identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
039B87F95A68FF981CDAFE81FDA6FE80.text	039B87F95A68FF981CDAFE81FDA6FE80.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Loftusiina	<div><p>LOFTUSIINA</p><p>HAPLPHRAGMIOIDEA</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A68FF981CDAFE81FDA6FE80	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A68FF9E1D0CFEC2FEBCF9F8.text	039B87F95A68FF9E1D0CFEC2FEBCF9F8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cyclamminidae Marie 1941	<div><p>CYCLAMMINIDAE</p><p>BUCCICRENATINAE …………. Buccicrenata – planispiral, compressed, involute in early stage, later tending to uncoil (rectilinear/uniserial), wall and septa alveolar. Aperture terminal, an elongated or zig-zag slit.</p><p>HEMICYCLAMMININAE ……. Hemicyclammina – broadly lenticular, planispiral, wall alveolar but with solid, pointed septa which do not reach the outer wall of the previous whorl, does not uncoil and the aperture is slit-like.</p><p>Pseudocyclammina – planispiral (rarely streptospiral in early stage), subspherical to flattened, later uncoiling, wall coarsely agglutinated with coarse subepidermal network continuing onto the septa, possibly with a few irregular pillars in median plane of test. Thick and massive septa perforated by large openings, aperture areal and cribrate.</p><p>PSEUDOCHOFFATELLINAE … Pseudochoffatella – large, discoidal with nearly parallel sides, microspheric form an early planispiral stage of about two whorls followed by peneropliform stage of about seven chambers, and then by up to eighteen or more cyclic or annular chambers, megalospheric test with large subspherical initial chamber constricted in two unequal parts, followed by a peneropliform stage, adult flabelliform but not attaining either a reniform or cyclic stage; wall agglutinated, thin imperforate epidermal layer of microgranular calcite with included quartz grains, and subepidermal polygonal meshwork of beams, rafters and joists or intercalary order beams; aperture multiple, a series of irregularly</p><p>LOFTUSOIDEA arranged openings on the apertural face.</p><p>SPIROCYCLINIDAE ………………… Reissella – involute planispiral in early stage, later tending to uncoil and flare, a subepidermal mesh formed by long primary and short secondary exoskeletal beams connected by rafters that do not extend completely into the chamber lumen. Aperture areal, elliptical on a short neck, surrounded by numerous secondary pores over most of the apertural face.</p><p>Spirocyclina – large, flattened, planispiral but slightly asymmetrical, increasing rapidly to peneropliform and (rarely) uncoiled and rectilinear. Chambers low and broad, strongly arcuate with a coarse subepidermal network. Endoskeletal septulae or beams and rafters subdividing chambers into rectangular secondary chamberlets, reduced to pillars or protuberances in the central parts. Aperture multiple, two rows of pores parallel to coiling plane.</p><p>LOFTUSIIDAE ……………………….. Reticulinella – spherical to ovoid, planispiral involute, wall microgranular calcareous, reticulate subepidermal network with a series of radial and transverse partitions that do not extend to the previous septum leaving a narrow preseptal canal at the base of the septum. Apertures multiple, a row of small round openings near the septum base.</p><p>BIOKOVININA</p><p>BIOKOVINOIDEA</p><p>CHARENTIIDAE …………………….. Charentia – relatively thick-walled but thin septa, planispiral, lenticular to subglobular with a tendency to uncoil (compressed rectilinear) in the last 1 or 2 chambers (rarely 4). Chambers slightly longer than high in equatorial sections. Aperture areal, arch near base of face, later triangular, later extending as a slit up the apertural face, terminal in uncoiled chambers.</p><p>Moncharmontia – relatively thick-walled (with a canaliculate inner layer) with thick septa, planispiral, involute,</p><p>105</p><p>broadly rounded, chambers relatively equidimensional in equatorial sections. Aperture areal and multiple, a single arched row of openings, later more numerous and irregularly distributed.