1.9, typically 1.4) and 5-7 chambers in the last whorl serve to distinguish it from other species of Pseudocyclammina and indeed Buccicrenata . Wall thickness in P. rugosa is 0.17 – 0.50 mm. 2-3 uncoiled final chambers can occur in both P. rugosa and B. ex. gr. subgoodlandensis . See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>Sampò (1969) illustrated a Pseudocyclammina from the Cenomanian of the Iranian Zagros as “ Cyclammina sp. (?)”. This relatively small form (external diameter 1.2 mm) with numerous chambers in the final whorl (in an approximately similar manner to the Late Cretaceous species Pseudocyclammina sphaeroidea Gendrot, see, for example, Schlagintweit, 1992) has been occasionally illustrated as P. rugosa in other publications on the Cenomanian Sarvak Formation of the Iranian Zagros (e.g., possibly Esfandyari et al., 2023). This form has new been described as a new species – Pseudocyclammina sarvakensis – by Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2023) (see below).</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Albian – latest (?) Cenomanian.</p><p>Neumann et al. (1974) indicated that at its type locality, the species has a middle – late Cenomanian range. Rey et al. (1977) and Saint-Marc (1981) suggested that across Neotethys, this species ranges throughout the Albian and Cenomanian (see also Crosaz-Galletti, 1979), but in practice, despite many published occurrences, there are very few records of this species that have both plausible illustrations and precise biostratigraphic calibration. Its stratigraphic range may be confused by misidentification of, for example, Buccicrenata ex gr. subgoodlandensis .</p><p>Regarding its distribution within the Cenomanian, Bilotte (1973, 1985) illustrated plausible specimens from the Pyrenees and indicated that the species ranges throughout the Albian and Cenomanian in that region. Simmons et al. (2020b) illustrated a probable specimen of P. rugosa from the middle Cenomanian of south-east Turkey. However, a single axial specimen precludes confident identification.</p><p>The Cenomanian record of Kalantari (1976) is of B. ex. gr. subgoodlandensis, likewise the Albian record from the Zagros of Sampò (1969). Illustrated records from the late Cenomanian of Mexico (Aguilera-Franco, 2003; Omaña et al., 2013) are most likely of Ammobaculites sp. (see also unillustrated record by Aguilera-Franco et al., 2001). Some illustrated records from the Cenomanian of Portugal (Berthou, 1973; Boavida, 2013; Andrade, 2018), appear to be more compatible with B. ex. gr. subgoodlandensi s or cannot be confirmed as P. rugosa . Illustrated records from the Late Cenomanian of Morocco (Ettachfini, 1993, 2006; Ettachfini &amp; Andreu, 2004) appear to be of Ammobaculites / Lituola sp., B. ex. gr. subgoodlandensis, or are indeterminate.</p><p>A form named as Pseudocyclammina cf. rugosa from the Cenomanian of Tunisia (Bismuth et al., 1967) is small and its identity unclear (see also Bismuth et al., 1981 for an unillustrated record). Likewise, the records of relatively small “ P. rugosa ” from the Cenomanian of Armenia (Danelian et al., 2014).</p><p>Illustrated records from the Aptian or older (e.g., Kalantari, 1976; Afghah &amp; Haghighi, 2014 from the Iranian Zagros) are not this species (that of Afghah &amp; Haghighi, 2014 = Ammobaculites sp. or Lituola sp.), and unillustrated records from Aptian and older strata (e.g., Habibnia et al., 2010; Mansouri-Daneshvar et al., 2015; Afghah et al., 2016) should be treated with caution.</p><p>An unillustrated report from the Coniacian – Maastrichtian of Spain (Gräfe, 2005) should most likely be regarded as erroneous.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Western Mediterranean –?Arabian Plate within Neotethys.</p><p>As can be understood from the limited number of confirmed records mentioned above, the paleogeographic distribution of this species is hard to determine. It has been described without illustration from the Albian – top Cenomanian of Lebanon (Saint-Marc, 1970, 1974a, 1980, 1981); the early Cenomanian of the Dinarides (Velić, 2007); the middle and late Cenomanian of Tunisia (Abdallah et al., 1995; Touir et al., 2017); the middle – late Cenomanian of southern Iraq (Al-Dulaimy et al., 2022); the Sarvak Formation of the Iranian Zagros (Omidvar et al., 2014a, b; Assadi et al., 2016; Navidtalab et al., 2020; Ashgari et al., 2022); Provence (Babinot et al., 1988); early Albian – top Cenomanian of Portugal (Rey et al., 1977; Berthou &amp; Schroeder, 1978; Berthou &amp; Lauverjat, 1979; Crosaz-Galletti, 1979; Rey, 1979); Aquitaine (Deloffre &amp; Hamaoui, 1979); Syria (Mouty et al., 2003); and Kuwait (El-Naggar &amp; Al-Rifaiy, 1973). An illustration from the Cenomanian of Greece is unclear (Decrouez, 1978). A specimen illustrated as “ Buccicrenata? rugosa ” from the early Cenomanian of the Oman Mountains (Simmons &amp; Hart, 1987) is not clearly this species (it may be Buccicrenata ex. grp. subgoodlandensis), whilst unillustrated P. rugosa has been mentioned from the late Cenomanian of the Oman Mountains (Rabu, 1993).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFF2A23EFF11FB8FA63BC460	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFF4A23CFCB6FC83A4B9C671.text	03E587B6FFF4A23CFCB6FC83A4B9C671.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudocyclammina sarvakensis Schlagintweit & Yazdi-Moghadam 2023	<div><p>Pseudocyclammina sarvakensis Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam, 2023</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2023), Fig. 4 a-g, p. 7.</p><p>A very recently described new species from the Sarvak Formation of the Iranian Zagros, P. sarvakensis is distinguished from all previously described Pseudocyclammina species by the relatively larger number of chambers (14- 16) in the final whorl. It has been sometimes conflated with P. rugosa in the Cenomanian literature (the only other Cenomanian pseudocyclamminid), but Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam’s (2023) illustrated, and newlydescribed material provides clear reason for separation. It is also smaller than P. rugosa (max diameter 1.35mm cf. 3.1-3.8mm) and no specimen of P. sarvakensis has so far been observed to uncoil. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>These authors consider occurrences recorded elsewhere in the Iranian Zagros by Sampò (1969) (as Cyclammina sp.), and by Omidi et al. (2018) and Esfandyari et al. (2023) (as P. rugosa) to be P. sarvakensis .</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Middle - late Cenomanian.</p><p>Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2023) recorded P. sarvakensis from the lowermost part of their middle – late Cenomanian interval of the Sarvak Formation of SW Iran. Omidi et al.’s (2018) records of P. rugosa (= P. sarvakensis see above) come from the mid – upper parts of their Cenomanian interval. Esfandyari et al. (2023) recorded P. rugose (sic) (= P. sarvakensis see above) from the Sarvak Formation but with no age indication given.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Eastern Neotethys.</p><p>All confirmed occurrences occur in the Zagros region of Iran only (see references above).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFF4A23CFCB6FC83A4B9C671	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFF6A23CFF11FEB2A4B0C6F4.text	03E587B6FFF6A23CFF11FEB2A4B0C6F4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hemicyclammina Maync 1953	<div><p>Genus Hemicyclammina Maync 1953b</p><p>Type species Cyclammina whitei Henson 1948 (= Hemicyclammina sigali Maync 1953b)</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFF6A23CFF11FEB2A4B0C6F4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFF6A222FF11FE1EA766C4E4.text	03E587B6FFF6A222FF11FE1EA766C4E4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hemicyclammina whitei (Henson 1948)	<div><p>Hemicyclammina whitei (Henson, 1948)</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Simmons &amp; Bidgood (2022) p. 27-30, figs. 1-4.</p><p>The status of H. whitei with respect to its senior synonymy with H. sigali Maync and a number of other taxa have been discussed by Simmons &amp; Bidgood (2022). They noted that when Maync (1953b) introduced the genus Hemicyclammina, he was seemingly unaware of the publication of Henson (1948) that introduced “ Cyclammina whitei ”. Examination of type and associated material indicates that this species is identical to H. sigali and thus should be regarded as the type species of the genus. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>The alveolar nature of the wall but with solid, pointed septa which do not reach the previous whorl in equatorial section is characteristic. The solid (“semi-” or “hemi-”) septa serve to distinguish the genus from Buccicrenata with alveolar septa which are continuous outgrowths of the alveolar chamber wall. Pseudocyclammina is also similar but in addition to alveolar septa also has multiple apertures compared to the single slit of Hemicyclammina . Everticyclammina Redmond (Late Jurassic – Early Cretaceous) is very similar in almost every respect, but its aperture is areal rather than extending upwards from the base as in Hemicyclammina and which is also rather large, resulting in shorter septa. The poorly known genus Alveocyclammina Hillebrandt from the lower Albian of Peru (Hillebrandt, 1971) is also similar possessing an alveolar wall, but its septa are also alveolar and appear to be very short.</p><p>The following poorly known taxa are considered by Simmons &amp; Bidgood (2022) to be probable synonyms of H. whitei: Hemicyclammina evoluta Hamaoui, Ismailia neumannae El-Dakkak, and Sinainella aegyptiaca El-Dakkak. I. neumannae continues to be a name used in the Egyptian literature for specimens that might be H. whitei, although with external views that are not diagnostic (e.g., Shahin &amp; El Baz, 2021). A specimen illustrated from the late Cenomanian of Egypt as Charentia cuvillieri Neumann by El-Sheikh and Hewaidy (1998) looks close to H. whitei .</p><p>Charentia hasaensis Basha, Charentia rummanensis Basha and Lituola hasaensis Basha are poorly known species introduced from material from the late Cenomanian of Jordan (Basha, 1978). From the limited illustrations they may be partly synonymous with H. whitei . The type material needs to be re-examined. The same author reports but does not illustrate C. cuvillieri from the same rocks as his new species and he also reports the occurrence of H. sigali and H. whitei, but without illustration. Likewise, Charentia granulosa Kerdany &amp; Eissa, described from the late Cenomanian of Egypt (Kerdany et al., 1973), may include H. whitei amongst its types.</p><p>Dimitrova (1995) described “ Pseudonummoloculina sp. ” from the Cenomanian of Bulgaria and compared it to P. aurigerica . However, her illustration appears to have closer affinity to H. whitei .</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Early Albian – intra-Late Cenomanian.</p><p>Simmons &amp; Bidgood (2022) have reviewed the stratigraphic distribution of H. whitei and its common synonym H. sigali . H. whitei was first described (Henson, 1948) from the Dukhan-3 well in Qatar at a depth of 3542-3543’. Although said to be “probably early Cenomanian”, this depth equates to the Mauddud/Nahr Umr Formation boundary and is of latest Albian age (Bromhead et al., 2022). Henson (1948) also recorded the species from the Nahr Umr Formation at Rumaila- 1 in Iraq, suggestive of an Albian age (Aqrawi et al., 2010). The type material of H. sigali is from the middle Cenomanian of Algeria (Maync, 1953b).</p><p>Records commonly show a general composited Albian-Cenomanian age range. See, for example: Ansary et al. (1962); Wynd (1965); Sampò (1969); Kalantari (1992); Shirazi (2009); Shirazi et al. (2011); Omidvar et al. (2014a, b) from the Iranian Zagros; Saint-Marc (1970, 1974 a, 1981) from Lebanon; Simmons &amp; Hart (1987), Forbes et al. (2010) from Oman; and general summaries by Saint-Marc (1977); Sartorio &amp; Venturini (1988), and Schroeder et al. (2010). Statements that the species does not range above the Albian (e.g., Afghah &amp; Dookh, 2014) should be discounted at both a local and inter-regional level.</p><p>Hart et al. (2005) recorded H. sigali (= H. whitei) from strata in Portugal confidently assigned to the guerangeri and geslinianum ammonite zones of the late Cenomanian, following earlier records by Berthou (1973); Lauverjat (1976) and Crosaz-Galletti (1979). Saint-Marc (1981) reported the species from latest Cenomanian strata in Lebanon with the ammonites Eucalycoceras palaestinense (Blackenhorn) and Protacanthoceras angolaense (Spath) and planktonic foraminifera Helvetoglobotruncana praehelvetica (Trujillo) and Whiteinella spp. These records confer an upper range age limit of intra-late Cenomanian.</p><p>Pre-Albian records of the species are believed to be of a potentially ancestral form (“ Hemicyclammina ? sp.”) and include those of Hosseini et al. (2016) who illustrate material under the name H. sigali from the Barremian Gadvan Formation of the Iranian Zagros. However, the specimens are very small (0.2 – 0.3 mm in diameter), and the presence of an alveolar wall is not demonstrated.</p><p>A similar, slight larger (0.3 mm diameter) specimen has been illustrated by Özkan and Altiner (2019) from the early Aptian of south-east Turkey as “ Hemicyclammina ? sp.”.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Broadly across Neotethys, the Atlantic and the Caribbean. H. whitei has a broad palaeogeographic distribution across Neotethys and seemed to thrive in marly sediments deposited on middle – outer shelves. Confirmed records in addition to those previously mentioned above include from Brazil (Berthou &amp; Bengtson, 1988); Mexico (Omaña et al., 2019); Morocco (Andreu et al., 1996); Turkey (Bignot &amp; Poisson, 1974); Jordan (Weidich &amp; Al-Harithi, 1990); Saudi Arabia (Dr. Wyn Hughes, pers. comm., 2022); Abu Dhabi (Banner, 1970), and Somalia (Luger, 2018). Unillustrated records are known from numerous intermediate locations (Pyrenees – Peybernès, 1984; Tunisia – Robaszynski et al., 2010; Libya – Megerisi &amp; Mamgain, 1980; Italy – Simone et al., 2012; Croatia – Husinec et al., 2000; Serbia – Radoičić and Schlagintweit, 2007; Kuwait – Youssef et al., 2019), and possibly Tibet (BouDagher-Fadel et al., 2017).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFF6A222FF11FE1EA766C4E4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFE8A222FF11FC0FA78CC359.text	03E587B6FFE8A222FF11FC0FA78CC359.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Reissella Hamaoui 1963	<div><p>Genus Reissella Hamaoui, 1963</p><p>Type Species: Reissella ramonensis Hamaoui, 1963</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFE8A222FF11FC0FA78CC359	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFE8A220FF11FBCAA712C235.text	03E587B6FFE8A220FF11FBCAA712C235.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Reissella ramonensis Hamaoui 1963	<div><p>Reissella ramonensis Hamaoui, 1963</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Hamaoui (1963), p. 62-64, pl. 1 (1-13), fig. 1.</p><p>This is a small but internally complex species with a taxonomically uncertain status. It is planispiral becoming flaring (to “peneropliform”), with chambers incompletely divided internally by (1) primary and (2) secondary “vertical subepidermal partitions” and (3) “horizontal partitions” (respectively (1) “beams”, (2) “intercalary beams” and (3) “rafters” sensu Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1985 and Hottinger 2006) which continue between septa. These form an internal mesh described by Hamaoui, 1963, as a “regular, pigeon-hole (honey-comb) pattern”, apparently following the terminology used by Henson (1948).</p><p>The main aperture in Reissella is basal in the apertural face in earlier chambers and progresses to the middle of the face in later chambers where it is projected on a short neck. It is surrounded by numerous, smaller, supplementary apertures. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>A “subepidermal pigeon- hole” pattern is now referred to as a “polygonal subepidermal network” and is a feature not observed in living foraminifera (Hottinger 2006). Hottinger goes on to state that…</p><p>“ The extremely thin, often transparent epiderm in agglutinated foraminifera suggests, that the polygonal network is a device to keep symbionts exposed to light and in the immediate vicinity of the location where gas exchange through the shell should be enhanced by particular, porous textures.”</p><p>This may be the case for larger agglutinated foraminifera such as the orbitolinids. However, the small overall size of this species (&lt;1mm) suggests that these are perhaps not cells for photosymbionts in which case their exact function is unknown. The primary partitions do not reach the middle of the chamber and the secondary and horizontal partitions are even more limited to the marginal area.</p><p>Although regarded as agglutinated and classified accordingly (Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1988, Mikhalevich 2004b; Kaminski, 2004, 2014) there remains questions about the exact nature of the wall of Reissella and that it may have “possibly” originally been porcelaneous (Hamaoui, 1963). This would place Reissella in the Soritids (i.e., “probably the Peneroplidae ” according to Hamaoui 1963). However, Hamaoui (1963) also states that the main areal aperture surrounded by supplementary apertures, and the presence of secondary radial subepidermal horizontal partitions (which are parallel to the septa) would be considered unusual features for a Peneropolid and was more typically “lituolid” following the concept of the latter by Smout (1963). Nevertheless, examination of the type illustrations in Hamaoui (1963) cannot remove a suspicion that Reissella is a soritid although its general similarity with the soritid Pseudorhipidionina casertana (see below) is perhaps superficial. The higher taxonomic classification of this taxon (Family level and above) remains an enigma.</p><p>De Castro (1981) and De Castro in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) remarked on the similarity between P. casertana and R. ramonensis with the former lacking the ‘rafters’ element of the polygonal subepidermal network. P. casertana also appears to have a greater tendency to fully uncoil compared with R. ramonensis . However, P. casertana and R. ramonensis are also remarked upon regarding their similarities in stratigraphic and ecological distribution (De Castro, 1981).</p><p>In the original description (Hamaoui 1963) no thin-section examples are shown with only light-microscope photographs and schematic drawings provided. The form illustrated in thin-section as R. ramonensis by Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc (1970: pl. 40, fig. 8) from the late Cenomanian of Lebanon strangely does not appear to conform to the concept of the original description and lacks the “peneropolid- like” appearance. It appears to tend towards the concept of P. casertana . In other illustrations by Hamaoui (1966), De Castro (1981) notes that one illustration (pl. 3, fig. 6) looks very similar to P. casertana .</p><p>In summary, considering morphological, stratigraphic and ecological similarities, the taxonomic relationship between Reissella ramonensis Hamaoui (1963) and Pseudorhipidionina casertana (De Castro 1965) may be synonymous in which case the former name would take priority. However, there are subtle differences although such differences may not be easy to determine except in good quality thin-section examples. The two taxa may be micro- and macro-spheric forms of the same species. On the other hand, the differences in wall composition (if confirmed and maintained) indicates clear taxonomic separation with R. ramonensis being the agglutinated isomorph of P. casertana (the position tentatively adopted here).</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Late Cenomanian.</p><p>Hamaoui’s original description from Israel (Hamaoui 1963) indicates his specimens were recorded from unnamed clays of the Judea Limestone Group, dated as late Cenomanian based on associated microfaunas. Arkin and Hamaoui (1967) confirmed an approximate late Cenomanian age.</p><p>It was subsequently reported (though poorly illustrated) by Hamaoui (1965) from the Hazera Formation of Israel. Lipson-Benitah (2009) reported this as “in association with” the planktonic foraminifera Helvetoglobotruncana helvetica (Bolli) which – she stated – therefore conferred a middle Turonian youngest age for R. ramonensis . However, the only occurrences of R. ramonensis positively identified by Hamaoui were recorded below the lowest occurrence of H. helvetica . It is also possible that Hamaoui (1965) was using an outdated concept of H. helvetica and may have in fact recorded H. praehelvetica which ranges down into the late Cenomanian.</p><p>“ Reissella sp ” was described from the Albian of Turkey by Solak et al. (2021). This might be ancestral to R. ramonensis or the Pseudorhipidionina group.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Central Neotethys.</p><p>Limited distribution, confirmed by illustration from Israel and unconfirmed from undifferentiated Cenomanian – Turonian strata of Crete by Leppig (1976).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFE8A220FF11FBCAA712C235	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFEAA220FF11FA7FA580C148.text	03E587B6FFEAA220FF11FA7FA580C148.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Spirocyclina Munier-Chalmas 1887	<div><p>Genus Spirocyclina Munier-Chalmas, 1887</p><p>Type Species: Spirocyclina choffati Munier-Chalmas, 1887</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFEAA220FF11FA7FA580C148	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFEAA225FF11F9DAA4AFC095.text	03E587B6FFEAA225FF11F9DAA4AFC095.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Spirocyclina atlasica Saint-Marc & Rahhali 1982	<div><p>Spirocyclina atlasica Saint-Marc &amp; Rahhali, 1982</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Saint-Marc &amp; Rahhali (1982), p. 134-136, pls. 1-2.