</p><p>BIOKOVINIDAE ……………………... Neodubrovnikella – subspherical proloculus followed by slightly compressed lenticular planispiral (slightly asymmetrical in early stage) to peneropliform internally undivided chambers with a subacute periphery. Aperture terminal, composed of a single row of openings. An agglutinated isomorph of the well-known porcellaneous genus Peneroplis except Neodubrovnikella may not be perfectly planispiral.</p><p>CYCLOLININA</p><p>CYCLOLINOIDEA</p><p>CYCLOLINIDAE</p><p>CYCLOLININAE ………………….. Cyclolina – large (up to 6mm diameter), increasing thickness towards periphery, wall calcareous microgranular. Chambers open, no interior subdivisions. Aperture multiple, scattered in many rows on the apertural face.</p><p>CYCLOPSINELLINAE ……............ Cyclopsinella – large (up to 10mm), early planispiral in microspheric form, rapidly peneropliform, reniform, then cyclic, wall calcareous, microgranular. Chambers open, unsubdivided except in late growth stage, with one or more endoskeletal pillars which may bifurcate and re-fuse which can (apparently) appear as two chamber layers in thin sections.</p><p>Mangashtia – numerous cyclic or annular chambers. Numerous subcylindrical or beam-shaped pillars in the central part of the chamber which are aligned between chambers. Aperture multiple openings in a row in the middle of the apertural face.</p><p>ATAXOPHRAGMIINA</p><p>ATAXOPHRAGMIOIDEA</p><p>CUNEOLINIDAE</p><p>CUNEOLININAE ………………….. Cuneolina – compressed, conical to flabelliform, early stage planispiral, followed by broad, low, biserial chambers, interiors subdivided into nearly rectangular chamberlets by radial and horizontal partitions. Aperture a row of pores at the base of the septal face.</p><p>Pseudotextulariella – conical, initially trochospiral/triserial, becoming biserial, broad, low chambers subdivided by beams and rafters of one to several orders, up to six tiers of chamberlets per chamber. Wall finely agglutinated, aperture interiomarginal, a low opening at the base of the flattened apertural face.</p><p>DICYCLINIDAE …………………… Dicyclina – wall pseudokeriothecal-like, flattened to slightly undulating, initial stage inflated, later chambers annular, alternately added on two sides of the test, interior subdivided by numerous thin radial partitions and aligned from chamber to chamber. Apertures round pores at the periphery.</p><p>DICTYOPSELLIDAE ……………… Dictyopsella – low trochospiral, plano- or concavo-convex or patelliform with an evolute spiral side and involute umbilical side. Crescentic chambers on spiral side, subtriangular on umbilical side. Interior of chambers subdivided by numerous radial and intercalary beams of varied length, the longest extending nearly to the umbilical region and which are interconnected by (transverse) rafters which produce a characteristic “mesh- like” subepidermal network.</p><p>Conorbinella – low trochospiral, plano- or concavo-convex or patelliform with an evolute spiral side and involute umbilical side. Crescentic chambers on spiral side, subtriangular on umbilical side. Interior of chambers subdivided by numerous radial beams of varied length, the longest extending nearly to the umbilical region.</p><p>106</p><p>two suitable source references for good images are also provided.</p><p>The vast majority of these representative images are adapted from published sources and are often of type material. The sources are detailed in each caption. Characteristic and/or discriminatory taxonomic features are indicated by arrows and annotations. Frequently the images are resized to better fit the figure frame. The scale bars in each figure are approximate and for guidance only to show an approximate, relative size and should not be used for calculating measured dimensions (please refer to the original source material to do this).