</p><p>The genus Spirocyclina has a rather scattered stratigraphic distribution from the Late Jurassic (Kimmeridgian) to the Late Cretaceous (Santonian) (see Maync, 1959b, for a review up to that date and an emended redescription of the type species and the genus). However, it had not been recorded from the Cenomanian (and the mid-Cretaceous as a whole) until Saint-Marc &amp; Rahhali (1982) described a new species, S. atlasica, from the Late Cenomanian of the Moroccan Atlas.</p><p>It is assigned to the Spirocyclinidae (Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1988; Kaminski, 2014) together with Reissella and others. Saint-Marc &amp; Rahhali’s figures (1982) show a form about 1.4mm across which is a symmetrically flattened planispiral, but which uncoils in a distinctly, almost dramatically, peneropliform style. The generic characteristic of a double row of pores in the apertural face (which can increase to three rows in the later/final stage) is visible in suitably oriented thin-section. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>Saint-Marc &amp; Rahhali (1982) remark on the similarity between Spirocyclina and the Late Cretaceous genus Sornayina Marie. The latter genus forms a slightly more asymmetrical planispiral, has a lesser tendency to uncoil, and has a more randomly scattered cribrate aperture and a much more acute periphery.</p><p>Reissella ramonensis differs in not being as flattened as S. atlasica . It also has a single main aperture with smaller secondary pores scattered across the apertural face, rather than two rows of openings.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Late Cenomanian.</p><p>Saint-Marc &amp; Rahhali (1982) recorded S. atlasica from the late Cenomanian of Morocco. Further illustrated late Cenomanian Moroccan records are provided by Ettachfini (1993, 2006); Charrière et al. (1998), and Ettachfini et al. (2005), along with unillustrated records (e.g., Ciszak et al., 1999).</p><p>The record of Spirocyclina sp. from the late Cenomanian of SE France by Rineau et al. (2021) appears to be better referred to Pseudorhapydionina dubia .</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>North Africa.</p><p>In addition to the records from various parts of Morocco discussed above, the species is plausibly illustrated from Libya (Dufaure et al., 1984) where its presence is used to infer a late Cenomanian age for the strata it occurs in.</p><p>Cenomanian ‘nummoloculinids’</p><p>Of all the taxa discussed in this review, the ‘nummolculinids’ exemplify the issues to be overcome in establishing an understanding of stratigraphic and palaeogeographic distribution of taxa. The identity of species is uncertain or disputed, names have been used as “buckets”, no matter if material is sufficent for identification, or, more often, if it is not. This was recognised by Radoičić (1978), and more recently by Schlagintweit (2008) and Piuz &amp; Vicedo (2020). Of the 150 or so papers that we know of that mention Cenomanian ‘nummoloculinids’, the majority lack illustration to confirm identification, notwithstanding the difficulties in doing so. The inevitable end-result is a smearing of ranges. Furthermore, single random sections of nummoloulinds may be confused with other taxa that show some broad similarities in coiling mode (and vice versa).</p><p>These include genera such as Vidalina Schlumberger, Spiroloculina d’Orbigny, Idalina Schlumberger &amp; Munier-Chalmas, alveolinids such as Ovalveolina Reichel and Cisalveolina Reichel, and also inlcudes the Lower Cretaceous Derventina Neagu (see for example Arnaud-Vanneau 1980, pl. 86 and Schlagintweit, 1991).</p><p>The Cretaceous (Albian - Cenomanian) ‘nummoloculinids’ are a group of broadly similar miliolids whose taxonomy, with some exceptions, remains unstabilised but which have frequently been associated with the Neogene genus Nummoloculina in the literature. Six “taxa” in three, possibly more, genera are included here. The authors feel that treating them together is a useful way of discussing their similarities/differences and their stratigraphic and paleogeographic distribution, although a full taxonomic review is necessary.</p><p>As noted above, the literature for this group is fairly extensive but suffers from a lack of suitably oriented specimens by which critical diagnostic features are visible. It is not uncommon to see views of tens of specimens with only a few showing some diagnostic features and very few (if any) showing all diagnostic features together.</p><p>The more-or-less common feature of the group is that they are miliolids (unlike all other taxa in this work) and are planispirally (or nearly so) coiled in the adult stage, hence their inclusion in this work. However, their early stages (after the proloculus) can be variously planispiral, streptospiral or milioline (up to quinqueloculine). The size of the early post-prolocular stage and the point of its transition to the planispiral or near-planispiral, adult stage can vary, especially between micro- and macrospheric generations. They can vary in external shape from a broad, rounded disc to almost spherical in overall form, and their apertures can also vary as can some internal features. This makes separation of species often extremely difficult.</p><p>Much of the introductory remarks on these taxa are taken from Schlagintweit (2008) and Piuz &amp; Vicedo (2020), who have described aspects of the taxonomic history of this ‘group’. The genus Nummoloculina was first described by Steinmann (1881) for material from the Miocene of Austria. Several species attributed to the genus Nummoloculina (or Nummoloculina -like genera) recorded from the Albian (or older) to the Maastrichtian exist in the literature, and are widely recorded from Mexico to Oman. However, Nummoloculina as most recently defined (see Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1988) is demonstrably a Neogene genus. The genus or ‘group’ was not discussed by Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) in their extensive treatment of Cretaceous LBF.</p><p>The genus Pseudonummoloculina was established by Calvez from the Albian of France (Calvez, 1988) for taxa formerly assigned to Nummoloculina but with a notched aperture and a quinqueloculine early stage. He designated the type species of this genus as P. aurigerica . As a consequence, some other Cretaceous ‘ Nummoloculinas ’ were thenceforth also regarded as Pseudonummoloculina by, for example, De Castro (1987) and Hottinger et al. (1989) (e.g., regarding “ Nummoloculina heimi ”). This would, of course, require these taxa to possess notched apertures. The visibility of the notched aperture in thin section depends entirely on a fortuitous thin section orientation and cut and the vast majority of illustrated specimes do not feature this crucial diagnostic character. When first describing N. heimi for example, Bonet (1956) stated “ Apertural characters not observed despite its abundance.” The debate on whether the taxon referred to as heimi posesses a notched (or sometimes referred to as ‘crenulated’) aperture still continues (e.g., Piuz &amp; Vicedo, 2020, and see below).</p><p>In general, it seems that most Cretaceous ‘nummoloculinids’ do not appear to posses notched apertures with the exceptions of P. aurigerica (type species of Pseudonummoloculina) (also see the Maastrichtian P. kalantari Schlagintweit &amp; Rashidi, 2016) and the new species of Piuz &amp; Vicedo (2020) P. gnosi (type species of Planinummoloculina – see below) – placed in a separate genus because it is basically planispiral throughout, lacking a post-prolocular milioline or streptospiral stage. Some taxa below are therefore questionably assigned to Pseudonummoloculina for practical purposes here only, and we recognise that a new genus (or even new genera) could be created for these taxa.</p><p>Piuz &amp; Vicedo (2020) identified and described two new ‘nummoloculinid’ genera and species ( Planinummoloculina gnosi and Nummoloculinodonta akhdarensis) from two separate levels within the Cenomanian Natih Formation of Oman. They state “ Both populations are architecturally different from any other species of ‘nummoloculinas’ described so far…” but include some records of ‘nummoloculinid’ taxa in possible synonymy.</p><p>Other putative ‘nummoloculind’ taxa recorded from Cenomanian or proximate strata include the aforementioned P. aurigerica from the Albian of France and a form from the Albian-Cenomanian of southern North America (and also found elsewhere) – P? ex. grp. heimi (Bonet) – see also Conkin &amp; Conkin (1958) and Piuz &amp; Vicedo (2020) for a discussion of P? ex. grp. heimi . A taxon known as N. regularis Philippson is also discussed and also questionably reassigned to Pseudonummoloculina .</p><p>Another taxon is Nummoloculina irregularis first described from the Santonian of Serbia (Decrouez &amp; Radoičić, 1977). Some authors have identified and illustrated forms assigned as N. cf. irregularis to sediments of Turonian – Santonian age (e.g. Chiocchini et al., 2012). Some ‘nummoloculinid’ specimens which appear to continue across the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary (e.g. those of Solak et al., 2020 identified as Pseudonummoloculina sp.) have been compared to these N. cf. irregularis forms and therefore justifies including in the discussion herein.</p><p>The six taxa included here in this ‘group’ are therefore:</p><p>• Pseudonummoloculina aurigerica Calvez</p><p>• Pseudonummoloculina ? ex. grp. heimi (Bonet emmend. Conkin &amp; Conkin)</p><p>• Pseudonummoloculina? regularis (Philippson) sensu Chiocchini et al. (2012):</p><p>• Pseudonummoloculina ? cf. irregularis (Decrouez &amp; Radoičić, 1977) sensu Chiocchini et al. (2012)</p><p>• Planinummoloculina gnosi Piuz &amp; Vicendo</p><p>• Nummoloculinodonta akhdarensis Piuz &amp; Vicedo</p><p>Nevertheless, the group is in need of a thorough monographic review and re-examination of type material to better formalise species definitions and hence stratigraphic and paleogeographic ranges.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFEAA225FF11F9DAA4AFC095	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFEFA225FCB6FF48A62BC7B3.text	03E587B6FFEFA225FCB6FF48A62BC7B3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudonummoloculina Calvez 1988	<div><p>Genus Pseudonummoloculina Calvez, 1988</p><p>Type Species: Pseudonummoloculina aurigerica Calvez, 1988</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFEFA225FCB6FF48A62BC7B3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFEFA224FCB6FED4A11BC1BD.text	03E587B6FFEFA224FCB6FED4A11BC1BD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudonummoloculina aurigerica Calvez 1988	<div><p>Pseudonummoloculina aurigerica Calvez, 1988</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Calvez (1988), pl. 1, text figs. 2-3, p. 393-395.</p><p>P. aurigerica is the type species of the genus Pseudonummoculina which is partly defined by the presence of ‘notches/crenulations’ formed by longitudinal ribs in the roof of the chambers which lead to an aperture bordered by what looks broadly similar to a bicycle cog wheel. P. aurigerica is slightly smaller, broader, has fewer (adult) planispiral whorls and fewer chambers per whorl than P? heimi .</p><p>No other illustrated material of this species appears to show the apertural notches/crenulations diagnostic of the genus and identification is usually based on biometric similarities (if explained at all). See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics. Piuz &amp; Vicedo (2020) remark on the similarity between this species and their new species Nummoloculinodonta akhdarensis from the middle Cenomanian of Oman (see remarks under that species below). It is also similar to their new species Planinummoloculina gnosi which also possesses a notched/crenulated aperture, but that species is planispiral virtually throughout.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>(?Hauterivian) latest Barremian – late Albian (?middle Cenomanian).</p><p>P. aurigerica was first described from the late early – middle Albian of the Pyrenees (Calvez, 1988). Since then, its stratigraphic range has been extended. Velić (2007) describes – without illustration – P. aurigerica ranging down to the latest Barremian from the Dinarides of the Balkan countries, although he also states that “…species of Pseudonummoloculina similar to P. aurigerica ” are also found in the latest Hauterivian (Velić, 2007: p. 14). Solak et al. (2021) provides a composite range chart from several sources which shows FADs of P. aurigerica in the latest Barremian (Velić, 2007), uppermost early Aptian (Husinec et al., 2009 and Tešović et al., 2011 – see also Cociuba, 2000), basal Albian (Calvez, 1988; Hottinger et al., 1989 and Mancinelli &amp; Chiocchini, 2006) and intra-Early Albian (Chiocchini et al., 2012 and Arnaud-Vanneau &amp; Premoli-Silva, 1995 – see also Cruz-Abad et al., 2017). Solak et al. (2021) provided illustrations of P. aurigerica from Albian platform limestones of Turkey. The illustrations are plausible, but those authors admitted that none show the notched aperture characteristic of the genus.</p><p>In addition, Ghanem &amp; Kuss (2013) reported and illustrated this species (though again with no notched aperture visible) from the early Aptian to the lower late Albian of Syria.</p><p>An uncertain specimen has been illustrated from the lowermost Sarvak Formation (late Albian) of the Iranian Zagros (Mohseni &amp; Javanmard, 2020).</p><p>Chiocchini et al. (2008, 2012) shows an LAD for this species in the lowermost late Cenomanian, although unillustrated. Chiocchini et al. (2008, 2012) do not recognise a middle Cenomanian substage and so this LAD may be considered to occur within the chronostratigraphic middle Cenomanian. Almost all other records appear to restrict the LAD of P. aurigerica to the Albian (see Solak et al., 2021: p. 690) although they (Solak et al., 2021) list an exception in Velić (2007) from the Dinarides and BouDagher-Fadel et al. (2017) from Tibet. However, the present authors could find no record of this species in that latter publication. In Velić (2007), although the species is mentioned in the text from Barremian to Albian it is for some reason not included on any of Velić’s appropriate range charts for that stratigraphic interval or younger. However in the text of that article it is stated that it “…continued into the Late Cretaceous [i.e. Cenomanian] (Gušić &amp; Jelaska, 1990; Velić &amp; Vlahović, 1994)”. However, P. aurigerica is not mentioned in the latter reference. Dimitrova (1995) described “ Pseudonummoloculina sp. ” from the early Cenomanian of Bulgaria and compared it to P. aurigerica . However, her illustration appears to have closer afinity to Hemicyclammina whitei Henson, although an illustration of “ Ammodiscus cretaceous (Reuss) ” from the same aged strata could be a Pseudonummoloculina . Schlagintweit (1991) recorded forms without apertural notches but assigned to this species from the German Northern Calcareous Alps. He considers these specimens – and perhaps many other Early Cretaceous references to P. aurigerica – as probably attributable to Derventina filipescui Neagu (Dr Felix Schlagintweit pers. comm., 2023). In summary, the Cenomanian occurrence of P. aurigerica is poorly established.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Probably Central Neotethys.</p><p>Albian records are widespread (including MIT Guyot in the Pacific (Arnaud-Vanneau &amp; Premoli Silva, 1995; note this form corresponds to the specimens from the upper Aptian of Germany-Austria, Schlagintweit, 1991, pl. 15, figs. 26-29), but uncertain Cenomanian records (see discussion above) are limited to Italy (Chiocchini et al., 2008, 2012) and the Dinarides (Velić, 2007). In both cases, illustrations are lacking.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFEFA224FCB6FED4A11BC1BD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFEEA228FCB6F8F6A187C4BA.text	03E587B6FFEEA228FCB6F8F6A187C4BA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudonummoloculina heimi Calvez 1988	<div><p>Pseudonummoloculina? ex. grp. heimi (Bonet 1956, emmend. Conkin &amp; Conkin, 1958)</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Conkin &amp; Conkin (1958), pl. 1, text figs. 1-25, p. 152- 156.</p><p>In addition to the correct generic classification of nummoloculinids in general, a separate issue relates to the status of the species heimi . Nummoloculina heimi was first described from the Albian-Cenomanian of Mexico by Bonet (1956). Bonet’s descriptions and illustrations were – according to Conkin &amp; Conkin (1958) – unsatisfactory, and they emended the definition based on their own material which was also from Mexico and from the southern United States of America. Some of this material came from the same lithostratigraphic unit in Mexico as Bonet’s, but not from the same (type) locality.</p><p>Conkin &amp; Conkin (1958) recognised two macrospheric morphotypes, essentially: (i) with a quinqueloculine nepionic stage followed by a planispiral coil and (ii) planispirally coiled throughout.</p><p>Subsequent studies by Hottinger et al. (1989) from Mexico resulted in them attributing forms to heimi (“as revised by Conkin &amp; Conkin, 1958 ”) characterised by an early streptospiral (not quinqueloculine) stage followed by whorls which gradually stabilised their coiling axis without becoming completely stable; part of their so-called “stem miliolids” (Hottinger et al., 1989; p. 103).</p><p>A separate but related issue also arises over the nature of the aperture. The presence of folds or notches/crenulations in the aperture is fundamental (among other things) for a generic assignment to Pseudonummoloculina . Neither Bonet (1956) nor Conkin &amp; Conkin (1958) observed such features in their North American material. Hottinger et al. (1989) only observed a row of notches in one illustrated specimen [see Fig. 44 (right) herein] of a near-completely planispiral form but not observed at all in specimens with initial streptospiral coiling. Piuz and Vicedo (2020) tentatively suggested assigning this specimen to their new nummoloculinid species – Nummoloculinodonta akhdarensis thus removing any suggestion of notched/crenulated apertures as a characteristic of heimi forms. However, Solak et al. (2021) contradict this by stating “… the widespread Cretaceous species Nummoloculina heimi Bonet, 1956, with a clear notched aperture (De Castro, 1987; Hottinger et al., 1989) was transferred to Pseudonummoloculina ”. It should be noted that Solak et al. (2021) did not themselves observe the notched aperture in their own material either. De Castro’s material from the Cenomanian of Apennine Italy shows one specimen (out of 4 examples) which shows an aperture with “wavy margins”. Hottinger et al. (1989) ’s material from the Cenomanian of Mexico shows a single specimen (out of several tens of examples) with “notches in distal apertural margin”. This particular specimen (a subaxial section, bottom right corner of pl. 22, fig. 6 – see Figure 44 b) is very similar to Fig. 48b herein for P? cf. irregularis .</p><p>Piuz &amp; Vicedo (2020) discussed the implications of these observations (and others) and concluded that “…the different morphotypes mentioned above as P. heimi [are] likely separate taxa”. However, both they and we agree that many forms displaying this variety of morphological characteristics have been attributed to heimi in the literature and that a comprehensive revision is required. The solution would require the adequate stratigraphic separation of similar morphotypes to determine if relationships were evolutionary or of intra-specific variability.</p><p>We agree in part with Piuz &amp; Vicedo’s (2020) proposal to restrict heimi sensu stricto to the morphotypes described by Bonet (1956) and Conkin &amp; Conkin (1958) – essentially the North American specimens – although recognising that these themselves may comprise several separate taxa. Their characteristics are:</p><p>• compressed axially and lacks umbilical axial thickening</p><p>• small quinqueloculine nepionic stage (max 4 whorls/8 chambers)</p><p>• numerous planispiral whorls (up to 7)</p><p>• numerous chambers per whorl (6 up to 16)</p><p>• aperture with “stocky tooth” but no notch/ridge/crenulations</p><p>Our observations suggest that, in the majority and possibly all cases, forms attributed to heimi in Europe/Africa/Middle East do not appear to conform wholly to these criteria and that further taxonomic revision is required to determine if they are – as we suspect - additional, separate taxa. Some may be attributable with further research to Nummoloculinodonta akhdarensis, others to P.? regularis sensu Chiocchini et al., or a completely new species. Such work is beyond the scope of this article, and we have therefore, reluctantly, placed heimi in open nomenclature (“ex gr.”) and assigned it to an unsatisfactory genus, as a problem to be solved in the future.</p><p>P.? heimi is more axially compressed than P. aurigerica, has more numerous planispiral whorls and chambers per whorl and does not appear to have notches or crenulations.</p><p>Despite having fewer chambers in each post-embryonic whorl (3-5 cf. 6-16) P.? regularis sensu Chiocchini et al. can also appear similar in some random section orientations with a similar number of post embryonic planispiral coils (up to 7), although unlike P.? ex. grp. heimi, P.? regularis sensu Chiocchini et al. is planispiral virtually throughout its growth.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>(late Aptian?) Albian – Cenomanian (?Turonian and younger).</p><p>Notwithstanding the comments made above, an evaluation of published records suggests P.? ex grp. heimi is widely distributed with the majority from Albian-Cenomanian strata. Many records are accompanied by illustration but some of these illustrations do not necessarily confirm identity. In addition, the generic assignment ( Pseudonummoloculina or Nummoloculina) varies between authors. The upper age limit of this species is difficult to pinpoint although an extension into the Turonian appears possible. Records above this level need further evaluation (e.g., Tsaila-Monopolis, 1977).