</p><p>The ages attributed in the synonymy lists (strictly speaking these are chresonymy lists as in a list of usage sensu Smith &amp; Smith, 1972) are the ages as documented in each reference, otherwise it is the age of the sampled section (as stated) or the age assigned to the specific, illustrated specimen. Age attribution is mostly taken on trust, unless there is evidence to the contrary (either within the publication or published elsewhere). Ages stated imply an undifferentiated age unless stated otherwise. Thus a “Cenomanian” age attribution implies the age of a particular occurrence can be determined no better than to a generalised stage level. It does not imply, unless otherwise stated, that the taxon ranges throughout the stage. The location given is reported as the applicable country stated in the publication at the time of publication, except when more specific regional locations can be determined (e.g., Iran or Iranian Zagros; Türkiye or western Taurides, Türkiye etc.).</p><p>Identifications are considered plausible, unless indicated otherwise. A “?” indicates a doubtful identification (e.g. some features key to identification are not visible). “ Non ” indicates a clear misidentification with an alternative identification expressed if possible.</p><p>Comments in square brackets are our assessment of the most likely identity or otherwise of specimen(s) assigned a “ non ” status in the listings, or cases where we emend (for example) an age assignment.</p><p>The subsequent systematic section is followed by a discussion of the findings of our critical review of the 25 taxa involved, with a focus on stratigraphic ranges, bioevents, and the potential for biozonation and correlation.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A68FF9E1D0CFEC2FEBCF9F8	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A6EFF9E1CDAF83CFA28FA1D.text	039B87F95A6EFF9E1CDAF83CFA28FA1D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Haplophragmioidea Eimer & Fickert 1899	<div><p>Superfamily HAPLOPHRAGMIOIDEA Eimer &amp; Fickert 1899 (diagnosis sensu Kaminski, 2014)</p><p>Family CYCLAMMINIDAE Marie 1941 (diagnosis sensu Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1987)</p><p>Subfamily BUCCICRENATINAE Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1985 (diagnosis sensu Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1987)</p><p>Genus Buccicrenata Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1949 (see Table 1 for diagnosis)</p><p>Buccicrenata is an involute planispiral form with rapidly enlarging chambers that also frequently uncoils rapidly. Debate about the nature of the wall and septa of Buccicrenata - whether they are, or are not, alveolar - is not yet fully resolved, although the alveolar nature of the wall seems reasonably well established (see Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1985; Simmons &amp; Bidgood, 2023). The alveolar nature of the septa in Buccicrenata (if and when unequivocally proven) separates it from Everticyclammina Redmond. Buccicrenata is also very similar to Pseudocyclammina Yabe &amp; Hanzawa, although the former genus has a single, sinuous slit-like aperture compared with cribrate in the latter and typically somewhat thicker walls. Nevertheless, the two apertural types are hard to discern when observed in oblique/random thin-sections. In addition, and marking another distinction from Pseudocyclammina), “… the septal base thickened against the previous whorl, and may form a continuous imperforate basal layer with solid triangular chomata-like mounds at the position of the septa ” (Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1985, p. 98). The two genera can also be distinguished by predominantly reniform chambers and a distinctive lobate periphery in Buccicrenata (see Simmons &amp; Bidgood, 2023 and species key chart therein). Nonetheless, in much illustrated material in the literature it is often hard to judge the nature of aperture and the alveolar nature of the wall and septa, thus making it difficult to separate possible Buccicrenata from Everticyclammina, Pseudocyclammina, Ammobaculites and Lituola species, to name but a few.</p><p>Buccicrenata ex gr. subgoodlandensis (Vanderpool,</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A6EFF9E1CDAF83CFA28FA1D	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A6DFF901FCFFEC2FDD2FBE9.text	039B87F95A6DFF901FCFFEC2FDD2FBE9.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, 1948c)</p><p>Figure 2</p><p>T 1948c Cyclammina whitei n. sp. – Henson, p. 13-14, pl. 13, figs. 3, 12-14; latest Albian, Qatar (also reported from the Albian of Iraq).