</p><p>Pseudonummoloculina? heimi was first described from the Albian – Cenomanian El Abra formation of Mexico (Bonet, 1956). Conkin &amp; Conkin’s (1958) material was from Mexico (El Abra Formation), and Texas (Devil’s River, Edwards and Glen Rose Formations) and Florida (Fredericksburg Formation) of the USA (see also Applin &amp; Applin, 1965).</p><p>Other confirmed illustrated records of this species from Mexico include Rosales-Dominguez (1989); Rosales-Dominguez et al. (1997) and Omaña et al. (2013, 2019) respectively from the Albian – early Cenomanian Sierra Madre Formation and the Albian – Cenomanian El Abra Formation. Scott &amp; Gonzalez-Leon (1991) recorded the species from the middle Albian Espinazo del Diablo and Nogal formations of the Lampazos region. Unillustrated records include Ontiveros-Tarango (1973; Cenomanian); Hernández-Romano et al. (1997; late Cenomanian); Cros et al. (1998; Cenomanian); Aguilera-Franco et al. (2001) and Aguilera-Franco (2003) (from the middle – late Cenomanian); and Aguilera-Franco &amp; Allison (2004; undated) from the Morelos Formation. However, the illustration in Aguilera-Franco (2000) is not identifiable at species level but appears incompatible with P.? ex. grp. heimi as described herein. Lucas et al. (2015) provided an illustrated record from New Mexico.</p><p>Ashworth (1974); Caceres Flores (2016) and Radmacher et al. (2021) have plausible illustrated records from the Albian – Cenomanian Coban Formation of Guatemala (see also Fourcade et al., 1999, unillustrated, but Albian). However, the record by Moeschler (2009) is probably not this species (it may be Spiroloculina sp.). Ayala-Castañares &amp; Furrazola-Bermúdez (1962) provide excellent illustrations of this species from the Albian – Cenomanian of Cuba, whilst Diaz Otero et al. (2001) records but does not illustrate this species. Rogers et al. (2007) report the species from the Albian of Honduras.</p><p>In Western Europe records from Portugal by Berthou (1973) and Andrade (2018) are illustrated but the illustration cannot be confirmed as P.? ex. grp. heimi . Records by Berthou &amp; Lauverjat (1979) and Crosaz-Galletti (1979) are unillustrated. Most assign a middle – late Cenomanian age.</p><p>Records from Italy are numerous (De Castro (1965; 1987 – see comments above regarding synonymy with N. akhdarensis); Borghi &amp; Pignatti (2006); Consorti et al. (2015); Crescenti (1969); Di Stefano &amp; Ruberti (2000); Spalluto &amp; Caffau (2010) and Spalluto (2011)) but only the record of Spalluto &amp; Caffau (2010) is confirmed by illustration. Ages assigned are from early – late Cenomanian, but Crescenti (1969) indicates this species ranges up to the “Senonian” (see also Tsaila-Monopolis, 1977 from Greece). Parente et al. (2010) provide an unillustrated record of “ Nummoloculina cf. heimi ” from the late Turonian. Chiocchini and Mancinelli (1977) mention the species as having biozonal value for the Turonian of the Apennines, but perhaps like other records, this may be because of loose use of the species concept of heimi . In subsequent papers (e.g., Chiocchini et al., 2008), the zonal index is called “ Nummoloculina cf. irregulari s”. This may explain the illustrated Turonian record of “ Nummoloculina cf. heimi ” by Foglia (1992).</p><p>Records from Slovenia and the Balkans (mainly Croatia) are also numerous (e.g., Radoičić, 1965, illustrated from Cenomanian strata). Koch et al. (1998) from Slovenia illustrates a form which is possibly P.? ex. grp. heimi from the Cenomanian – Turonian and Jez et al. (2011) records unillustrated material from the late Cenomanian. Croatian records are more numerous with illustrated records: Husinec &amp; Sokač (2006) (illustrated as “ Pseudonummoloculina sp. ” but mentioned as Pseudonummoloculina heimi in the text and range charts - Albian), Tešović et al. (2011) from the early – late Albian, and Velić &amp; Sokač (1979) undated. The illustrated records of Ritossa (2018), also undated, and Brčić et al. (2021) (late Cenomanian) cannot be verified as this species. Additional records unconfirmed by illustration include Brčić et al. (2017); Husinec et al. (2000, 2009); Tišljar et al. (1998); Velić (2007); Korbar &amp; Husinec (2003), and Velić &amp; Vlahović (1994). Assigned ages range from the early Albian to the early Campanian (e.g., Velić, 2007). A record from the late Turonian – Coniacian of Croatia (Gušić et al., 1988) is a nummoloculinid, but difficult to assign to a species. A single record from Montenegro (Božović, 2016) is unillustrated and has no assigned age.</p><p>Most records from Greece (e.g., Fleury, 1971; Decrouez, 1976, 1978; early – late Cenomanian) are unillustrated, but that of Charvet et al. (1976) is, but might be P.? regularis sensu Chiocchini et al. or Nummoloculinodonta akhdarensis . Tsaila-Monopolis (1977) illustrated the species from the “Cenomanian - Turonian” and “Senonian” of Greece. Some illustrations are more compatible with P.? regularis sensu Chiocchini et al. (2012) . Another record from Greece (Zambetakis-Lekkas, 2006) is unillustrated and is said to range from the late Cenomanian to the Maastrichtian, although that seems unlikely. Zambetakis-Lekkas et al. (2006) also records the species (unillustrated) from Crete and assigns the same age range.</p><p>North Africa records include from Tunisia (Bismuth et al., 1967; Saïdi et al., 1995 and Touir et al., 2017). Only the former record is confirmed by illustration and may include P.? regularis sensu Chiocchini et al. (2012) but all authors assign a Cenomanian age. By contrast, Lüning et al. (2000) report the species from the Kufra Basin of Libya and assign a Campanian? – Maastrichtian age, although they provide no illustration but note that “ the present specimen is similar to those described in Hottinger et al. (1989, pl. 22, fig. 6) and by Calvez (1988); the only difference is the smaller size compared to the material described by Calvez. The specimen figured by De Castro (1987, fig. 3) also shows all features of the present material.” In this respect it is worth noting that Calvez (1988) did not illustrate P.? heimi, but P. aurigerica .</p><p>Numerous illustrated records occur from Turkey of which those of Sari et al. (2009) and Solak et al. (2020, 2021) are confirmed by illustration. The records of Ozkan &amp; Altiner (2019), Solak (2021) and Solak et al. (2017, 2019) are also illustrated but the specimens are only possibly of this species. Most records are assigned a middle – late Cenomanian age although Solak et al. (2021) indicates an age as old as late Albian and Sari et al. (2009) an age as young as Coniacian. The record of Ozkan &amp; Altiner (2019) is thought to be from the early Cenomanian. Sinanoglu (2021) provides an unillustrated record.</p><p>In the eastern Mediterranean area P.? ex. grp. heimi has been reported from Syria, Lebanon, and Israel, although confirmed by illustration only from the first two (i.e., Ghanem &amp; Kuss, 2013, and Saint-Marc, 1974 a, 1981). Note the illustrated records of Ghanem et al. (2012) are insufficient to confirm their identity. Unconfirmed Israeli records are from Hamaoui (1965, 1966). All of these records are from throughout the Cenomanian, with Turonian records (e.g., Saint-Marc, 1970) being revisable as late Cenomanian (e.g., Saint-Marc, 1978). Mouty et al. (2003) have reported the species from the late Cenomanian of Syria.</p><p>Records from the Sarvak Formation of Iran and the Mishrif Formation in Iraq are numerous, especially from the former, but the quality of confirmatory illustrations is variable. Records with good or plausible illustration in the sense of P.? ex. grp. heimi include Esfandyari et al. (2023), Rahimpour-Bonab et al. (2013) and Mohajer et al., (2021b). Records with questionable or no illustration include Assadi et al. (2016) (probably P.? regularis sensu Chiocchini et al.); Daneshian et al. (2016); Kiarostami et al. (2019); Saeedi Razavi et al. (2019, 2021); Mohajer et al. (2022b); Omidvar (2014a); Rikhtegarzadeh et al. (2016, 2017) and Al-Salihi &amp; Ibrahim (2023). Even though considered of biozonal value by the authors, the illustrations of P.? ex. grp. heimi (as Nummoloculina heimi) by Afghah et al. (2014) and Afghah &amp; Fadaei (2014) cannot be confirmed as being of this species. The illustration by Afghah &amp; Dookh (2014) is of an alveolinid. These records are predominantly assigned a Cenomanian age, although Rahimpour-Bonab et al. (2013) provide a combined total range of late Albian – Turonian. An illustrated record by Gollesstaneh (1965) from the “late Aptian – early Albian” of the Iranian Zagros, represents one of the oldest records of this species sensu lato.</p><p>Records from Iraq are fewer and include illustrated forms by Al-Dulaimy &amp; Al-Sheikhly (2013) which are possibly P.? ex. grp. heimi . Illustrations by Al-Dulaimy et al. (2022) from the late Cenomanian Mishrif Formation may well be alveolinids.</p><p>Additional unillustrated records occur from the Natih Formation of Oman (Kennedy &amp; Simmons, 1991; Simmons &amp; Hart, 1987) and are assigned a middle – late Cenomanian age.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Pan-Neotethyan, America and the Caribbean.</p><p>See references above. As a note, pre-Cenomanian records can be extended further since Arnaud-Vanneau &amp; Premoli-Silva (1995) note that their “ Nummoloculina sp. ” recorded from the late Albian (?) of MIT Guyot in the Pacific is very similar to P.? ex. grp. heimi .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFEEA228FCB6F8F6A187C4BA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFE2A22DFCB6FBCAA4CDC6F4.text	03E587B6FFE2A22DFCB6FBCAA4CDC6F4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudonummoloculina regularis ((Philippson, 1887))) sensu Chiocchini et al. 2012	<div><p>Pseudonummoloculina? regularis (Philippson, 1887) sensu Chiocchini et al. 2012</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Chiocchini et al. (2012), pl. 83, figs. 2-8.</p><p>Nummoloculina regularis Philppson, a species first described from Late Cretaceous marls in the region of Lake Wolfgang, Austria (Philippson, 1887), is often referred to from Cenomanian strata in the literature (as Nummoloculina or Pseudonummoloculina), but Schlagintweit (2008) has discussed the identification, taxonomy and distribution of Philippson’s specimens and restricts its occurrence (in Austria at least) to no older than the late Turonian. Schlagintweit (2008) believes the specimens described and illustrated by Phillippson (1887) are better attributable to Vidalina hispanica Schlumberger, and, as first pointed out by Radoičić (1978), are not the same as those specimens variously assigned to regularis in the Cenomanian of other localities around Neotethys in having no true septa (in any case it is believed Phillippson’s types are lost so confirmation is impossible – Dr Lorenzo Consorti, pers. comm., 2023). If (hypothetically) correct (see Piuz &amp; Vicedo, 2020 for discussion), the new combination – Vidalina regularis (Schlumberger) would become the type species of the genus Vidalina . However, Schlagintweit (2008) does not speculate on what this means for Cenomanian specimens attributed to the species regularis (nor do Piuz &amp; Vicedo, 2020).</p><p>See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>The best illustrations of what we refer to as regularis which are demonstrably Cenomanian are from Chiocchini et al. (2012) figured herein. Assigned by them to Nummoloculina, they are, for the present, here questionably (and pending review) assigned to Pseudonummoloculina in the same way as P? heimi, as Nummoloculina is not a Cretaceous genus. Thus herein we discuss Pseudonummoluculina? regularis sensu Chiocchini et al. (2012) . These are comparable with Nummoloculina sp. ( aff. regularis) as described and illustrated by Radoičić (1978).</p><p>As its name suggests, P.? regularis begins coiling planispirally in a single plane from very early on in the post-embryonic stage. In axial views a post-prolocular milioline stage is either very small or absent. In this respect it is also similar (in axial view) to Vidalina radoicicae .</p><p>P? regularis has a similar equatorial profile to P? heimi but with many fewer chambers per (later) whorl (3-5 cf. 6-16), as well as more regular planispiral coiling. P. gnosi has a more biconvex axial profile with more umbilical thickening and devlops ribs/notching, although P. gnosi and P? regularis appear to share a lack of a distinctly milioline early stage.</p><p>P. aurigerica is more inflated and biconvex in axial profile compared with P? regularis and with a more lobate periphery. It also posesses apertural notches/crenulations (caused by ribs in the chamber roof).</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Early Cenomanian - late Cenomanian (?early Turonian).</p><p>The material of Chiocchini et al. (2012) is from the early Cenomanian in the concept of those authors, which may include part of the middle Cenomanian of the current international standard. Elsewhere in western Europe, the following records may refer to P.? regularis sensu Chiocchini et al.: Cenomanian of Portugal (Berthou, 1978; Berthou and Lauverjat, 1979; Crosaz-Galletti, 1979; Andrade, 2018), Spain (Cherchi &amp; Scroeder, 1998) and Italy (Chiocchini, 2008a). With the exception of Andrade (2018), these records are unillustrated. Bilotte (1984) illustrated N. regularis from the Pyrenenes, but the specimens are large (up to 2.1 mm) and broad in axial profile, making comparison to P.? regularis sensu Chiocchini et al. uncertain.</p><p>Records from eastern Europe, Greece and the Balkans area are numerous (mostly middle – late Cenomanian) but are all unillustrated apart from Radoičić (1974a &amp; b, 1978) (as “ Nummoloculin a cf. regularis ” and Nummolulina sp. ( aff. regularis)”) from the late Cenomanian –?early Turonian of Serbia, Schlagintweit &amp; Rigaud (2015) from the upper middle – late Cenomanian of Kosovo and Tsaila-Monopolis (1977) from the “Cenomanian – Turonian” of Greece. The unillustrated records are from Albania (Consorti &amp; Schlagintweit, 2021a); Croatia (Husinec et al., 2000, 2009; Tišljar et al., 1998; Velić &amp; Vlahović, 1994; Velić, 2007); Greece / Crete (Decrouez, 1976, 1978; Fleury, 1980; Zambetakis-Lekkas, 2006; Zambetakis-Lekkas et al., 2006; Pomoni-Papaioannou &amp; Zambetakis-Lekkas, 2009) and Slovenia (Šribar &amp; Pleničar, 1990; Jez et al., 2011). An illustration by Fleury (1971) from Greece is most likely Vidalina radoicicae .</p><p>Records from North Africa are comparatively rare but with an uncertain illustration from the late Cenomanian of Morocco (Ettachfini, 1993) and an unillustrated record from the late Cenomanian of Tunisia (Touir et al., 2017).</p><p>Solak et al. (2020) provides illustrated records from throughout the Cenomanian of the Turkish Taurides. Sari et al. (2009) also provides an illustration from a section assigned to the middle Cenomanian – Turonian, but this specimen, though regularly planispiral, appears axially too broad to be definitely assigned to this species and is most likely a different taxon. Other records from Turkey include Solak et al. (2015) and Koç (2017) but are unillustrated. They are assigned age ranges of Cenomanian – Conician and Cenomanian –?early Turonian respectively.</p><p>In the eastern Mediterannean area illustrated records are found from Lebanon (Saint-Marc, 1974 a, 1981) and Syria (Ghanem et al., 2012 (uncertain); Ghanem &amp; Kuss, 2013). As noted by Radoičić (1978), the dimensions mentioned by Saint-Marc (1974a) are small for the Cenomanian form of P.? regularis, but the illustrations in both his 1974 and 1981 paper indicate a larger size which is compatable. Saint-Marc (1978, 1981) regarded the species as having a late middle – late Cenomanian range. Records from the Naur (b-d) Formation in Jordan (Schulze, 2003; Schulze et al., 2004) are unillustrated.</p><p>Records from the Sarvak Formation of the Iranian Zagros are relatively numerous with several confirmed by illustration. These are Afghah et al. (2014); Dehghanian &amp; Afghah (2021); Esfandyari et al. (2023); Kiarostami et al. (2019); Mohajer et al. (2021b); Parnian et al. (2019); Saeedi Razavi et al. (2019) and Saeedi Razavi et al. (2021). An illustration by Afghah &amp; Fadaei (2014) (note transposition of plate captions) is uncertain, whilst “ Nummoloculina sp. ” as illustrated by Sampò (1969) may, questionably, be this species, as might the illustration of “ Nummoloculina sp. ” by Ahmadi et al. (2008). However, illustrations by Rahimpour-Bonab et al. (2013) [= Pseudonummoluculina? cf. irregularis sensu Chiocchini et al., 2012], Omidvar et al. (2014a) [= Pseudonummoluculina? cf. irregularis sensu Chiocchini et al., 2012], and Rikhtegarzadeh et al. (2016) [indeterminate nummoloculinid] are probably not this species, whilst the illustration by Afghah &amp; Dookh (2014) is of an alveolinid. Assigned ages are Cenomanian. Unillustrated records by Fourcade et al. (1997) and Shapourikia et al. (2021) are middle - late Cenomanian.</p><p>An unillustrated record from the Cenomanian Natih Formation of Oman is also noted by Rabu (1993).</p><p>In the Caribbean area P.? regularis sensu Chiocchini et al. has been recorded from the late middle – late Cenomanian of Mexico with illustration by Aguilera-Franco (2000) and Aguilera-Franco et al. (2001) (see also Aguilera-Franco, 2003; Aguilera-Franco &amp; Allison, 2004 and Michaud et al., 1984 but without any illustration). It has been questionably illustrated from Guatemala by Moeschler (2009).</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Neotethys and Caribbean.</p><p>See above references.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFE2A22DFCB6FBCAA4CDC6F4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFE7A22DFF11FE3FA1E5C2D4.text	03E587B6FFE7A22DFF11FE3FA1E5C2D4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudonummoloculina irregularis (Decrouez & Radoicic 1977) Calvez 1988	<div><p>Pseudonummoloculina? cf. irregularis (Decrouez &amp; Radoičić, 1977) sensu Chiocchini et al. 2012</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Chiocchini et al. (2012), pl. 120, figs. 2-7.</p><p>N. irregularis was first described by Decrouez &amp; Radoičić (1977) from Santonian -?Campanian rocks of Serbia. It is not, apparently, connected to the Recent form Biloculina irregularis d’Orbigny as apparently indicated in the World Foraminifera Database (Hayward et al., 2020). There are, however, numerous records from the Quaternary of Nummoloculina irregularis (d’Orbigny) . If d’ Orbigny’s species is, in fact, a Nummoloculina, then the validity of Decrouez and Radoičić’s taxon would be questionable. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>Chiocchini et al. (2012) recorded forms they assigned to Nummoloculina cf. irregularis from the Turonian (with a range up to the Santonian) but it is not clear why they chose the ‘cf.’ modifier as the illustrations look to be comparable with those of Decrouez and Radoičić (1977). The somewhat more ‘angular’ appearance of the periphery in equatorial view seems characteristic.</p><p>Solak et al. (2020) recorded forms they attributed to Pseudonummoloculina sp. from sediments just above the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary in Turkey. They stated that this taxon was “similar to Nummoloculina cf. irregularis of Chiocchini et al. (2012) ”. Their illustration of Pseudonummoloculina sp. is included within Figure 48 herein.</p><p>The illustrations of Chiocchini et al.’s (2012) and Solak et al.’s (2020) forms appear comparable and show a ‘nummoloculinid’ with a relatively large initial milioline coil and later coils which appear streptospiral and which may not achieve planispiral status until a very late growth stage.</p><p>For the practical reasons discussed above we have questionably assigned this taxon to Pseudonummoloculina . However, Schlagintweit &amp; Rashidi (2016) note that N. irregularis sensu stricto is not atributable to Pseudonummoloculina and it is likely that a new genus will be needed to incorporate this species and others mentioned herein. Included in this revision could be Fischerina? carinata Peybernes, a distinctive simple biumblicate planispiral taxon described by Peybernes (1984) from the late Albian of Spain (Dr. Felix Schlagintweit, pers. comm., 2023). It is clear that much work needs to be undertaken to establish the taxonomy of the “nummoloculinids” sensu lato.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Cenomanian?/Turonian – earliest Santonian.</p><p>Chiocchini et al. (2012) record this taxon from the intra-early Turonian to the lower early Santonian of Italy (their illustrated specimens are from the Turonian). Solak et al. (2020) do not show the occurrence of this species on any range chart or section distribution chart, but their illustrated specimen (reproduced here) is attributed to their sample 206 which lies less than 1m above where they have placed the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary.</p><p>Records of “ Nummoloculina regularis ” from the Turonian uppermost Sarvak Formation of the Iranian Zagros (Rahimpour-Bonab et al., 2013; Omidvar et al., 2014a) may well be P? cf. irregularis sensu Chioccini et al. 2012, and provide support for the Turonian age assignment of these strata.</p><p>However, the specimen illustrated by Hottinger et al. (1989) as P. heimi (pl. 22, fig. 6, bottom right) from the Cenomanian of Mexico (see Fig. 44 (right) herein) is somewhat more similar to the illustration of P? cf. irregularis sensu Chiocchini et al. 2012 herein (Fig. 48b) and, if confirmed, suggests an older FAD for this taxon. This is a different viewpoint to Piuz &amp; Vicedo (2020) who place the same Mexico specimen in tentative synonymy with their species Nummoloculinodonta akhdarensis from Oman (see below). This is an example of the difficulties in separating ‘nummoloculinid’ species in random thin section.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Central America?</p><p>Whilst this taxa is known from the Mediterranean in post-Cenomanian stratigraphy, the only possible Cenomanian record is from Mexico (see above).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFE7A22DFF11FE3FA1E5C2D4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFE7A252FCB6FA1CA7DFC31F.text	03E587B6FFE7A252FCB6FA1CA7DFC31F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Planinummoloculina gnosi Piuz & Vicendo 2020	<div><p>Planinummoloculina gnosi Piuz &amp; Vicendo, 2020</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Piuz &amp; Vicedo (2020), fig. 3(A-U), p. 11-13.</p><p>P. gnosi is characterised by planispiral (occasionally slightly oscillating) coiling throughout, rather than having a distinctly milioline nepionic stage cf. Pseudonummoloculina? heimi and P. aurigerica . Apertural notches/crenulations similar to those seen in P. aurigerica are visible from the 5 th whorl onwards.</p><p>Piuz &amp; Vicedo (2020) describe an adult test of 10-11 whorls with 3-4 chambers per whorl, but do not illustrate an equatorial view of their specimens. The test of P. gnosi is also reported as being larger (up to 3mm diameter) than both P. aurigerica and P? heimi . Axial/subaxial views show that P. gnosi has an axial profile broader to those of P? heimi and P? regularis, or tending towards that of P. aurigerica but does not appear to be biconcave (cf. P? heimi) or have a depressed umbilicus (cf. P. aurigerica). See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Close to middle/late Cenomanian boundary.</p><p>So far only confidently described from the Cenomanian (unit B of the Natih Formation) of the Oman Mountains. Regarded as middle Cenomanian by Piuz &amp; Vicedo (2020), this unit most likely contains the middle/late Cenomanian boundary (Bromhead et al., 2022). Piuz &amp; Vicedo (2020) regard specimens identified as Nummoloculina regularis by Afghah et al. (2014) from the Sarvak Formation of the Iranian Zagros as possibly attributable to this species. This occurrence, if valid, might be middle Cenomanian in age but requires a complete re-evaluation of the associated microfauna (Schlagintweit &amp; Simmons, 2022). Dr Felix Schlagintweit (pers.comm., 2023) believes he has specimens of this species from the Sarvak Formation.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Arabian Plate.</p><p>So far described only from the Cenomanian of the Oman Mountains and the Iranian Zagros (Piuz &amp; Vicedo, 2020 and Dr Felix Schlagintweit pers. comm., 2023).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFE7A252FCB6FA1CA7DFC31F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF98A252FF11FBA9A164C1CC.text	03E587B6FF98A252FF11FBA9A164C1CC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Nummoloculinodonta akhdarensis Piuz & Vicedo 2020	<div><p>Nummoloculinodonta akhdarensis Piuz &amp; Vicedo, 2020</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Piuz &amp; Vicedo (2020), fig. 4(A-I) &amp; fig. 5(A-AB), p. 13- 14.</p><p>Originally described and recorded from the Cenomanian Natih Formation of the Oman Mountains. Piuz &amp; Vicedo (2020) remark that the complex apertural features of this genus are still poorly understood (although a tooth seems to be present) and are seldom visible in random this sections. N. akhdarensis appears to be characterised by a well-developed milioline (mostly quinqueloculine) nepionic stage of up to 6 whorls followed by an adult planispiral stage which coils in another plane. This adult stage can show up to 4 whorls with a maximum of 4 chambers per whorl. Apertural notches/ribs are seen in the later (gerontic) stage and pillars or pillar-like structures can also be seen. The overall shape is probably the most broadly rounded biconvex or globular of all the Albian-Turonian ‘nummoloculinids’ though can approach an axial profile similar to that of Pseudonummoloculina aurigerica . See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>This new genus differs from Pseudonummoloculina in the posession of an apertural tooth and a general absence (except in gerontic forms) of apertural crenulations. However, Piuz &amp; Vicedo (2020) also admit that the genus may correspond partially to the (invalid) genus Nummoloculina emend. Conkin &amp; Conkin (1958) and that more work on the nature of the aperture is required.</p><p>N. akhdarensis differs from P. aurigerica in being somewhat more globular, by posessing an aperture with a complex tooth, fewer chambers (maximum 4 cf. 6-8) and posessing notches only within the last (gerontic) stage of development.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>(Barremian) early -?middle Cenomanian (Santonian).</p><p>The type material is from unit E of the Natih Formation of the Oman Mountains (Piuz &amp; Vicedo, 2020). This is most likely early Cenomanian in age (Bromhead et al., 2022), although extension into the middle Cenomanian cannot be completely excluded. However, Piuz &amp; Vicedo (2020) include the following published occurrences in possible/probable synonymy with N. akhdarensis . These attributions are tentative as not all diagnostic details are visible:</p><p>Nummoloculina sp. in Arnaud-Vanneau (1980), France, which is recorded as Barremian in age.</p><p>Nummoloculina sp. in Arnaud-Vanneau &amp; Darsac (1984), France, recorded as Barremian – Aptian in age.</p><p>Pseudonummoloculina n. sp. indet. in Hottinger et al. (1989), Mexico, recorded as late Santonian in age.</p><p>Pseudonummoloculina sp. cf. N. heimi in De Castro (1987), Italy, recorded as Cenomanian in age.</p><p>Pseudonummoloculina sp. in Radoičić (1994), the Balkans, recorded as late Cenomanian in age.</p><p>Pseudonummoloculina heimi in Hottinger et al. (1989), Mexico, recorded as Cenomanian in age.</p><p>If confirmed, these would greatly extend the range of the species. However herein, only the confirmed range is shown.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>(Caribbean/Neotethys?) Arabian Plate.</p><p>Confirmed Cenomanian occurrences are restricted to the type description from the Oman Mountains (Piuz &amp; Vicedo, 2020) but possible occurrences are recorded from Mexico, Italy, and the Balkans (see references above). Revisions to P.? ex. grp. heimi (see above) may extend the distribution further.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF98A252FF11FBA9A164C1CC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF98A252FCB6F967A03FC1A1.text	03E587B6FF98A252FCB6F967A03FC1A1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Vidalina Schlumberger 1900	<div><p>Genus Vidalina Schlumberger, 1900</p><p>Type species: Vidalina hispanica Schlumberger, 1900</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF98A252FCB6F967A03FC1A1	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF98A256FCB6F922A42FC52E.text	03E587B6FF98A256FCB6F922A42FC52E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Vidalina radoicicae Cherchi & Schroeder 1986	<div><p>Vidalina radoicicae Cherchi &amp; Schroeder, 1986</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1986), pl. 1. figs. 1-3, 5, p. 185- 188.</p><p>Vidalina is a relatively simple genus consisting of a subspherical proloculus followed by an unsegmented post embryonic tubular chamber arranged in a planispiral coil. The wall is porcelaneous, and the aperture is a simple opening at the end of the tube. Additional lamellae are laid down with each coil, so the central part of the coil is continually thickened. V. radoicicae – first formally described from the late Cenomanian of the Anglona region, NW Sardinia by Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1986) – has a more-or-less lenticular axial cross-section with 6- 7 adult coils. Of the other known species, Vidalina hispanica Schlumberger (see Decrouez et al., 1978; Farinacci, 1991; Schlagintweit, 1992), has more coils (12-14), is larger (maximum equatorial dimension 1.0- 1.5mm compared with 0.25-0.43 mm) and is more disc-like with a thick central boss rather than being lenticular, whilst V. discoidea Schlagintweit is very disc-like with only limited umbilical thickening (Schlagintweit, 1992). V. carpathica Neagu &amp; Popescu is not thought to range above the Barremian (Neagu &amp; Popescu, 1966). See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>V. radoicicae is thought to be restricted to the Cenomanian whereas V. hispanica was first described from the Santonian, although Schlagintweit (2008) suggests V. hispanica could have been identified (as the type material of Nummoloculina regularis Philippson – a view disputed by Piuz &amp; Vicedo (2020)) from as old as the Late Turonian in Austria. Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1986) consider that V. hispanica is possibly a descendant of V. radoicicae .</p><p>V. radoicicae can potentially be confused with nummoloculinids in equatorial views if the post-embryonic chamber appears segmented. “ Short indentations of the wall from the upper side into the tube lumen ” were observed by Schlagintweit (2008) in specimens he regards as V. hispanica (see above), giving a false appearance of chambering. Axial views are potentially confusable with taxa such as Charentia cuvillieri (see Korbar et al., 2012). Ideally, both axial and equatorial views are required to confirm illustration but are seldom provided in the literature.</p><p>Some authors (Chiocchini et al., 2012 from the Italian Apennines (as “? V. radoicicae ”, late Cenomanian); Jez et al., 2011, from Slovenia (as “ Vidalina cf. radoicicae ”, late Cenomanian); Tentor &amp; Tentor 2007, from northeast Italy (late Cenomanian); Solak et al., 2020, from the Turkish Taurides (middle – late Cenomanian) have illustrated axial views of forms identified as Vidalina but which do not show the characteristic lenticular axial profile of V. radoicicae and whose specimens appear rather more parallel-sided and are confusable with Pseudonummoloculina? regularis herein. These are treated as unconfirmed and may represent as yet undescribed taxa. On the other hand, specimens of Vidalina appear to be easily transported and often appear to be abraded or coated in micrite, making the true external shape difficult to determine.</p><p>Ghanem &amp; Kuss (2013) illustrate “ Vidalina cf. radoicicae ” from the late Aptian of northwest Syria, but these specimens are clearly very distinct from true V. radoicicae and represent a different taxon. This is also true for their late Albian “ Vidalina sp. ”. The equatorial view of a specimen attributed to V. radoicicae by Ghanem &amp; Kuss (2013) has some hints of chamber segmentation and is also therefore regarded as unconfirmed – note that these authors regard this species as being of biozonal value and useful for distinguishing the late Cenomanian (see below).</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>(Late early?) middle – late Cenomanian.</p><p>V. radoicicae was first recorded from the late Cenomanian (associated with Cisalveolina fraasi) of western Serbia as “ Vidalina sp. 1 (nov. sp.?)” by Radoičić (1972). Subsequently it was formally described from the late Cenomanian of Sardinia (Cherchi &amp; Schroeder, 1986), and has been regarded as a marker for this substage by some (e.g., Velić &amp; Vlahović, 1994; Velić, 2007; Rahimpour- Bonab et al., 2012; Ghanem &amp; Kuss, 2013), but a literature review suggests a longer range into at least the middle Cenomanian.</p><p>All confirmed illustrated material are assigned a late Cenomanian or middle – late Cenomanian age. From Italy, these include Barattolo (1984) (as Vidalina sp.); Foglia (1992) (late middle – early late Cenomanian); Benedetti et al. (2000) (early late Cenomanian); Simone et al. (2012) (middle Cenomanian) and Frijia et al. (2015) (late Cenomanian); from Greece Fleury (1971) (as Nummoloculina regularis); Decrouez et al. (1978) (as V. hispanica); from Croatia Velić &amp; Vlahović (1994) and Velić (2007); from the Turkish Taurides Tasli et al. (2006) (middle – late Cenomanian), Sari et al. (2009) (middle – late Cenomanian), Solak (2021) (as “ Vidalina sp. ”) (middle – late Cenomanian) (the illustration by Solak et al., 2017 is more uncertain); and from the Iranian Zagros Rahimpour-Bonab et al. (2012) (late Cenomanian) and Mohajer et al. (2021a) (late Cenomanian). An illustration by Schlagintweit &amp; Rigaud (2015) from the late middle – early Cenomanian of Kosovo is uncertain. An illustration of “ Vidalina sp. ” by Hamaoui (1962) from the late (?) Cenomanian of Israel may be V. radoicicae .</p><p>Records unconfirmed by illustration are assigned to ages confined within the Cenomanian, mostly middle – late Cenomanian. From Spain these include Calonge et al. (2002, 2003); from the Italian Apennines Bravi et al. (2006); Chiocchini (2008a, 2008b); Chiocchini et al. (2008); Mancinelli &amp; Chiocchini (2006); Parente et al. (2007, 2008) – who places the LAD of V. radoicicae within the geslinianum ammonite zone, Frijia &amp; Parente (2008); Spalluto (2011) and Spalluto &amp; Caffau (2010); from the Balkans Brčić et al. (2017) (the specimen illustrated by Brčić (2015) is probably Charentia cuvillieri, but that by Brčić et al. (2021) (late Cenomanian) may be valid), Božović (2016), Husinec et al. (2000), Del Viscio et al. (2022); and from the Iranian Zagros Mohajer et al. (2022a, 2022b), Omidvar et al. (2014b) and Rahimpour-Bonab et al. (2013). An unillustrated record by Cruz-Abad (2018) is from the early Cenomanian of the Italian Apennines, as is a somewhat uncertain illustrated record by Bravi et al. (2004), and if valid they would be the oldest records known. “ Vidalina sp. ” from the supposed early Cenomanian of southeast Turkey (Ozkan &amp; Altiner, 2019) (but possibly middle Cenomanian (see Simmons et al., 2020b)) is a distinctly separate taxon.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Neotethys.</p><p>Not particularly widely reported except for the area around Italy and the Balkans but confirmed as far east as the Iranian Zagros.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF98A256FCB6F922A42FC52E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF9CA256FF11FD58A7ABC58C.text	03E587B6FF9CA256FF11FD58A7ABC58C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Nummofallotia Barrier & Neumann 1959	<div><p>Genus Nummofallotia Barrier &amp; Neumann, 1959</p><p>Type Species: Nonionina cretacea Schlumberger, 1900</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF9CA256FF11FD58A7ABC58C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF9CA254FF11FD07A690C460.text	03E587B6FF9CA254FF11FD07A690C460.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Nummofallotia apula Luperto-Sinni 1968	<div><p>Nummofallotia? apula Luperto-Sinni, 1968</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Luperto-Sinni in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985), pl. 48, p. 100-101 (but see below for issues regarding stated magnifications). The species is also well illustrated by Saint-Marc (1970, pl. 2, figs. 10-15; 1974a, pl. XIII, figs. 13- 19).</p><p>Nummofallotia was introduced by Barrier &amp; Neumann (1959) with the Late Cretaceous (Coniacian - Maastrichtian) taxon Nonionina cretacea Schlumberger as type species. The test is lenticular, planispirally enrolled, periphery rounded to subangular, with a globular proloculus followed by whorls of regularly enlarging chambers. Adults are involute with septa that are slightly oblique and slope backwards at the periphery. An umbo (also sometimes called umbilical “plug” or “button”) of radial fibrous calcite is a distinctive feature in most specimens (Hottinger &amp; Caus, 2009).</p><p>Luperto-Sinni (1968) introduced a new species, Nummofallotia apula, with type material from the “Senonian” of southern Italy, which is smaller and with fewer whorls than N. cretacea . Originally described as possessing a single-layered wall, Bilotte &amp; Decrouez (1979) subsequently stated that the test wall of N. apula is, in its entirety, made up of two layers: an inner layer dark microgranular, and a clear outer layer hyaline-radiated, thicker in the axial zone (see for example illustrations by Saint-Marc, 1970, 1974a), leading them to introduce a new genus, Murgeina, with N. apula as the type species. Although accepted by, for example, Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1988), the necessity to introduce this genus was subsequently questioned by Luperto-Sinni in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) who noted that the two layered wall structure is a variable, inconsistent feature, and that otherwise N. apula conforms perfectly to the nature of Nummofallotia . That said, in 1998, she introduced a further new species of Nummofallotia, Nummofallotia cenomana, which alongside its supposedly very small size (see below), a distinguishing feature was said to be a consistent two layered wall structure. Therefore, there is some debate if Murgeina is a valid genus. A detailed taxonomic revision of all species of Nummofallotia / Murgeina is required using pristine material. This is outside the scope of this primarily stratigraphic/biogeographic review and therefore we tentatively retain N. apula within Nummofallotia as “ N.? apula ”.</p><p>N.? apula is a small biumbonate form, with maximum dimensions (diameter) of around 0.3 – 0.5 mm (holotype 0.32 mm), a thickness of around 0.15 – 0.25 mm (holotype 0.18mm) a large, 0.06-0.08 mm (holotype 0.06 mm), globular proloculus in macrospheric forms, followed by 3 whorls with 16-20 quadrangular chambers in the last whorl. It is distinctively smaller than N. cretacea, that has typical diameters of around 0.6 – 0.8 mm (although possibly as small as 0.36 mm (Bilotte &amp; Decrouez, 1979) and note that if the illustrations of Barrier &amp; Neumann (1959) are correctly scaled, then specimens can be 2.0 – 3.0 mm in diameter, although this must be judged unlikely), thickness of 0.4 – 0.5 mm, 5 - 8 whorls, with more than 20 chambers in the last whorl (e.g., Luperto-Sinni, 1968). Although the same specimens of N.? apula are illustrated by Luperto-Sinni (1968) and Luperto-Sinni in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985), including the types, there are small differences in size based on the magnifications provided.</p><p>N. cenomana was described as a distinctively small (stated diameter dimensions: 0.09 – 0.1 mm) species (Luperto-Sinni, 1998), known from the Cenomanian of southern Italy. If the figures provided by Luperto-Sinni (1998) are taken on face value, using the magnifications as given, the diameters are larger (c. 0.23 mm), but still distinctly small compared to N.? apula . Luperto-Sinni (1998) implied that N. cenomana was the Cenomanian form of Nummofallotia, whilst N.? apula was the “Senonian” form. However, she did not discuss further the various Cenomanian records of N.? apula (see below), which conform to the type description of this species. Thus, the notion that N.? apula does not occur in the Cenomanian is rejected. Other than its type description, the only other mentions of N. cenomana in the literature are from the Iranian Zagros (e.g., Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam, 2020, as “ N.? cenomana ”), where the specimens would be better assigned to N.? apula, based on size and morphology. The types of N. cenomana need to be examined and re-illustrated as part of a taxonomic re-evaluation of Nummofallotia / Murgeina, and this taxon is not considered further herein. (As this paper was going to press, Schlagintweit et al. (2023) published a review of this species (as Murgeina apula) with illustration from the Cenomanian Sarvak Formation of the Iranian Zagros.) Nummofallotia kastomonica Özgen Erdem is an upper Maastrichtian species described from northern Turkey (Özgen Erdem, 2001). It differs from N. apula by virtue of its large size (stated diameter 0.43 – 1.02 mm; a possible expression of Cope’s Rule?), tighter coiling, greater number of whorls and chambers, straight septa, and smaller umbo.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Middle Cenomanian –?Maastrichtian.</p><p>N.? apula was originally described from the “upper Senonian” (possibly Maastrichtian but probably no younger than middle Campanian) of southern Italy (Luperto-Sinni, 1968). It appears to have an unusually long stratigraphic range almost throughout the Late Cretaceous (e.g., Luperto-Sinni &amp; Ricchetti, 1978; Perugini, 2006; Velić, 2007; Sari et al., 2009), but its FAD lies within the Cenomanian.</p><p>Unillustrated records of N.? apula from the Barremian of the Iranian Zagros (Abyat et al., 2016) must be discounted, as probably should the comment by Keshavarzi et al. (2021) that the oldest occurrence of N.? apula marks the base of the Sarvak Formation in the Iranian Zagros which would place it close to the Albian/Cenomanian boundary (Bromhead et al., 2022). No illustration is provided. A Lower Cenomanian record by Radoičić et al. (2010) can be reassessed as middle Cenomanian based on associated fauna. Finally, a record of N.? apula from the Yamama Formation of southern Iraq (Al-Hassani &amp; Al-Dulaimi, 2021) which is Berriasian – Valanginian in age (although the authors describe the material as “early Aptian”) illustrates a fragmentary specimen of Lenticulina sp. or Epistomina sp. Although many records are from the late Cenomanian, Bachmann et al. (2003 - unillustrated) using graphic correlation between sections in Egypt positioned the FAD at or close to the early-middle Cenomanian boundary (following Saint-Marc, 1978; Luperto-Sinni in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985). Chiocchini (2008a - unillustrated) showed a short range for the species in the lowest part of the “late” Cenomanian (Chiocchini used only early and late subdivisions of the Cenomanian which would suggest this range FAD is approximately within the chronostratigraphic middle Cenomanian). Ghanem &amp; Kuss (2013) showed the range of this species (although they illustrated it as cf.) extending into the (upper) middle Cenomanian of Syria, calibrated by planktonic foraminifera. A similar FAD was placed by Schlagintweit (1992) from Austria, and Simone et al. (2012) from Italy, although without independent calibration. Bravi et al. (2004) plausibly illustrate this species from the middle Cenomanian of Central Italy.