</p><p>1953b Hemicyclammina sigali n. sp. – Maync, p. 148- 149, figs 1-5; middle Cenomanian, Algeria.</p><p>1965 Hemicyclammina sigali – Hamaoui, pl.1, fig. 7; pl. 6, fig. 10; pl. 15, fig. 9; Cenomanian, Israel.</p><p>1965 Hemicyclammina nov. sp. ? – Hamaoui, pl. 5, figs. 1-3; Cenomanian, Israel.</p><p>? 1965 Haplophragmoides difformis n. sp. – Hamaoui, p. 17, pl. 6, fig. 9, non pl. 3, figs. 5-8; Cenomanian, Israel.</p><p>1966 Hemicyclammina whitei – Banner, pl. 2, figs. 4a, b, 5; latest Albian, Qatar.</p><p>1966 Hemicyclammina sigali – Banner, pl. 12, figs. 3a; pl. 13, figs. 1-6; early – middle Cenomanian, offshore Abu Dhabi (non pl. 12, fig, 3b from the Aptian of offshore Abu Dhabi – possibly an ancestral non-alveolar form).</p><p>1967 Hemicyclammina sigali – Arkin &amp; Hamaoui, pl. 1, figs 17-18 (?), pl. 2, fig. 1; Cenomanian, Israel.</p><p>1969 Hemicyclammina sigali – Sampò, pl. 39, figs. 1-5; pl. 40, fig. 2; pl. 41, fig. 1; Albian-Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>1970 Hemicyclammina whitei – Banner, pl. 10, figs. 1-2; late Albian, Qatar.</p><p>1970 Hemicyclammina sigali – Banner, pl. 10, figs. 3-8; early Cenomanian, offshore Abu Dhabi.</p><p>1973 Hemicyclammina sigali – Berthou, pl. 11, figs. 1-3; late Cenomanian, Portugal.</p><p>? 1973 Charentia granulosa n. sp. – Kerdany &amp; Eissa in Kerdany et al., p. 93, pl. 1, figs. 19-26; late Cenomanian, Egypt.</p><p>? 1974 Hemicyclammina sigali – Bignot &amp; Poisson, pl. 3, figs. 1-4; Cenomanian, Türkiye.</p><p>? 1974 Ismailia neumannae n. sp. – El-Dakkak, p. 173 175, pl. 1, figs. 1-5; Cenomanian, Sinai, Egypt.</p><p>1974 Hemicyclammina sigali – Saint-Marc, p. 212-214, pl. 1, figs. 1-6; middle Albian-late Cenomanian, Lebanon (reported range to base Albian).</p><p>1974 Hemicyclammina sigali – Radoičić, pl. 8, fig. 1?, pl. 9, fig. 1; Cenomanian, Serbia-Kosovo.</p><p>? 1975 Sinainella aegyptiaca n. sp. – El-Dakkak, p. 107 110, pl. 1, figs. 1-7; Cenomanian, Sinai, Egypt.</p><p>1976 Hemicyclammina sigali – Kalantari, pl. 19, fig. 4; pl. 22, fig. 16; early Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>? 1978 Charentia hasaensis n. sp. – Basha, p. 75, pl. 1, figs. 9-12; late Cenomanian, Jordan.</p><p>? 1978 Charentia rummanensis n. sp. – Basha, p. 76, pl. 2, figs. 1-6; late Cenomanian, Jordan.</p><p>? 1978 Lituola hasaensis n. sp. – Basha, p. 79, pl. 3, figs. 7-9; late Cenomanian, Jordan.</p><p>? 1979 Ammobaculites difformis – Hamaoui, p. 338-340, fig. 1f, non fig. 1a-e; Cenomanian, Israel.</p><p>1981 Hemicyclammina sigali – Saint-Marc, pl. 1, fig. 1; Albian-Cenomanian, Lebanon.</p><p>? 1985 Hemicyclammina sp. – Bilotte, p. 355, pl. 4, fig. 10; Cenomanian, Pyrenees.</p><p>1987 Hemicyclammina sigali – Shakib, pl. 23, figs. 14- 16; Albian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>1987 Hemicyclammina sigali – Simmons &amp; Hart, pl. 10.4, fig. 7; Albian-?early Cenomanian, Oman Mountains.</p><p>1988 Hemicyclammina sigali – Sartorio &amp; Venturini, p. 106; early Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros (reported range Albian – Cenomanian).</p><p>1988 Hemicyclammina sigali – Berthou &amp; Bengtson, pl. 5e-g; pl. 6e-f, i; Cenomanian, Sergipe Basin, Brazil.</p><p>1990 Hemicyclammina sigali – Weidich &amp; Al Harithi, p. 602-603; pl. 2, figs. 8-11; pl. 4, figs. 2-3, 7-9, 12-13; latest Albian – Cenomanian, Jordan.</p><p>1990 Hemicyclammina n. sp. ? Hamaoui – Weidich &amp; Al Harithi, p. 603; pl. 4, figs. 21-22; latest Albian – Cenomanian, Jordan.</p><p>1990 Pseudocyclammina aff. massiliensis Maync – Weidich &amp; Al-Harithi, p. 604, pl. 4, fig. 1; latest Albian – Cenomanian, Jordan.</p><p>1990 Haplophragmoides? difformis Hamaoui – Weidich &amp; Al-Harithi, p. 599, pl. 4, fig. 6; latest Albian – Cenomanian, Jordan.</p><p>? 1990 Haplophragmoides sp. 2 – Weidich &amp; Al-Harithi, p. 599, pl. 4, fig. 14; latest Albian – Cenomanian, Jordan. 1992 Hemicyclammina sigali – Kalantari, pl. 78; Albian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>? 1993 Ismailia neumannae – Al-Rifaiy et al., pl. 1, fig. 3; late Cenomanian, Jordan.</p><p>? 1993 Hemicyclammina evoluta Hamaoui – Al-Rifaiy et al., pl. 1, fig. 4; late Cenomanian, Jordan.</p><p>? 1993 Hemicyclammina sigali – Al-Rifaiy et al., pl. 1, fig. 5; late Cenomanian, Jordan.</p><p>? 1993 Everticyclammina whitei – Hewaidy &amp; Al-Hitimi, p. 476-477; pl. 3, figs. 9-10; Cenomanian, Qatar.</p><p>? 1995 Pseudonummoloculina sp. – Dimitrova, p. 81, pl. 1, fig. 4; early Cenomanian, Bulgaria.</p><p>1996 Hemicyclammina sigali – Andreu et al., pl. 1, fig. 3; early Cenomanian, Morocco.</p><p>1998 Hemicyclammina sigali – Whittaker et al., p. 40, pl. 59, figs. 3-9; pl. 60, fig. 1; Albian, southern Iraq &amp; offshore Abu Dhabi.</p><p>1998 Hemicyclammina whitei – Whittaker et al., p. 40-41, pl. 12, figs. 1-2; pl. 60, figs. 2-7; pl. 61, figs. 1-3; early Cenomanian (= latest Albian), Qatar and Albian, southern Iraq.</p><p>1998 Charentia cuvillieri – El-Sheikh &amp; Hewaidy, pl. 1, fig. 8; late Cenomanian, Egypt.</p><p>2005 Hemicyclammina sigali – Hart et al., fig. 6f-g; late Cenomanian, Portugal.</p><p>2008 Hemicyclammina sp. – Ahmadi et al., pl. 2, fig. 6; early-middle Albian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2009 Hemicyclammina sigali – Shirazi et al., pl. 1, fig. 9; early Albian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2010 Hemicyclammina whitei – Forbes et al., fig. 6.7d-e; Albian – early Cenomanian, Oman.</p><p>? 2010 Hemicyclammina sigali – Schroeder et al., fig. 11(6); early Albian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>Non 2011 Hemicyclammina sigali – Roozbahani, pl. 2, fig. 4; Albian, central Iran [= simple planispiral form].</p><p>2011 Hemicyclammina sigali – Shirazi et al., pl. 2, figs. 11-12; Albian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>? 2012 Hemicyclammina sigali – Ghanem et al., fig. 6b/non 12, 14; early Albian, Syria (range shown as Apti- an – Cenomanian).</p><p>2013 Hemicyclammina sigali – Omaña et al., pl. 1, fig. 1; pl. 4, fig. 1; undifferentiated middle – late Cenomanian, Mexico.</p><p>? 2013 Hemicyclammina sigali – Ghanem &amp; Kuss, fig. 10/27; early Albian, Syria (range shown as Albian-middle Cenomanian).</p><p>? 2015 Hemicyclammina sigali – Moosavizadeh et al., fig. 12m; early Albian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>? 2016 Hemicyclammina sigali – Hosseini et al., fig. 14jl; Barremian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>Non 2016 Hemicyclammina sp. – Ghaseminia et al, fig. 4k; Albian, Iranian Zagros [= simple planispiral form].</p><p>Non 2017 Hemicyclammina sigali – Ahmadi et al., pl. 1, fig. 10. [= simple planispiral form].</p><p>2018 Hemicyclammina sigali – BouDagher-Fadel, fig. 5.4; pl. 5.6, figs. 12-13; Albian, southern Iraq.</p><p>2018 Hemicyclammina whitei – BouDagher Fadel, pl. 5.6, figs. 14-15; Aptian-Albian (= latest Albian), Qatar.</p><p>2018 Hemicyclammina sigali – Luger, p. 60, pl. 3, fig. 11; Albian, Somalia.</p><p>2019 Hemicyclammina sigali – Omaña et al., fig. 9e; undifferentiated middle-late Cenomanian, Mexico.</p><p>? 2019 Hemicyclammina sigali – Shirzade et al., pl. 1, figs. 6, 7; Aptian, Iranian Zagros [lacks alveolar wall].</p><p>2020 Hemicyclammina sigali – Haftlang et al., fig. 15c; pl. 1, fig. 6; late Albian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2020 Hemicyclammina sigali – Afghah et al., fig. 5a; Albian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2020 Hemicyclammina sigali Maync – Keshavarzi et al., pl. 1, fig. a; pl. 2, fig. h; Albian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>? 2020 Hemicyclammina sigali – Moosavizadeh et al., fig. 8h; late Aptian-early Albian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2021 Hemicyclammina sigali – Gholamalian &amp; Fanati Rashidi, pl. 3, fig. 17; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>? 2021 Nezzazata sp. – Dehghanian &amp; Afghah, fig. 8/5; middle Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>? 2021 Ismailia neumannae – Shahin &amp; El Baz, fig. 4(2- 3); early Cenomanian, Egypt.