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Caribbean/North Africa? - Neotethys.</p><p>References in Luperto-Sinni in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) indicate Cenomanian records from Lebanon (Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc 1970; Saint-Marc 1970, 1974 a, 1981), Greece (Decrouez, 1975, 1977; Charvet et al., 1976; see also Fleury, 1971), and Serbia (Radoičić 1974a). In addition, records confirmed by definite or plausible illustration include Italy (Benedetti et al., 2000), south-east Turkey (Özcan &amp; Altiner 2019); and the Iranian Zagros (Sartorio &amp; Venturini, 1988; Jamalpour et al. 2018, Kiarostami et al. 2019, Mohajer et al. 2021a, 2022a, b; an illustration by Mohseni &amp; Javanmard, 2020 is uncertain). Illustrations from Tunisia (Bismuth et al. 1981) and Syria (Ghanem &amp; Kuss 2013 – as cf.), may be more compatible with N. cenomana based on their small size (diameter 0.2 – 0.3 mm). Another record from Tunisia (Abdallah et al., 1995) is more likely Charentia cuvillieri Neumann.</p><p>Cenomanian records from other locations but unconfirmed by illustration include Cuba (Diaz Otero, 1985); Mexico (Michaud et al., 1984; Hernández-Romano et al., 1997; Aguilera-Franco, 2000; Aguilera-Franco &amp; Allison, 2004); Morocco (El-Kadiri et al., 2003, Piuz &amp; Meister, 2013); Egypt (Bachmann et al., 2003; an illustration by Orabi, 1992 is uncertain); Iraq (Hamaoui &amp; Brun, 1974; Bernaus &amp; Masse, 2007; Mahdi et al., 2013), Jordan (Schulze 2003, Schulze et al., 2004) and the Oman Mountains (Rabu 1993; Al-Balushi &amp; Macquaker, 2011; Piuz &amp; Meister, 2013).</p><p>Localities from strata younger than Cenomanian are not included herein.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF9CA254FF11FD07A690C460	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF9EA254FCB6FC83A1FCC4E4.text	03E587B6FF9EA254FCB6FC83A1FCC4E4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Peneroplis De Montfort 1808	<div><p>Genus Peneroplis De Monfort, 1808</p><p>Type Species: Peneroplis planatus (Fichtel &amp; Moll, 1798) (type by original designation)</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF9EA254FCB6FC83A1FCC4E4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF9EA25AFCB6FC6EA680C2D4.text	03E587B6FF9EA25AFCB6FC6EA680C2D4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Peneroplis parvus De Castro 1965	<div><p>Peneroplis parvus De Castro 1965</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>De Castro in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985), Pl. 39, p. 86- 88.</p><p>Originally described as Peneroplis planatus (Fichtel &amp; Moll) n. ssp. parvus, the type and subsequent descriptions of the species by De Castro (1965, 1985) are comprehensive and allow for confident identification (see also Calonge-Garcia, 1996; p. 38, pl. 2, figs. 8-13). A peneropolid with a porcelaneous, imperforate wall and multiple cribrate apertures. 5-6 chambers in the first whorl, 7- 11 in the last (second) whorl. May become flabelliform. The species is very similar to the extant Peneroplis planatus (Fitchell &amp; Moll), but with a smaller size (equatorial diameter c. 0.82mm), plus more adult chambers per mm (11.5-17.5). See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>P. parvus is amongst the oldest known representatives of Peneroplis, a genus often regarded as restricted to the Cenozoic and Recent (Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1988; BouDagher-Fadel, 2008). Chiocchini (2008a) introduced Peneroplis cairoensis from the initial part of their late Cenomanian (=intra-middle Cenomanian) of central Italy. This species is slightly larger than P. parvus (c. 1.2 mm diameter), has a greater number of chambers in the uncoiled stage and a larger diameter of apertural pores. It has not been recorded from outside its type area and is not considered further. Peneroplis aragonensis is a species introduced from the late Albian of the Spanish Pyrenees by Peybernès (1984) as Broeckinella? aragonensis and subsequently transferred to Peneroplis by Schlagintweit &amp; Rashidi (2020). This species is much larger than P. parvus (diameter c. 4.5mm) with a tendency to become sub-annular in macrospheric forms. It too has not been recorded outside its type area and is not considered further. Saint-Marc (1974a) illustrated a “ Peneroplis sp. ” from the late Albian of Lebanon. This is a rapidly uncoiling form, broader and more rounded than P. parvus in axial section, and slightly larger. Consorti (in Consorti et al., 2018) introduced a new genus and species, Pseudopeneroplis oyonensis, from the upper Cenomanian of Peru. In contrast to Peneroplis this taxon develops subdivisions in the marginal area of the chamber lumen but is otherwise similar.</p><p>A potential confusion species is Neodubrovkinella turonica Said &amp; Kenawy. Originally described as a species of Peneroplis (“ Peneroplis turonicus ”) from Egypt (Said &amp; Kenawy, 1957), this taxon has been shown by Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2022a) to be a biokovinid (and Cenomanian, not Turonian). In well-preserved material the finely agglutinating wall with a pseudo-keriothecal structure is visible, excluding it from the Miliolida . In specimens where the wall structure is not clear, a large proloculus in megalospheric forms, a tendency to rapidly uncoil with chambers enlarging rapidly, are sufficient to distinguish N. turonica from P. parvus, as is occasional streptospiral coiling in early chambers. It is worth noting that in many thin-sections, and even illustrations of three-dimensional specimens, the porecellanous nature of the wall of P. parvus can be difficult to determine.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Late Albian/early Cenomanian – late Cenomanian.</p><p>The stratigraphic range of P. parvus has been the subject of a range of opinions in the literature. In his original description, De Castro (1965) thought the type material (from central Italy) to be probably middle Cenomanian in age, a view maintained by him in 1985 (De Castro in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985), although he considered the overall range to be latest Albian to intra-middle Cenomanian based on his assessment of known occurrences to that time. However, in 1991 he considered that in the broad type area an upper Albian – lower Cenomanian biozone could be introduced based on the total range of the species. Similarly, Chiocchini et al. (2012) illustrated the species and limited its range to the around the Albian – Cenomanian boundary. By contrast Calonge-Garcia (1996) and Bilotte (1998) restricted the species to the lower Cenomanian, and Velić (2007) to the upper Cenomanian.</p><p>Determining the range of this species is hampered by a lack of unequivocal illustrations in the literature coupled with a lack of independent age calibration. De Lapparent et al. (1974) provided an unillustrated record of P. parvus from Afghanistan and also points out the difficulties in establishing the difference between the Cenomanian and Turonian in sections devoid of ammonites. Upper Cenomanian records can be supported by the illustrated record from Croatia of Velić &amp; Vlahović (1994), the illustrated occurrence from undifferentiated middle – upper Cenomanian of central Mexico by Omaña et al. (2013, 2014, 2019), and the illustrated record of Shahin &amp; El Baz (2010, 2013) from Sinai. An additional illustrated record from southeast Mexico is that of Rosales-Dominguez et al. (1997) but their assessment that it is “post Cenomanian” in age is based partly on circular reasoning and is incorrect. The unusual Turonian record of Orabi &amp; Khalil (2001) from Sinai is not substantiated by illustration.</p><p>Other than Chiocchini et al., (2012), late Albian and early Cenomanian records of the species lack substantiation by illustration but include Scott (2002) from Mexico; Calonge et al., (2002); Caus et al. (2009); Vicedo et al., (2011) and Consorti et al., (2016b) from Spain; Bachmann et al. (2003) from Sinai; and Ilavsky &amp; Salaj (1969) from Tunisia. Although not illustrated, the middle Cenomanian record from Lebanon of Saint-Marc (1981) is important as the co-occurrence with the ammonite Calycoceras gentoni (Brongniart) supports a middle Cenomanian age calibration.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Caribbean – Neotethys (and? Afghanistan).</p><p>In addition to the records above, the species as been recorded from other parts of southern Italy (Luperto-Sinni &amp; Borgomano, 1989 (late Cenomanian); Borghi &amp; Pignatti, 2006 (late Cenomanian); Di Stefano &amp; Ruberti, 2000, all without illustration) and the Iranian Zagros (Jamalpour et al., 2018 (illustrated), (but not Omidi et al., 2018; Mohajer et al., 2021a, 2022a, b).</p><p>The records from Greece (Fleury, 1980 (also 1971, unillustrated) = possible Pseudorhapydionina sp.) and Syria (Ghanem &amp; Kuss, 2013 = possible peneropolid, but not P. parvus) have illustrations which are not compatible with this species, whilst those from southern Turkey (Tasli et al., 2006; Sari et al., 2009) and southern Iraq (Al-Salihi &amp; Ibrahim, 2023) are tentative or unconfirmed by illustration.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF9EA25AFCB6FC6EA680C2D4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF90A25AFCB6FA1CA0DBC148.text	03E587B6FF90A25AFCB6FA1CA0DBC148.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudorhapydionina De Castro 1972	<div><p>Genus Pseudorhapydionina De Castro, 1972</p><p>Type Species: Rhapydionina laurinensis De Castro, 1965</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF90A25AFCB6FA1CA0DBC148	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF90A258FCB6F9DAA687C7B3.text	03E587B6FF90A258FCB6F9DAA687C7B3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudorhapydionina anglonensis Cherchi & Schroeder 1986	<div><p>Pseudorhapydionina anglonensis Cherchi &amp; Schroeder, 1986</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1986), Pl. 1 (figs. 4, 6, 8-11), p. 188. First proposed in a 1985 field guide and declared nomen nudum by the authors in their 1986 publication.</p><p>P. anglonensis is atypical for the genus and may not even be correctly assigned to it (as indicated by Cherchi and Schroeder by a “?” in their original description) in that there is no uncoiled portion. Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1986) were unable to confirm the presence of a cribrate aperture except in the last few chambers and therefore questioned the generic assignment, but Consorti et al. (2016b) using material from Spain confirmed it from early chambers and thus the generic assignment. However, the total observed material is relatively limited in scope and abundance and uncoiled examples may be recorded in the future. Typical characteristics of the genus are discussed under P. laurinensis (De Castro) herein.</p><p>Solak et al. (2017) illustrated P. anglonensis from southern Turkey together with P. dubia . Their illustration of P. anglonensis (see Solak et al., 2017: fig. 8V) is very similar to the coiled stage of one of their P. dubia specimens (see Solak et al., 2017: fig. 8R). This leads to the suspicion that the former species is simply a juvenile (uncoiled) form of the latter (see also comparative illustrations herein) with which it often co-occurs, and this name should appear in synonymy with P. dubia . Further studies are needed to test this view.</p><p>P. anglonensis (as currently defined) differs from all other Pseudorhapydionina species in apparently lacking an uncoiled, seriate stage. It has 10-12 total coiled chambers and septula which are thin and medium, thickened peripherally. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>It is broadly similar to Scandonea spp. and Moncharmontia spp., but these do not have internal septula and, in the case of the latter, has more chambers. Note that some specimens described as P. dubia by De Castro in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) are considered as P. anglonensis by Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1986) and Mancinelli &amp; Chiocchini (2006).</p><p>Fissumella motolae Cruz-Abad et al., a genus and species introduced from the early Albian of Italy (Cruz-Abad et al., 2017), resembles P. anglonensis with the presence of a few incomplete radial septula. However, these two genera differ in the nature of the aperture, which is cribrate in Pseudorhapydionina, but single and fissure-shaped in Fissumella .</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Middle? – Intra-late Cenomanian.</p><p>Rarely recorded in the literature. Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1986) in their original description from Sardinia described the occurrence of P. anglonensis as late Cenomanian, a view upheld by Consorti et al. (2016b). Illustrations of P. dubia from the late Cenomanian of the Pyrenees by Bilotte (1984) may be P. anglonensis . However, in the Italian literature, where the species is often well illustrated (e.g., Mancinelli &amp; Chiocchini, 2006; Chiocchini, 2008a, 2008b; Chiocchini et al., 2008, 2012), its occurrence is the lower part of the upper Cenomanian, where only a bipartite subdivision of the Cenomanian is used. This might equate to the middle Cenomanian or very low in the late Cenomanian of other authors.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Central Neotethys.</p><p>Recorded and plausibly illustrated only from Spain, Sardinia, Italy and the Turkish Taurides (see references mentioned above).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF90A258FCB6F9DAA687C7B3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF92A25DFCB6FEF5A4C4C099.text	03E587B6FF92A25DFCB6FEF5A4C4C099.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudorhapydionina dubia (De Castro 1965)	<div><p>Pseudorhapydionina dubia (De Castro, 1965)</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>De Castro in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985), pls. 40-42, p. 88-91.</p><p>The treatment of the genus and species by De Castro in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) is comprehensive and allows for confident identification. See also more comments on the genus under P. laurinensis, the type species. However, Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1986) regard some of De Castro’s 1985 illustrations of P. dubia (pl. 42, figs. 6 &amp; 15) as P. anglonensis .</p><p>Consorti et al. (2016b) provide useful illustration of P. dubia from the late Cenomanian of Spain (see also Calonge-Garcia, 1996; p. 34, pl. 2, figs. 4-7) together with a succinct description: “ Porcelaneous shell with subglobular to cylindrical morphology. The chambers in the early stage of growth are arranged in one and a half to two whorls. The specimens of the Iberian Ranges show four chambers in the first whorl and six or seven in the second one. The uncoiled adult stage consists generally of five cylindrical chambers. The globular early stage reaches a maximum diameter of 0.35 mm with an average of 0.29 mm. The seriate adult stage has an average length of 0.6 mm, and the height of the chambers is approximately 0.06 mm. The scarce centred sections show a proloculus of about 40 μm in diameter. The apertural face is convex and the aperture cribrate. The intercameral foramina are regularly disposed, forming a circular pattern with three concentric stipple rings in the septa. The chamber lumen is partially divided by radial septula, which number approximately 5-6 per quadrant in the seriate adult stage of growth. Septula are short and their thickness is less than 10 μm.” See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>When visible, the very early coiling may be streptospiral which may place this species as a miliolid rather than a soritid (De Castro in Schroeder &amp; Neumann 1985).</p><p>P. dubia is very similar to the Central America endemic homeomorph P. chiapanensis but has fewer total coiled chambers (7-11 cf. 12-13); slightly fewer chambers in the seriate stage (3-7 cf. 4-9); septula which are thin and short (cf. thick and medium length); and more septula per quadrant in the seriate stage (7-9 cf. 5). Nonetheless, P. dubia occurs in the middle – late Cenomanian of Mexico as confirmed by illustration (Aguilera-Franco, 2000; Aguilera-Franco et al., 2001).</p><p>It differs from P. laurinensis in having generally parallel sides (= cylindrical) in the seriate stage rather than flaring and non-depressed sutures. The more extensive presence of long radial septula in P. laurinensis is a key difference. P. dubia differs from P. anglonensis in possessing an uncoiled (seriate) stage, but also a smaller coiled stage and less well-developed septula. The two taxa are very similar and can be confused when a seriate stage is absent. Illustrations of P. dubia from the late Cenomanian of the Pyrenees by Bilotte (1984) may be P. anglonensis .</p><p>Scandonea phoenissa Saint-Marc and Charentia cuvillieri Neumann are also similar to P. dubia in that they have a short uncoiled rectilinear portion, but which is noncylindrical, and with a somewhat more compressed or lenticular initial stage and no internal septula.</p><p>Some (pl. 8, figs. 15-18) but not all of the forms illustrated by Hamaoui (1961) as “ Taberina sp. (sp. nov?)” from the Cenomanian of Israel may be synonymous with P. dubia . However, more research is required.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>(Early Cenomanian) middle – late Cenomanian.</p><p>Arnaud et al. (1981) and Schroder &amp; Neumann (1985) summarise the range of P. dubia as having an inception within the early Cenomanian, then ranging through the middle and late Cenomanian, into the early Turonian. A review of all the many records of P. dubia to date suggests that most specimens confirmed by illustration occur within the middle to late Cenomanian (although local ranges may be shorter). Indeed, the species was introduced from sediments of this age from southern Italy (De Castro, 1965) classically attributable to the middle and late Cenomanian (see also De Castro in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985; Chiocchini et al., 2012). None of those records where a Turonian extension is suggested is supported by plausible or definite identification (Saint-Marc, 1974a, 1978, 1981), and/or where identification is better (e.g., Fleury, 1980), the Turonian age itself is questioned (De Castro in Schroeder &amp; Neumann 1985). An illustrated “Senonian” record by Tsaila- Monopolis (1977) from Greece is poorly preserved and needs further research into its chronostratigraphic calibration.</p><p>Calonge-Garcia (1996) regards the species as ranging from the middle Cenomanian to the top of the Cenomanian based on material from Spain.</p><p>P. dubia has been plausibly illustrated from the latest Cenomanian of Morocco (Charrière et al. 1998; Ettachfini, 2006) (see also Ettachfini et al., 2005 unillustrated). Parente et al. (2007, 2008) calibrated the LAD of P. dubia in Italy to within the N. juddi ammonite zone although the specimens were not illustrated. Using carbon isotope stratigraphy, Frijia et al. (2015) placed the extinction of P. dubia just below the Cenomanian/Turonian boundary in Italy.</p><p>Records of P. dubia in the early Cenomanian are generally rare (e.g., Decrouez, 1978; Berthou and Lauverjat, 1979; Michaud et al., 1984; Golubic et al., 2006; Ghanem et al., 2012). Berthou (1973) is a key reference, but only illustrates specimens from the middle and late Cenomanian in Portugal, although expands the range into the early Cenomanian. Ghanem &amp; Kuss (2013) provide reasonable evidence that the species ranges throughout the Cenomanian in northwest Syria. Mohammed (2005), who illustrated P. dubia from southern Iraq, thought it might range throughout the Cenomanian there, but the age calibration evidence for that is less clear.</p><p>Simone et al. (2012) reported a single P. dubia specimen from supposed latest Albian strata in Italy (in addition to more common occurrences recorded from middle and late Cenomanian strata). They remark that this occurrence is atypical (see also Decrouez &amp; Moullade, 1974) but the age is supposedly supported by orbitolinid faunas from a few metres above the sample (which include Neoiraqia insolita (Decrouez &amp; Moullade), Paracoskinolina tunesiana Peybernes (= Carseyella tunesiana) and Valdanchella dercourti Decrouez &amp; Moullade). This assemblage is a confusing mix of mid-Cretaceous and Early Cretaceous taxa. Carseyella tunesiana (late Aptian – early Albian, Solak, 2021) is probably misidentified, and the other taxa could be as young as middle Cenomanian (Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985). Furthermore, the identification of this particular specimen of P. dubia by Simone et al. (2012) is not confirmed by illustration, thus extending the range of the species into the late Albian appears unjustified.</p><p>In Mexico, Aguilera-Franco (2000, 2003); Aguilera-Franco et al. (2001), Aguilera-Franco &amp; Allison (2004) and Aguilera-Franco &amp; Romano (2004) defined a Total Range Zone for this species that encompasses the upper middle and lower upper Cenomanian (see also Michaud et al., 1984; Hernández-Romano et al., 1997; Bomou et al., 2019 – in the last-named paper P. dubia is illustrated, but it may well be P. chiapanensis). But somewhat confusingly, and without explanation, in some figures and text they extend the range of this zone into the early Cenomanian. An upper middle to lower Cenomanian Total Range Zone broadly corresponds to the similarly aged “ P. dubia and P. laurinensis zone” in central Italy (Chiocchini et al., 1979, 2008, 2012). In Egypt a zone of this name is restricted to the intra-late Cenomanian (Shahin &amp; Elbaz, 2013, 2014), a clear case of facies control on ranges and hence calibration of the zonation. Tasli et al. (2006) defined a “ Pseudorhapydionina dubia and Biconcava bentori Cenozone ” encompassing the entire middle and late Cenomanian, equivalent to the “ Pseudolituonella reicheli - Pseudorhapydionina dubia Concurrent Range Zone ” of Sari et al. (2009) (see also Solak et al., 2020, who also reviews past interpretations of age range). Velić (2007) considered P. dubia to range from middle – late Cenomanian in the Dinarides.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Caribbean - Neotethys.</p><p>Widely reported, P. dubia is the most widespread species of the genus, although records are not always confirmed by illustration.</p><p>Confirmed illustrated records are from: Mexico (Aguilera-Franco, 2000; Aguilera-Franco et al., 2001); Portugal (Berthou, 1973; Michaud et al., 1984) (also no or uncertain illustration by Berthou &amp; Lauverjat 1979; Berthou, 1984b; Andrade, 2018); Spain (Calonge-Garcia, 1996; Consorti et al., 2016b); Morocco (Charrière et al. 1998; Ettachfini, 2006) (also no or uncertain illustration by Ettachfini et al., 2005); Algeria (Vila, 1974) (the illustrations by Salhi et al. (2020) are indeterminate, but clearly not this species); Egypt (Shahin &amp; Elbaz 2013, 2014); (the illustrations by Orabi (1992) from Sinai are indeterminate but clearly not this species); Albania (Consorti &amp; Schlagintweit 2021b) (also no or uncertain illustration by Heba, 2008); Italy (De Castro, 1965; Chiocchini &amp; Mancinelli, 1977; De Castro in Schroeder &amp; Neumann 1985; Sartorio &amp; Venturini, 1988; Spalluto &amp; Caffau, 2010; Chiocchini et al., 2012; Simone et al., 2012) (also no or uncertain illustration by Foglia, 1992; Borghi &amp; Pignatti, 2006; Randazzo et al. 2020); Sardinia (Cherchi &amp; Schroeder, 1976); Serbia (Radoičić, 1972, 1974a, b) (also no or uncertain illustration by Golubic et al., 2006); Croatia (Velić, 1973; Velić &amp; Vlahović, 1994, Brčić et al., 2017, 2021) (also no or uncertain illustration by Veseli, 1994; Husinec et al., 2000, 2009; Korbar et al., 2001, 2012; Velić, 2007); Kosovo (Schlagintweit &amp; Rigaud, 2015); Greece (Fleury, 1980) (also no or uncertain illustration by Fleury 1971; Decrouez &amp; Moullade, 1974; Charvet et al., 1976; Decrouez, 1978; Zambetakis-Lekkas, 2006; Pomoni-Papaioannou &amp; Zambetakis-Lekkas, 2009); Turkish Taurides (Tasli et al., 2006; Sari et al., 2009; Koç, 2017; Robertson et al., 2020; Solak, 2021; Solak et al., 2017, 2019, 2020) (also no or uncertain illustration by Bignot &amp; Poisson, 1974; Sağaltici &amp; Koç, 2021); Jordan (Schulze et al., 2005) (also no or uncertain illustration by Kuss, 1994); Syria (Ghanem and Kuss, 2013) (also no or uncertain illustration by Saint-Marc, 1977; Ghanem et al., 2012); Southern Iraq (Mohammed, 2005) (also no and uncertain illustration by Hamaoui &amp; Brun, 1974; Mohammed, 2007, Al-Salihi &amp; Ibrahim, 2023).</p><p>Location records with no or questionable illustrations include: Mexico (Hernández-Romano et al., 1997; Aguilera-Franco, 2003; Aguilera-Franco &amp; Allison, 2004; Aguilera-Franco &amp; Romano, 2004; Bomou et al., 2019); SE France (Rineau et al., 2021); Tunisia (Bismuth et al., 1967; Saïdi et al., 1995; Touir et al. 2017); Slovenia (Šribar &amp; Pleničar, 1990); Montenegro (Božović, 2016); Israel (Hamaoui, 1961); Lebanon (Saint-Marc, 1970, 1974a, 1978, 1981); Iranian Zagros (Mohajer et al., 2021a; Rahimpour-Bonab et al., 2013; Omidvar et al., 2014a, b; Consorti et al., 2015; Rikhtegarzadeh et al., 2016, 2017; Saeedi Razavi et al., 2019, 2021; Dehghanian &amp; Afghah, 2021; Asghari et al., 2022). The illustration by Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2022a) is possible, but it also might be P. anglonensis (illustrating the difficulty of separating these taxa), or indeed something else. The illustrations from the Iranian Zagros by Kiarostami et al. (2012) Esfandyari et al. (2023), and Mohajer et al. (2022a) are all indeterminate but cannot be reconciled with this species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF92A25DFCB6FEF5A4C4C099	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF97A25DFF11F82BA05BC005.text	03E587B6FF97A25DFF11F82BA05BC005.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudorhapydionina chiapanensis Michaud 1984	<div><p>Pseudorhapydionina chiapanensis Michaud et al., 1984</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Michaud et al. (1984), Pls. 1 &amp; 2 (not 11-14), p. 35-37.</p><p>Pseudorhapydionina chiapanensis is similar in respects to both P. dubia and P. laurinensis . Michaud et al. (1984) outlines the main differences as P. chiapanensis having a thicker wall and less depressed sutures compared with P. laurinensis and a more parallel-sided seriate portion compared with P. laurinensis which is more flaring. It has somewhat more chambers in the seriate portion than P. dubia . Consorti et al. (2016b) notes it has fewer internal septula in the seriate portion than P. dubia and P. laurinensis, and which are thick, medium length and thickened at the base. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Early – late (but not latest) Cenomanian.</p><p>Originally described from the early – middle Cenomanian of southern Mexico by Michaud et al. (1984) who associated the new species with Rotalipora apenninica (Renz) (= Thalmanninella appenninica) (late Albian – lower late Cenomanian; Bidgood &amp; Simmons, 2022). However, T. apenninica is not illustrated, so there is something of a question mark over the oldest age of P. chiapanensis . Aguilera-Franco (2000, 2003) associated P. chiapanensis with P. dubia which she stated was a middle – late Cenomanian species. Aguilera-Franco &amp; Allison (2004) placed the extinction of P. dubia within the late Cenomanian.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Central America/Caribbean.</p><p>This species was originally described and illustrated from the Chiapas region in the far south of Mexico (Michaud et al. 1984) and has subsequently only been reported from that region (i.e., the Maya Block), including Guatemala. Records include from the Guerrero-Morelos Platform (Aguilera-Franco et al., 2001; Aguilera-Franco, 2000, 2003 (illustrated); Aguilera-Franco &amp; Romano, 2004; Aguilera-Franco &amp; Allison, 2004; Bomou et al., 2019). Other records from southern Mexico include Michaud &amp; Fourcade (1989), Rosales-Dominguez et al. (1997, 1998 illustrated); Cros et al. (1998) and Martens &amp; Sierra-Rojas (2021). Records from Guatemala include Michaud et al. (1992); Fourcade et al. (1999); Moeschler (2009, illustrated); Caceres Flores (2016, illustrated) and Radmacher et al. (2021, illustrated). It was not reported by Omaña et al. (2012, 2019) from central Mexico which suggests a very restricted area of distribution.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF97A25DFF11F82BA05BC005	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF97A241FCB6F8AEA615C040.text	03E587B6FF97A241FCB6F8AEA615C040.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudorhapydionina laurinensis (De Castro 1965)	<div><p>Pseudorhapydionina laurinensis (De Castro, 1965)</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>De Castro in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985), Pl. 43, p. 91- 95. Good illustrations of this species are provided by Chiocchini et al. (2012) (see also Sartorio &amp; Venturini, 1988).</p><p>The genus Pseudorhapydionina was introduced by De Castro (1972), with Rhapydionina laurinensis as described by De Castro (1965) from the early late Cenomanian of southern Italy as the type species. In contrast to Rhapydionina Stache – an alveolinid with a thick, perforated basal layer – Pseudorhapydionina – a soritid without a thick perforated basal layer – has a somewhat simpler, less complex endoskeleton where pillars and blades do not fuse to form marginal chambers and a pre-septal void, which is characteristic of the former. Beams are irregularly alternating between well developed and less well developed and are numerous (De Castro in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985). De Castro (1972) also introduced the closely related genus Pseudorhipidionina . Pseudorhapydionina is essentially globular to (uncoiled) subcylindrical whereas Pseudorhipidionina is flatter and (uncoiled) flabelliform. Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1988) describe a cribrate aperture in both genera, although pores are “scattered” in Pseudorhapydionina and present as “a row of pores” in Pseudorhipidionina . Demirina also has internal septula, although fewer, and with a more ‘peneroplid’ overall shape and Praetaberina possesses pillars which Pseudorhapydionina lacks (Consorti et al., 2015).</p><p>The treatment of the genus and of P. laurinensis by De Castro in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) is comprehensive and allows for confident identification. See also the description and illustrations from Sapin in Calonge-Garcia (1996). Consorti et al. (2016b) tabulates differences between the various species of Pseudorhapydionina, although comparative stratigraphic ranges are not discussed. They provide a useful succinct description of P. laurinensis: “ porcelaneous, subgloblar-to-cylindrical shell. The subglobular early stage, with a size of about 0.33 mm of diameter, consists of two whorls of planispiral chambers. The first whorl hosts six chambers, while the second one has ten. The diameter of the proloculus is approximately 30 μm. The height of the cylindrical chambers is approximately 0.05 mm. The chamber lumen is partially divided by long radial septula, which number approximately 5-6 per quadrant in the seriate stage of growth [though illustrations show more]. Septula thickness is around 15 μm. ” See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>P. laurinensis differs from all other Pseudorhapydionina species in having a somewhat flared uncoiled, seriate portion (especially in the early part) whereas other uncoiled species ( P. chiapanensis and P. dubia) have more-or-less parallel-sided seriate portions. P. laurinensis also has more depressed sutures on the seriate part compared to the other species. P. anglonensis has no uncoiled portion but this is subject to further investigation.</p><p>The four species of Pseudorhapydionina recorded herein ( P. chiapanensis Michaud et al., P. dubia (De Castro), P. laurinensis (De Castro) and P. anglonensis Cherchi &amp; Schroeder), all have a stratigraphic record limited to within the Cenomanian. A Santonian species from the Pyrenees, P. bilottei Consorti et al. (2016b), is not discussed in detail here, although it was based on specimens assigned to P. laurinensis by Bilotte in 1984. Compared to P. laurinensis, it has a greater maximum diameter of the early planispiral stage and number of chambers per whorl. The radial septula of P. laurinensis are longer but thinner than in P. bilottei; moreover, the width/height ratio of the seriate chambers is higher in P. laurinensis than in P. bilottei (see Consorti et al., 2016b).</p><p>P. laurinensis was introduced in 1965 by De Castro, but forms that are this species had been known for some time under different names. These include “ Ouladnailla ” nom. nud. by Emberger (1955) from the Cenomanian of Algeria and “ Taberina sp. (sp. nov?)” of Hamaoui (1961) illustrated from the Cenomanian of Israel.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Middle – late (but not latest) Cenomanian.</p><p>As a genus, Pseudorhapydionina seems to have evolved in the early (?earliest) Cenomanian by a species referred to as P. aff. laurinensis in Iberian sediments of the Chera Formation (Consorti et al. 2016a; see also De Castro in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985, who mentions P. laurinensis from the early Cenomanian of Italy, although without illustration).</p><p>De Castro (1965) and De Castro in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) indicated that the type material of P. laurinensis is from the early part of the late Cenomanian. The notion that the species is restricted to this age interval has been followed by a number of authors, potentially sometimes with circular reasoning for the age assignment. Saint-Marc (1974a, 1978, 1981, illustrated) constructed a P. laurinensis Total Range Zone for the “lower part of the upper Cenomanian” of Lebanon, with age constrained from other fauna. Fleury (1971) illustrated P. laurinensis from rocks attributed with a late Cenomanian age from Greece, although the presence of the species was cited as one of the arguments for the age assignment. On the other hand, Decrouez (1978) recorded (with uncertain illustration) P. laurinensis together with Conicorbitolina conica (d’Archiac) in Greece. The latter species ranges no higher than middle Cenomanian (Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985). Calonge-Garcia (1996) follows De Castro (1985) in restricting the species to the middle and (lower) late Cenomanian of Spain.</p><p>Velić (2007, unillustrated) confined the total range of P. laurinensis to his Vidalina radoicicae-Chrysalidina gradata Concurrent Range Zone, to which he assigned a late Cenomanian age, in the Dinarides of the Adriatic coast. In sections from Morocco where there is good ammonite-based age calibration, P. laurinensis occurs (illustrated) within the late but not latest Cenomanian (Charrière et al., 1998) (see also Ettachfini &amp; Andreu (2004); Ettachfini et al. (1989, 2005) and Ettachfini (2006) for unillustrated or uncertain records). Consorti et al. (2016b) record and illustrate a sensu stricto form from the late Cenomanian of the Iberian Ranges of Spain (see below for discussion of another form described as “ P. aff. laurinensi s”).</p><p>Chiocchini &amp; Mancinelli (1977), Chiocchini (2008a, b) and Chiocchini et al. (2008, 2012) use the total range of P. laurinensis in Central Italy to define a “ P. dubia and P. laurinensis biozone” which encompasses much of what they term “late Cenomanian”, but not the latest. Note however, that they do not use the term middle Cenomanian, so the meaning of their “late Cenomanian” most likely incorporates some middle Cenomanian of the current international standard.</p><p>Similar occurrences may have led Arnaud et al. (1981) to consider the range of P. laurinensis as middle – possibly upper Cenomanian in the Mediterranean region, a view upheld in the range chart of Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985), although as discussed above, its presence in the lower part of the late Cenomanian appears certain. Orabi et al. (2012) (with plausible illustration) constructed a P. laurinensis zone of middle Cenomanian age in Egypt with the FAD of P. laurinensis as the base zonal marker although it is shown ranging to the top of the overlying biozone which is assigned a (lower) late Cenomanian age (see also Shahin &amp; Elbaz 2013, 2014).</p><p>The form referred to as P. aff. laurinensis by Consorti et al. (2016b) deserves further discussion. Consorti et al. (2016b) illustrated this form but gave no other diagnostic means of separating it from P. laurinensis s.s. other than that it was “smaller”. There is a suggestion in the single illustration that the aff form may have fewer septula than the s.s. form. The aff form is also uncoiled which suggests it is not a juvenile. Comparison between the figures in Consorti et al. (2016b: aff form Figure 4a, s.s. form Figure 4b – both are equatorial sections) shows the aff form is about 75% the size of the s.s. form with both illustrations shown as being smaller than the scale bar of 0.5mm length. P. aff. laurinensis was recorded from the Chera Formation, near Castellon in Spain which is shown as being latest Albian to earliest Cenomanian in age.</p><p>Another possible record of the genus stated to be early Cenomanian are specimens designated as P. cf. laurinensis by Luger (2018) from Somalia. However, Luger’s illustrations are more equivocal, and the specimens are not oriented favourably although the uncoiled (seriate) part does at least seem cylindrical. This makes size measurement of the specimens difficult, but the maximum dimension appears to be around 1.8mm – much larger than Consorti et al.’s (2016b) P. aff. laurinensis . Luger’s specimens occur with Praealveolina iberica Reichel which can range into the middle Cenomanian, so an early Cenomanian age is not definite.</p><p>In our view the specimens from Spain designated P. aff. laurinensis (Consorti et al., 2016b) may – until more material is examined – be regarded as “primitive” examples of P. laurinensis but may be a separate taxon. The specimens of Luger (2018) from Somalia are more equivocal but with better age calibration may be included within P. laurinensis or P. dubia . There is insufficient material to consider a separate taxon.</p><p>In summary the overall consistent range of P. laurinensis appears to be from the middle to the late but not latest Cenomanian, but the range locally – especially the position of the FAD – appears to be strongly facies-restricted. Specimens “comparable with” or which have “affinity” with P. laurinensis have been recorded from the early Cenomanian (in more peripheral localities – see below) but their exact taxonomic relationship with P. laurinensis s.s. needs further examples and study. A Maastrichtian record (Bilotte, 1978) is known to be erroneous (Bilotte, 1984).</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Neotethys.</p><p>In addition to the references cited above, P. laurinensis is recorded with confirmed or plausible illustration from the late Cenomanian of Albania / Kosovo (Consorti &amp; Schlagintweit, 2021a); the Dinarides (Radoičić, 1972, 1974a; Velić &amp; Vlahović, 1994); and the Turkish Taurides (Bignot &amp; Poisson, 1974; Sari et al., 2009; Solak et al., 2020). Unillustrated records or records with questionable illustrations are from Serbia (Radoičić &amp; Schlagintweit, 2007); Albania (Heba, 2008); Tunisia (Philip et al., 1988; Saïdi et al., 1995; Touir et al., 2017); Syria (Mouty et al., 2003; Ghanem et al., 2012); Israel (Hamaoui, 1966); Dubai (Menegatti, 2004) and Oman (Smith et al., 1990; Piuz &amp; Meister, 2013).</p><p>It seems likely that P. laurinensis does not occur in Mexico, being replaced by the similar, but endemic form, P. chiapanensis (Aguilera-Franco, 2003) . Unillustrated records of P. laurinensis from Mexico (Hernández-Romano et al., 1997; Aguilera-Franco et al., 2001) may therefore be of P. chiapanensis .</p><p>The forms above designated as “cf” from Somalia are included as unconfirmed occurrences here.</p><p>A questionable illustration from Algeria (Alloul, 2019) is indeterminate – but see Hamaoui &amp; Fourcade (1973) for confirmed records from there. They also illustrate specimens from Israel. P. laurinensis is regarded as important for biozonation in the Mishrif Formation of southern Iraq (Al-Dulaimy et al., 2022), but the illustration is not this species or even genus (probably = Biconcava bentori), however, illustrations by Mohammed (2005) from the same rock unit seem plausible (see also Al-Salihi &amp; Ibrahim, 2023 for an unillustrated record). Interestingly, there is no reliable record of the species from the Iranian Zagros.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF97A241FCB6F8AEA615C040	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF8BA241FCB6F8E0A030C024.text	03E587B6FF8BA241FCB6F8E0A030C024.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudorhipidionina De Castro 1972	<div><p>Genus Pseudorhipidionina De Castro, 1972</p><p>Type Species: Rhipidionina casertana De Castro, 1965</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF8BA241FCB6F8E0A030C024	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF8BA245FCB6F8AEA714C277.text	03E587B6FF8BA245FCB6F8AEA714C277.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudorhipidionina casertana-murgiana De Castro 1972	<div><p>Pseudorhipidionina ex gr. casertana-murgiana sensu De Castro, 1965, 2006</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>De Castro in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985), Pls. 44-45, p. 95-97; see also De Castro (2006), Pls.2-4 and Consorti et al. (2016b), Figs 4 d-4e, 4h, 5a-5j, p. 276.</p><p>Pseudorhipidionina murgiana (Crescenti, 1964, emend. De Castro, 2006) and Pseudorhipidionina casertana (De Castro, 1965) were both first described from southern Italy around the same time. P. murgiana was described from eastern southern Italy, whilst P. casertana was described from its western-central part. The history of their description, taxonomic assignment, and occurrence is documented by De Castro (2006), who illustrated topotypes of P. murgiana alongside illustrations of P. casertana . The original illustrations of P. murgiana (Crescenti, 1964) are rather poor and had led to the species being somewhat overlooked in the literature, whilst there are quite numerous records of P. casertana . Nonetheless the taxa are extremely similar (De Castro, 2006; Consorti et al., 2016b) although no firm conclusion on their possible synonymy has been made.</p><p>Herein we use the formulation Pseudorhipidionina ex gr. casertana-murgiana. In 1981 De Castro stated “Mi sembra probabile che Pseudorhipidionina casertana, possa essere un sinonimo non valido di Praerhapydionina murgiana ” [It seems probable to me that Pseudorhipidionina casertana could be an invalid synonym of Praerhapydionina murgiana]. Subsequently, De Castro (2006) – although providing a series of quantitative differences between the two taxa – appeared somewhat equivocal when committing firmly to their separation. P. casertana is indeed very similar to P. murgiana, having a slightly larger proloculus while other features such as test-size, length and breadth of the chambers, and pre-/postseptum-thickness are slightly larger in P. murgiana than in P. casertana (De Castro, 2006) . They are also, more or less, contemporary in stratigraphic range.</p><p>De Castro’s main criterion for separation relies on their reported geographically separate occurrences in Italy (on the Apula Platform for P. murgiana, and the Abruzzese-Campana Platform for P. casertana) as justification. On the other hand, both “species” may be present in the Middle East (see below).</p><p>Calonge-Garcia (1996) was also somewhat equivocal on the relationship between the two taxa, stating the difference between the two was that P. murgiana possessed a single opening, but admitted the lack of published material on that species could not rule out synonymy with P. casertana .</p><p>More recently, Consorti et al. (2016b) studied the taxa and could not propose a solution although recommended further study. However, they suggested P. casertana and P. murgiana are synonymous. They first mention the presence of bifurcated septula in P. casertana, especially in the uncoiled portion, a feature not noted in De Castro’s description (in Schroeder &amp; Neumann 1985). As an example of the difficulty in separating the taxa, Chiocchini et al. (2012) illustrated P. murgiana from the very latest Cenomanian of central Italy. However, their illustrations lack the supposedly characteristic broader uncoiled chambers as compared with P. casertana .</p><p>The description of P. casertana by Consorti et al. (2016b) is succinct and useful: “ Porcelaneous flabelliform shell with an acute periphery. The early planispiral-involute stage of growth consists of elongated chambers arranged in one and a half to two whorls, reaching a diameter of 0.55 mm, approximately. The seriate stage is composed, at least, of 10 wide and short chambers averaging 0.04 mm in height. The septa are markedly convex and cribbed by numerous intercameral foramina. The external part of the chamber lumen is partially divided by radial septula. The septula, which has a thickness of around 15-18 μm, may bifurcate at their inner end. They occupy one-third of the chamber lumen ”. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>Like Pseudorhapydionina, species of Pseudorhipidionina have also undergone a rather convoluted journey through various generic assignments, due seemingly in this case to a lack of adequate type material and new (or amended) diagnostic features being observed subsequently in better preserved/new specimens. There were, essentially two species of Cenomanian Pseudorhipidionina: P. casertana (De Castro) and P. murgiana (Crescenti), the former originally assigned to Rhipidionina Stache, the latter originally to Praerhapydionina Van Wessem. For example, Praerhapydionina murgiana was originally believed to have had a single aperture (diagnostic of that genus) but later specimens were observed with multiple apertures (diagnostic of Pseudorhipidionina). The reader is referred to the discussions in De Castro (in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985) and De Castro (2006) for an historical overview.</p><p>In gross terms, Pseudorhipidionina has a more flattened, almost “peneropolid”-like uncoiled portion compared to Pseudorhapydionina whose uncoiled portion is subcylindrical to cylindrical.</p><p>Pseudorhipidionina ex gr. casertana-murgiana is also very similar to the?agglutinated taxon Reissella ramonensis Hamaoui which has a more complex endoskeleton, and which includes beams and joists/rafters rather than just beams (De Castro, 1981; De Castro in Schroeder &amp; Neumann 1985; Mikhalevich 2004a &amp; b). See also Hottinger 2006: fig. 19 and Fig. 2 herein for diagrammatic explanation of these morphological features.</p><p>Borghi and Pignatti (2006) remarked on the similarity between P. ex gr. casertana - murgiana and Praetaberina bingistani (Henson) in random thin-sections, although they note that Praetaberina is more “complex” and has a cylindrical uncoiled portion where such features can be observed. Praetaberina also possesses pillars which Pseudorhipidionina (and Pseudorhapydionina) lack (Consorti et al., 2015).</p><p>It is the presence of pillars in Pseudorhipidionina tubaensis Mohammed (described from the Mishrif Formation of the Tuba-1 well in southern Iraq; Mohammed, 2007), as illustrated, that precludes it from assignment to Pseudorhipidionina . In fact, the published illustrations by Mohammed (2007) comprise two different species; Praetaberina bingistani and Cycledomia iranica and P. tubaensis is therefore a junior synonym of both (Consorti &amp; Schlagintweit, 2021b).</p><p>In summary, unless material is well preserved and is oriented in ways in which critical taxonomic features are visible, Pseudorhipidionina, Praetaberina and Reissella may appear very similar in tangential-longitudinally oriented sections.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Upper middle? – late Cenomanian.</p><p>The majority of illustrated records in the literature attribute a late Cenomanian age range to both P. murgiana and P. casertana (herein Pseudorhipidionina ex gr. casertana-murgiana). There is some debate as to whether Pseudorhipidionina casertana ranges as far as the actual Cenomanian-Turonian boundary, above the boundary, or if it becomes extinct just below the boundary.</p><p>De Castro in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) estimated the age of P. casertana to be late Cenomanian (?upper part) based on association with the extinction of Pseudorhapydionina laurinensis and the “acrozone” of Cisalveolina fraasi . He also suggested that previous records which alluded to an early Turonian age (e.g., Saint-Marc, 1974a, 1978, 1981; Arnaud et al., 1981) should be treated with caution because of the uncertainty of the position of that boundary in those sections mentioned. Calonge-Garcia (1996) also follows this position. Nonetheless the range chart in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) shows a range from the late middle Cenomanian into the earliest Turonian. Subsequently, De Castro (2006) remarked that “ P. murgiana and P. casertana have the same age (late Cenomanian) and both are associated with … Cisalveolina fraasi and Coxites zubairensis .” As noted elsewhere herein, the supposed Turonian records from Lebanon (Saint-Marc, 1974a, 1978, 1981) are from beds that, based on associated ammonite data, appear to straddle the Cenomanian – Turonian boundary, but the precise stratigraphic position of P. casertana occurrences relative to these ammonite occurrences is uncertain. Given this, and the lack of any other substantiated Turonian records, Pseudorhipidionina ex gr. casertana-murgiana is excluded from the Turonian.</p><p>Solak et al. (2020) defined the Pseudorhipidionina casertana Assemblage Zone in studies from Turkey based on the FAD of P. casertana and other taxa including Pseudorhapydionina dubia, P. laurinensis and Vidalina radoicicae . They imply that P. casertana is restricted to this zone to which they assign a late-but-not-latest Cenomanian age. Velić (2007) considered the species (both P. murgiana and P. casertana) important late Cenomanian markers in the Dinarides. Berthou &amp; Lauverjat (1979) and Berthou (1984a, b) restrict the species to the lower half of the late Cenomanian in Portugal (see illustration in Berthou, 1973). Charrière et al. (1998) places the LAD of P. casertana in Morocco below those beds containing the ammonite Vascoceras cauvini (Chudeau) which, they state, is also below the base of the W. archaeocretacea planktonic foraminiferal zone. Ettachfini (2006 - illustrated) also from Morocco, places the LAD no younger than the juddi ammonite zone (see also Ettachfini et al., 2005; Piuz &amp; Meister, 2013, unillustrated).</p><p>Parente et al. (2007, 2008) used integrated ammonite and Carbon-isotope data to suggest the LAD of P. casertana occurs around the middle part of the geslinianum ammonite zone. Simone et al. (2012) and Frijia et al. (2015) essentially agree, with the latter placing the LAD slightly higher near the top of the geslinianum zone.</p><p>Frijia et al. (2015: fig. 15) place the FAD of P. casertana at the base of the jukesbrownei ammonite zone (upper middle Cenomanian). See also Arnaud et al. (1981) who also positions the FAD at the base of the jukesbrownei zone, although the basis for this is unclear.</p><p>Ghanem &amp; Kuss (2013) illustrate the species from the late Cenomanian of Syria. Their range chart restricts the species to the late Cenomanian, but in the text they mention middle Cenomanian occurrences. On the other hand, Mouty et al. (2003) attribute an early Turonian extension to the range in Syria citing Turonian ammonites ( Thomasites rollandi (Thomas &amp; Peron), Choffaticeras (Leoniceras) sp., Hemitissotia morreni (Qoquand) and Coilopoceras sp.) although no fossils are illustrated. As with other “Turonian” records (see above), this is discounted.</p><p>Radoičić et al. (2010) mention P. casertana from lower Cenomanian limestones in Serbia, but there is no illustration and based on associated fauna could easily be younger within the Cenomanian. However, Radoičić (1974a) did illustrate the species from the same region.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Neotethys.</p><p>References in De Castro in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) and De Castro (2006) indicate plausible records from eastern Algeria, Tunisia, Greece, Italy, Sardinia, Lebanon, Iberia, and the Balkans and Dinarides. In addition to these and records mentioned above, occurrences confirmed by definite or plausible illustration as mentioned above include Portugal (Andrade, 2018) and from the late Cenomanian of Egypt (Nagm, 2009 – although as cf.). P. ex gr. casertana-murgiana is known to occur in the upper Wasia Group of subsurface Saudi Arabia (Dr. Wyn Hughes, pers. comm., 2022) and has been illustrated from the Iberian Ranges, Spain by Consorti et al. (2016b). Al-Rifaiy and Cherif (1987) illustrate this species as Taberina sp. from the Cenomanian Shueib Formation of Jordan (see also Schulze et al. 2004, unillustrated)</p><p>P. ex gr. casertana-murgiana has been reported and illustrated from the upper Sarvak Formation from the Iranian Zagros. Afghah &amp; Fadaei (2014) provide good illustrations, although there are errors in the labelling of the plates. Plate 8d “ Nezzazata simplex Omara ” is this species, as is plate 9f labelled as “ Neorbitolinopsis conulus Douville ”. Plate 8e labelled as “ Pseudorhipidionina casertana ” is an orbitolinid. There are other illustrations in this paper that may be this species or P. bingistani . A record of “ Pseudotextulariella cacertana ” by Assadi et al. (2016) is more likely P. bingistani, whilst a record of Daxia cenomana by Afghah et al. (2014) is most likely P. ex gr. casertana-murgiana. Esfandyari et al. (2023) provide more recent plausible illustrations. There are also unillustrated records from the Iranian Zagros: Rahimpour-Bonab et al. (2013) (as well as being mentioned, an illustration of “ Pseudorhipidionina bingistani ” may be P. casertana); Jamalpour et al. (2017); Rikhtegarzadeh et al. (2017); Omidi et al. (2021); Mohajer et al. (2022a, 2022b); and Ashgari et al. (2022); but also see Kiarostami et al. (2019) and Dehghanian &amp; Afghah (2021) for illustrated records but where identification is at best uncertain. Mohammed (2005 as “ Pseudorhapydionina casertana ” and 2007) recorded and illustrated P. casertana from southern Iraq (alongside the invalidated P. tubaensis – see above) but Consorti &amp; Schlagintweit (2021b) thought (though more equivocally) the illustration was more likely to be P. murgiana . Al Dulaimi et al. (2013) illustrate P. casertana from the Mishrif Formation (undifferentiated late Cenomanian – early Turonian) of the well Nasiriyah-2 from southern Iraq. However, another specimen referred to “ Pseudotextulariella casertana ” from West Qurna-215 is actually P. bingistani . An unillustrated record from southern Iraq is that of Al-Salihi &amp; Ibrahim (2023).</p><p>Unconfirmed (by lack of illustration or uncertain illustration) occurrences are also recorded from Egypt (Orabi, 1992; Orabi et al., 2012; Shahin &amp; Elbaz, 2013; Orabi &amp; Hamad, 2018); and offshore Dubai (Menegatti, 2004). Dufaure et al. (1984) reported – unillustrated – “ Pseudorhipidionina (ex casertana) murgiana ” from the middle – late Cenomanian of southeast Libya.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF8BA245FCB6F8AEA714C277	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF8FA245FF11FAB0A7EFC2D4.text	03E587B6FF8FA245FF11FAB0A7EFC2D4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Praetaberina Consorti 2015	<div><p>Genus Praetaberina Consorti et al., 2015</p><p>Type Species: Taberina bingistani Henson, 1948</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF8FA245FF11FAB0A7EFC2D4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF8FA24BFF11FA7FA1CDC3F3.text	03E587B6FF8FA24BFF11FA7FA1CDC3F3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Praetaberina bingistani (Henson 1948)	<div><p>Praetaberina bingistani (Henson, 1948)</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Consorti et al. (2015), Figs. 5-7, p. 382.</p><p>The taxonomic status, history, description, and illustration of Praetaberina Consorti et al. and its two species – P. bingistani (Henson) and P. apula (Consorti et al.) is comprehensively reviewed by Consorti et al. (2015). These authors re-examined material from Iran including the type material of Taberina bingistani illustrated by Henson (1948) from Kuh-i-Bingistani in the Iranian Zagros, as well as new material from Italy.</p><p>Essentially, Praetaberina is very similar to Pseudorhapydionina ( bingistani was assigned to Pseudorhapydionina by Whittaker et al., 1998) but possesses pillars between consecutive septa in the central part of the chamber. Pseudorhipidionina is also very similar (Borghi &amp; Pignatti, 2006) but also lacks pillars and also tends to have a more compressed uncoiled portion whereas Praetaberina tends to be more cylindrical. Species of Pseudorhipidionina are often confused with Praetaberina (and vice versa) in the literature – see comments on that genus). P. bingistani has a more complex internal structure than its original assigned genus – Taberina – which is now restricted to the Paleogene (see Vicedo et al., 2013 for a comprehensive review of this genus).</p><p>Another similar genus is the Paleogene Neotaberina Hottinger, 2007, which has apertures that extend almost to the periphery of the chamber and the pillared zone overlaps with the distal ends of the septula. The initial subglobular, planispiral stage is poorly developed in Neotaberina .</p><p>P. bingistani has numerous chambers in the coiled portion – over 50 within two and a half to three whorls before uncoiling sub-cylindrically to between 10-15 chambers and which stage can be up to 2.1mm in length. Septula alternate relatively short-long but only extend inwards about a quarter of the diameter of the chamber. The pillars in the central part are inverted cone-shaped (Consorti et al., 2015). See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>P. apula is smaller overall and has a maximum of only two initially coiled whorls. The septula are fewer, but they extend further inwards within the chamber than P. bingistani, thus reducing the central chamber space available for the foramina and pillars.</p><p>Pseudorhipidionina tubaensis, a new species described from the Mishrif Formation of the Tuba-1 well in southern Iraq (Mohammed, 2007), was found to contain pillars by Consorti &amp; Schlagintweit (2021b) thus precluding it from Pseudorhipidionina . Those authors consider it as a partial junior synonym of P. bingistani .</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Middle – late (but not latest) Cenomanian.</p><p>The various published ages attributed to P. bingistani are fully reviewed by Consorti et al. (2015) and, essentially, restrict its range to the late (but not latest) Cenomanian (but without excluding a middle Cenomanian age). However, they indicate that the FAD of P. bingistani is associated with the MCE I and II Carbon-isotope peaks of Jarvis et al. (2006) as observed in sections from the Iranian Zagros. They suggest therefore that the FAD of P. bingistani as “very early late Cenomanian”. Our studies elsewhere (Bidgood &amp; Simmons 2022) calibrate both these peaks to within the middle Cenomanian based on Jarvis et al. (2006) and Joo &amp; Sageman (2014). See also data presented in poster form by Vicedo et al. (2013) that suggests a middle Cenomanian age for carbon isotope calibrated occurrences from Iran.</p><p>Smith et al. (1990) and Kennedy &amp; Simmons (1991) recorded P. bingistani (unillustrated) from strata from Oman (Natih C – Natih E) around the early/middle Cenomanian boundary (age based on carbon isotope data and ammonites – see Bromhead et al., 2022).</p><p>Saint-Marc (1974 a, 1981) records it as old as late early Cenomanian in Lebanon (although the illustrated material is late Cenomanian). The less well calibrated records from Israel of Hamaoui (1966) and Arkin &amp; Hamaoui (1967) are also suggestive of middle – late Cenomanian range.</p><p>Consorti et al. (2015 fide Frijia et al., 2015) position the LAD of P. bingistani to the “middle part of the upper Cenomanian”.</p><p>A statement by Razin et al. (2010) that the presence of P. bingistani can be used to define a Turonian age in the Iranian Zagros is erroneous and not substantiated by the cited views of Wynd (1965). Wynd (1965) considered P. bingistani as an element of his Nezzazata - alveolinid assemblage zone (zone 25), to which he ascribed a Cenomanian -?Turonian age. More modern views (e.g., Omidvar et al., 2014a, b; Kazemzadeh &amp; Lotfpoor, 2016) tend to restrict this zone to the Cenomanian.</p><p>Records published after Consorti et al. (2015) or not noted by them include Mahdi &amp; Aqrawi (2014, unillustrated); Awadeesian et al. (2018, illustrated) and Al-Dulaimy et al. (2022 – unillustrated as “ Tabarian bingstani ”) from the late Cenomanian part of the Mishrif Formation of southern Iraq. Al Dulaimi et al. (2013) illustrate P. bingistani as “ Pseudotextulariella casertana ” (pl. 10, fig. 8) from the Mishrif Formation (undifferentiated late Cenomanian – early Turonian) of the well West Qurna-215 from southern Iraq. However, another specimen (pl. 9, fig. 6) actually referred to P. bingistani is indeterminate. The species is illustrated from southern Iraq by Al-Salihi &amp; Ibrahim (2023).</p><p>From the Iranian Zagros, illustrations by Kalantari (1976) are indeterminate, whilst Assadi et al. (2016: fig. 6 a8) illustrate “ Pseudotextulariella cacertana ” which is probably P. bingistani, as is the specimen (fig. 6 a9) illustrated as “ Biconcava bentori ”. Additional records from the late Cenomanian of the Iranian Zagros include Rahimpour-Bonab et al. (2013, uncertain illustration); Omidvar et al. (2014b, uncertain illustration); Kazemzadeh &amp; Lotfpoor (2016, illustrated); Jamalpour et al. (2017, illustrated); Navidtalab et al. (2020, unillustrated); Ezampanah et al. (2022, illustrated); Kiarostami et al. (2019, illustrated though assigned to Pseudorhipidionina) and Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2021, illustrated). However, several recent records from the Iranian Zagros are less reliable; including Haftlang et al. (2020) which attributes a middle Cenomanian age to the “ Taberina bingistani taxon range zone” based on associations with “other early to mid-Cenomanian taxa” ( Cuneolina parva Henson and Praealveolina tenuis Reichel, but the latter is unlikely to be early Cenomanian). Moreover, Haftlang et al.’s. illustration of P. bingistani is inconclusive and they do not refer to Consorti et al. (2015) at all. On the other hand, Mohajer et al. (2021a, 2022a) attribute their “ Cisalveolina lehneri – Praetaberina bingistani assemblage zone ” to the late Cenomanian based on Consorti et al. (2015) and more recent literature and a somewhat better illustration. Finally, without illustration, and substantive explanation, Mohajer et al. (2021b, 2022c) refer to both middle and late Cenomanian records of P. bingistani (a “ Chrysalidina gradata — Praetaberina bingistani Interval Zone (Middle Cenomanian) ”, and a “ Cisalveolina fraasi (fallax) &amp; Cisalveolina lehneri — Praetaberina bingistani Assemblage Zone (Late Cenomanian) ”, although it seems that the consensus view of these authors is that P. bingistani indicates a late Cenomanian age in the Iranian Zagros.</p><p>In summary, P. bingistani seems to range from the middle to late (but not latest) Cenomanian but the majority of plausible substantiated records are from the late Cenomanian.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Eastern Neotethys (Arabian Plate).</p><p>Consorti et al. (2015) note that P. bingistani has been confidently recorded from localities in the Iranian Zagros, Iraq (see also Hamaoui &amp; Brun, 1974; Whittaker et al. 1998); Oman; Syria (see also illustrated by Ghanem &amp; Kuss, 2013); Lebanon and Israel and “probably” from Egypt and Somalia (see their paper for sources). In addition to references above there is also an unconfirmed record from Abu Dhabi (Le Blanc, 2015).</p><p>In Europe the species has been reported from Greece (Fleury, 1980) and from Italy (Borghi &amp; Pignatti, 2006). However, the specimens recorded in both these countries are considered by Consorti et al. (2015) to be referable to their new species, P. apula (see below).</p><p>P. bingistani therefore seems to be restricted to localities on or around the Arabian Plate.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF8FA24BFF11FA7FA1CDC3F3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF81A249FCB6FB34A4B4C508.text	03E587B6FF81A249FCB6FB34A4B4C508.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Praetaberina apula Consorti 2015	<div><p>Praetaberina apula Consorti et al., 2015</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Consorti et al. (2015), Fig. 8, p. 382-384.</p><p>This is a relatively new species defined by Consorti et al. (2015) based on new samples from the Bari Formation of Italy and re-examination of specimens previously attributed to Taberina bingistani by Fleury (1980) in Greece and by Borghi &amp; Pignatti (2006) in Italy.</p><p>Specimens of P. bingistani are larger overall and have up to three and a half initially coiled whorls compared with a maximum of only two initially coiled whorls in P. apula . The septula are fewer, but they extend further inwards within the chamber than P. bingistani, thus reducing the central chamber space available for the apertures and pillars. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Late Cenomanian</p><p>See Consorti et al. (2015).</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Central Neotethys.</p><p>Reported only from Greece (Fleury, 1980) and Italy (Borghi &amp; Pignatti, 2006) as P. bingistani but now referable to P. apula (following Consorti et al. 2015). The two species of Praetaberina discussed here would therefore appear to have mutually exclusive distribution patterns.</p><p>Mohajer et al. (2022b) reports the occurrence of P. apula from the Izeh Zone of the Iranian Zagros, but only as originally reported by Khosrow Tehrani &amp; Fonooni (1994) i.e., before the species was first described. It is not known by what means Mohajer et al. (2022b) concluded that this occurrence is, in fact, P. apula . This record is not included on the distribution map.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF81A249FCB6FB34A4B4C508	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF83A249FF11FDBBA5BEC58C.text	03E587B6FF83A249FF11FDBBA5BEC58C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudopeneroplis Consorti 2018	<div><p>Genus Pseudopeneroplis Consorti et al., 2018</p><p>Type Species: Pseudopeneroplis oyonensis Consorti et al., 2018</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF83A249FF11FDBBA5BEC58C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF83A249FF11FD07A6AFC79C.text	03E587B6FF83A249FF11FD07A6AFC79C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudopeneroplis oyonensis Consorti 2018	<div><p>Pseudopeneroplis oyonensis Consorti et al., 2018</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Consorti et al. (2018), Figs. 5-6, p. 6-10.</p><p>Pseudopeneroplis oyonensis is an apparently endemic species at present only known from the coastline of the Eastern Pacific, specifically Peru. Consorti et al. (2018) assigned the genus to the Praerhapydioninidae.</p><p>Pseudopeneroplis has the same chamber/coiling arrangement as Peneroplis Montfort, but develops short, thick subdivisions (septula) in the chamber margins. Pseudopeneroplis has a single row of rounded openings in the middle of the apertural face (and which are aligned between chambers) whereas Pseudorhipidionina has two rows of apertures and longer septula which sometimes bifurcate. Both genera lack pillars. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics. Pseudorhapydionina and Praetaberina have more cylindrical uncoiled portions, and with septula arranged more radially rather than linearly in Pseudopeneroplis . Praetaberina also possesses central pillars which Pseudopeneroplis does not. In equatorial sections Pseudopeneroplis also resembles Scandonea (especially S.? phoenissa when uncoiled) but the latter genus lacks septula.</p><p>Consorti et al. (2018) mention that, despite whether a specimen is megalospheric or microspheric, the dimensions of the overall shell are unaffected (up to 0.52mm equatorial diameter and maximum length of uncoiled specimen c. 1.00mm).</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Late Cenomanian.</p><p>The type locality is the Jumasha 4 unit, Uchucchacua section, Peru, dated as late Cenomanian using Carbon-isotope stratigraphy (Navarro-Ramirez et al., 2017) .</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Eastern Pacific.</p><p>Recorded from Peru only (on the Western Platform of South America).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF83A249FF11FD07A6AFC79C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF83A249FCB6FEB3A1C1CF5F.text	03E587B6FF83A249FCB6FEB3A1C1CF5F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rajkanella hottingerinaformis Schlagintweit & Rigaud 2015	<div><p>Rajkanella hottingerinaformis Schlagintweit &amp; Rigaud, 2015</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Schlagintweit &amp; Rigaud (2015), Figs. 3 &amp; 4, p. 195-198.</p><p>Schlagintweit &amp; Rigaud (2015) described this form from the middle-upper Cenomanian of Kosovo and remarked upon its similarity with the Paleocene genus Hottingerina Drobne, 1975, from which it differs mainly by retaining a rounded aperture throughout growth, by possessing striate ornamentation and by not uncoiling. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>Although the presence of numerous, interiorly-peripheral, short, beams convey a superficial similarity, it differs from contemporary genera such as Pseudorhapydionina and Pseudorhipidionina by having a coiled, lenticular test, a less complex aperture and lacks the tendency to uncoil. Fissumella, an early Albian genus introduced by Cruz-Abad et al. (2017) is morphologically close to Rajkanella, but in the latter genus the aperture is rounded whereas in Fissumella it is an elongate fissure.</p><p>Schlagintweit &amp; Rigaud (2015) did not come to any conclusions regarding dimorphism in Rajkanella, but which was noted in Hottingerina species (Drobne, 1975).</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Middle – late Cenomanian.</p><p>Although compared with Paleocene forms, Schlagintweit &amp; Rigaud (2015) recorded this species alongside middle-late Cenomanian taxa such as Pseudorhapydionina dubia, Vidalina radoicicae, Pastrikella balkanica (Cherchi, Radoičić &amp; Schroeder), Pseudonummoloculina regularis, Chrysalidina cf. gradata and Nezzazata cf. simplex from their material in Kosovo. Consorti &amp; Schlagintweit (2021a) using additional Kosovan-Albanian material and the co-occurrence of other age-diagnostic taxa, confirm a late Cenomanian age.</p><p>It was also found in the middle and upper parts of the Sarvak Formation (=middle-late Cenomanian), Iranian Zagros, by Yazdi-Moghadam &amp; Schlagintweit (2020, 2021) and Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2020, 2021, 2022a).</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>(Central – Eastern) Neotethys.</p><p>Not widely recorded except from those references mentioned above (i.e., confirmed by illustration in Kosovo-Albania and the Iranian Zagros).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF83A249FCB6FEB3A1C1CF5F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF83A249FCB6FED7A15DC610.text	03E587B6FF83A249FCB6FED7A15DC610.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rajkanella Schlagintweit & Rigaud 2015	<div><p>Genus Rajkanella Schlagintweit &amp; Rigaud, 2015</p><p>Type Species: Rajkanella hottingerinaformis Schlagintweit &amp; Rigaud, 2015</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF83A249FCB6FED7A15DC610	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF87A24DFF11FF48A780C79C.text	03E587B6FF87A24DFF11FF48A780C79C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Scandonea De Castro 1971	<div><p>Genus Scandonea De Castro, 1971</p><p>Type Species: Scandonea samnitica De Castro, 1971</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF87A24DFF11FF48A780C79C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF87A24DFF11FF36A6D8C10E.text	03E587B6FF87A24DFF11FF36A6D8C10E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Scandonea phoenissa Saint-Marc 1974	<div><p>Scandonea? phoenissa Saint-Marc, 1974</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Saint-Marc (1974b), Pl. 1 &amp; 2 (not 16-18), p. 68-70.</p><p>The type description of the species by Saint-Marc (1974b, from the middle Cenomanian of Lebanon) is comprehensive and allows for confident identification .</p><p>De Castro (1971) introduced the genus Scandonea, with the type species as the Late Cretaceous (Turonian and younger) species S. samnitica . Based on the type species, Scandonea is a distinctive porcellaneous walled form, with initial coiling being milioliform/streptospiral, then planispiral involute. The type species has basal thickening to each chamber wall (for a recent review see Arriaga et al., 2016).</p><p>Saint-Marc (1974b) erected S.? phoenissa on the basis of differences from S. samnitica: smaller dimensions; a reduced number of whorls in the coiled planispiral stage; the lack of basal thickening inside the chambers, and the lack of a tooth in the aperture. These differences are sufficient to make the assignment to the genus questionable, and this rarely described species requires a full taxonomic review that is outside the scope of this primarily biostratigraphic study. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>S? phoenissa is a poorly known species and the possibility exists that the type material is synonymous with species of Pseudorhapydionina (as partial, incomplete specimens) – compare, for example, with the illustrations of P. dubia herein. More work is required to confirm this suspicion (Dr. Lorenzo Consorti, pers. comm., 2023), so, for the moment, S? phoenissa is retained as a separate species.</p><p>S.? phoenissa is similar to S.? pumila Saint-Marc (see remarks under that species for distinguishing features).</p><p>Similar taxa include Moncharmontia apenninica and Charentia cuvillieri, but which are both planispiral throughout and agglutinated. The latter also tends to uncoil like some specimens of S.? phoenissa . In addition to the above differences, Moncharmontia compressa has a subangular periphery not observed in S.? phoenissa (or S.? pumila – see below).</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>(Latest Albian?) early - middle Cenomanian (earliest late Cenomanian?).</p><p>Not a widely recorded species, Saint-Marc (1974b) originally described this species from Lebanon from sediments containing Sellialveolina viallii (Colalongo) and Ovalveolina maccagnoae De Castro which were assigned a middle Cenomanian age. However, the associated taxa mentioned occur in early Cenomanian sediments, and possibly latest Albian (Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985). However, its occurrence is at the top of Saint-Marc’s P. viallii biozone, suggesting mostly likely a middle Cenomanian age. Subsequent plausible records are few. Solak et al. (2020) recorded and illustrated this species from the early – middle Cenomanian Sellialveolina gr. viallii zone in the western Taurides of Turkey, with a reported occurrence in the basal part of the late Cenomanian Pseudorhipidionina casertana zone.</p><p>Velić &amp; Sokač (1979) illustrated plausible specimens from the supposed latest Albian of Croatia in association with a number of species of orbitolinids (e.g., “ Valdanchella ” dercourti). These orbitolinids are not well illustrated and in any case might well be Cenomanian (see synonymy lists and range charts in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985). Subsequently, Husinec et al. (2000) recorded this species (unillustrated) from the lowest part of the Orbitolina (Conicorbitolina) conica abundance zone of Croatia, attributing this zone to the early – middle Cenomanian. However, Husinec et al. (2009) later indicated the range of this species in Croatia as latest Albian only. Meanwhile, Velić (2007) recorded this species (unillustrated) from the late Albian of Croatia, noting in the text (not the range chart), that the species range extends into the Late Cretaceous (i.e., Cenomanian). In summary, there are question marks regarding the late Albian age attribution of records in Croatia, stemming from uncertainty in the associated orbitolinid identifications and their perceived biostratigraphic calibration. The late Albian records could well be proved to be early Cenomanian, pending further research.</p><p>Forms recorded and illustrated as Scandonea aff. phoenissa by Tešović et al. (2011) and, separately, by Ritossa (2018) also from Croatia are from strata dated variously between the Albian and Aptian. The illustrations in both sources are insufficient to assign a definite species (or genus) to the specimens and do not therefore affect the range attributed herein.</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Central Neotethys.</p><p>Not widely recorded except from those references mentioned above (i.e., confirmed by illustration in Lebanon, Turkey, and Croatia). Records from Croatia appear to be common.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF87A24DFF11FF36A6D8C10E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FF87A273FCB6F9B9A167C652.text	03E587B6FF87A273FCB6F9B9A167C652.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Scandonea pumila Saint-Marc 1974	<div><p>Scandonea? pumila Saint-Marc, 1974b</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Saint-Marc (1974b), Pl. 2 (16-18), p. 70-71.</p><p>The type and subsequent description of the species by Saint-Marc (1974b, from the upper Cenomanian of Lebanon) is comprehensive and allows for confident identification .</p><p>S.? pumila differs from S.? phoenissa by its more globular shape and the absence of an umbilical depression; the greater thickness of the test wall; the absence of an unrolled stage (this character is not decisive however due to the insufficient number of sections studied and illustrated by Saint-Marc, 1974b); the reduced number of chambers in the planispiral stage; the reduced chamber height in the planispiral stage. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>S.? pumila has a test shape similar to the globular/subglobular test of the agglutinated species Fleuryana gediki, but has a much thicker wall, fewer chambers, and less rectangular-shaped chambers (in equatorial view) than F. gediki .</p><p>S.? pumila also bears a resemblance to microspheric forms of S. samnitica but is smaller; has no basal layer, and no tooth at the base of the aperture. As for S.? phoenissa, these differences are sufficient to make the assignment to the genus questionable, and this rarely described species requires a full taxonomic review that is outside the scope of this primarily biostratigraphic study.</p><p>S.? pumila is a poorly known species and the possibility exists that the type material is synonymous with species of Pseudorhapydionina (as partial, incomplete specimens) – compare, for example, with the illustrations of P. dubia herein. More work is required to confirm this suspicion (Dr. Lorenzo Consorti, pers. comm., 2023), so, for the moment, S.? pumila is retained as a separate species.</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>(Latest Albian?) middle - late Cenomanian.</p><p>Not a widely recorded species, Saint-Marc (1974b) originally described this species from Lebanon, in association with Pseudorhapydionina laurinensis, Chrysalidina gradata, Praetaberina bingistani, Biplanata peneropliformis,, Biconcava bentori and a number of other Cenomanian LBF. Although assigned a late Cenomanian age by Saint-Marc (1974b), a late middle Cenomanian age cannot be discounted for this assemblage based on our review herein.</p><p>Charrière et al. (1998) recorded and illustrated plausible specimens from several localities dated as late Cenomanian (age calibrated by ammonite occurrences) in the Atlas of Morocco. Ciszak et al. (1999) and Ettachfini (2006) also provides records (but unillustrated) from the late Cenomanian of Morocco.</p><p>Velić &amp; Vlahović (1994) recorded and illustrated rare occurrences from a single sample in the lowermost CEN-4 zone of the middle Cenomanian (approximately at the mid point of the middle Cenomanian interval). Velić (2007) recorded it (unillustrated) from the latest Albian – middle Cenomanian of Croatia. Likewise, Husinec et al. (2009) recorded (unillustrated) a bimodal range for this species in the latest Albian and separately in the lower middle Cenomanian of Croatia.</p><p>Solak et al. (2021) record a “cf” form from the Albian of central Turkey, however, their illustrations do not quite conform to the Saint-Marc types and no axial views are shown .</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Neotethys.</p><p>Not widely recorded except from those references mentioned above (i.e., confirmed by illustration in Lebanon, Morocco, and Croatia).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FF87A273FCB6F9B9A167C652	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFB9A273FCB6FE95A03DC637.text	03E587B6FFB9A273FCB6FE95A03DC637.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Perouvianella Bizon 1975	<div><p>Genus Perouvianella Bizon et al., 1975</p><p>Type Species: Orbiculina peruviana Steinmann, 1929</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFB9A273FCB6FE95A03DC637	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
03E587B6FFB9A271FCB6FE50A440C10E.text	03E587B6FFB9A271FCB6FE50A440C10E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Perouvianella peruviana (Steinmann 1929)	<div><p>Perouvianella peruviana (Steinmann, 1929)</p><p>Reference Illustration &amp; Description</p><p>Consorti et al. (2018), Figs. 2-4, p. 5-6.</p><p>The illustrations in Jaillard &amp; Arnaud-Vanneau (1993) are also useful. Perouvianella peruviana is a highly endemic species seemingly confined to the coastline of the Eastern Pacific, specifically central Peru. It is internally complex with 2-4 sets of pillars (sometimes interlocking) in the chambers. The diagnosis of the genus was recently emended by Consorti et al. (2018) and the species was also comprehensively redescribed and illustrated to which the reader is referred to for details.</p><p>P. peruviana is a large species, 2-7 mm in diameter. Its mode of coiling (planispiral at first then uncoiling into a flat, flabelliform shape) and complex internal chamber structures are superficially similar to Pseudorhipidionina and Praetaberina in certain thin section views, but it is not closely related. It has 2-4 whorls disposed in a planispiral involute arrangement with 8-10 chambers in the first whorl and 13-15 in the second whorl. The megalospheric proloculus can be large: 0.2 – 0.33 mm. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.</p><p>The porcellaneous wall, presence of several rows of both radial and intercameral pillars, as well as alternating septula (although the latter may be hard to confirm, see for example Fig. 82A herein), caused Consorti et al. (2018) to provisionally assign it to the family Soritidae .</p><p>The species was introduced by Steinmann (1929) as Orbiculina peruviana with illustration and limited description, then subsequently made type species of the new subgenus Perouvianella (genus Archaias Montfort) by Bizon et al. (1975). Perouvianella was subsequently raised to generic status (e.g., Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1988).</p><p>Stratigraphic Distribution</p><p>Late Cenomanian – early Turonian.</p><p>The stratigraphic distribution of P. peruviana is noteworthy because (a) it represents a data point significantly outside the Caribbean-Atlantic-Neotethyan realm to where the vast majority of species in this study are confined and (b) it was seemingly unaffected by events around the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary that led to the general extinction of the vast majority of LBF elsewhere (Consorti et al., 2018; Consorti &amp; Schlagintweit, 2021a; Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam, 2021). Jaillard &amp; Arnaud-Vanneau (1993) attribute this to less drastic anoxic conditions on the more open Western Platform of Peru compared with those around the Tethys-Atlantic-Caribbean margins.</p><p>In Peru, P. peruviana is often present in near rock-forming abundances throughout sediments associated with (and slightly above and below) OAE2 (Navarro-Ramirez et al., 2017; Consorti et al., 2018). Consorti et al. (2018) consider this to have been related to “ local mesotrophic conditions and salinity changes of shallow-shelf water masses that were severely restricted and separated from oceanic blue water aquafacies ”. Clearly, P. peruviana thrived in the localised environmental conditions (oxic, but with significant environmental perturbations) that existed in the Peru region in the late Cenomanian and early Turonian (Navarro-Ramirez et al., 2016, 2017).</p><p>Using carbon isotope chronostratigraphic calibration and ammonite occurrences, Navarro-Ramirez et al. (2016, 2017) showed that P. peruviana ranges from as old as the regional Neolobites vibrayeanus ammonite zone to as young as the nodosoides Tethyan ammonite zone (upper early Turonian). Neolobites vibrayeanus (d’Orbigny) is said to have its main occurrence in the guerangeri Tethyan ammonite zone (lower late Cenomanian), at least in the Middle East (Wiese &amp; Schulze, 2005; Meister &amp; Piuz, 2015).</p><p>Jaillard &amp; Arnaud-Vanneau (1993) slightly extend the range downwards into the latest middle Cenomanian, and upwards into the earliest middle Turonian, but these are shown as uncertain occurrences. Furthermore, the precise age interpretations of these authors are challenged by the new chronostratigraphic calibration presented by Navarro-Ramirez et al. (2016, 2017).</p><p>The species was originally considered to be a Santonian marker (e.g., Bizon et al., 1975; Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1988), but its correct age calibration was demonstrated by Jaillard &amp; Arnaud-Vanneau (1993). Nonetheless, there are relatively recent literature statements that mistakenly continue to mention it as a Santonian species (e.g., Caus et al., 2013; BouDagher-Fadel et al., 2017).</p><p>Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution</p><p>Eastern Pacific.</p><p>Recorded from Peru only - see references in previous discussion.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E587B6FFB9A271FCB6FE50A440C10E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	SIMMONS, MICHAEL;BIDGOOD, MICHAEL	SIMMONS, MICHAEL, BIDGOOD, MICHAEL (2023): “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms. Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2): 39-169, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06