</p><p>2021 Hemicyclammina sigali – Shapourikia et al., pl. 9e, j; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2021 Hemicyclammina sigali – Arampour et al., fig. 3g; late Albian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2021 Hemicyclammina sigali – Keshavarzi et al., fig. 6a; Albian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2022 Hemicyclammina sigali – Keshavarzi et al., fig. 7a,?9a; Albian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2022 Hemicyclammina whitei – Simmons &amp; Bidgood, p. 28, figs. 1-4; Albian-Cenomanian, global review.</p><p>2023 Hemicyclammina whitei – Simmons &amp; Bidgood, p. 86, fig. 35; early Albian-intra-late Cenomanian, global review.</p><p>2024 Hemicyclammina sigali – Arampour et al., fig. 7g; Albian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>Reference Images: Simmons &amp; Bidgood (2022) figs. 1-4.</p><p>Taxonomy/Identity: Simmons &amp; Bidgood (2022) carried out a thorough investigation of this species, commonly recorded in the literature as its junior synonym, H. sigali Maync. Hemicyclammina is an involute planispiral genus with an alveolar wall but solid, pointed septa which extend only part way into the chamber lumen in equatorial sections. The otherwise similar genus Everticyclammina has septa projecting from both the outer and inner chamber wall (Banner &amp; Highton, 1990). The solid (“semi-” or “hemi-”) thin septa serve to distinguish the genus from Buccicrenata which has 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 .</p><p>The Late Cretaceous (mostly Coniacian – Campanian) species Hemicyclammina chalmasi (= Dictyopsella chalmasi Schlumberger, 1900) differs from H. whitei by virtue of a thicker, coarsely agglutinating wall, and a larger test with chambers increasing in height to produce a peneropliform test. The exoskeleton is particularly well developed in H. chalmasi with long beams and less pronounced rafters. Excellent illustrations of this species are provided by Schlagintweit &amp; Wagreich (2004) and Albrich et al. (2015). A possible Paleocene form of Hemicyclammina, Hemicyclammina plana (= Alveolophragmium planum Bykova, 1939) is poorly known (Simmons &amp; Bidgood, 2022).</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: early Albian – intra-late Cenomanian (common throughout).</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: not applicable.</p><p>A frequently encountered species in suitable Albian – Cenomanian facies.</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 the 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 appear to be consistently smaller in size compared with H. whitei and are more likely an ancestral form “ Hemicyclammina ? sp.” (e.g., illustrated as H. sigali from the Barremian of the Iranian Zagros by Hosseini et al. (2016) and the Aptian of offshore Abu Dhabi by Banner (1966; pl. 12, fig., 3b) and Iran by Shirzade et al. (2019) although the alveolar nature of the wall is not demonstrated). A similar, slight larger (0.3 mm diameter) specimen has been illustrated by Özkan &amp; Altıner (2019) from the early Aptian of south- east Türkiye (Arabian Plate) as “ Hemicyclammina ? sp.”.</p><p>Although sometimes used as a biozonal marker (e.g. Arampour et al., 2021; Rahbarman et al., 2024), this reflects biofacies and is of very limited correlative value.</p><p>Geographic Distribution: Very widespread. Throughout the Caribbean, central Atlantic (Brazil, Morocco, Iberia) and Neotethys as far east as Oman and Somalia and possibly (unconfirmed) further east in Tibet. Potential ancestral records are located on the Arabian Plate (see Simmons &amp; Bidgood, 2022, 2023).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A6DFF901FCFFEC2FDD2FBE9	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A60FF911CDAFBF9FC52FEC1.text	039B87F95A60FF911CDAFBF9FC52FEC1.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 (see Table 1 for diagnosis)</p><p>The inclusion of Pseudocyclammina in this subfamily/family does not follow Hayward et al. (2025) and the "WoRMS" database as discussed below.</p><p>Pseudocyclammina is a planispiral, agglutinated genus with coarse alveolar walls and septa that would appear to be relatively uncontroversial in terms of its higher classification but instead has become something rather more problematic. First proposed by Yabe &amp; Hanzawa (1926) with the type species Cyclammina lituus Yokoyama, 1890 from the Late Jurassic – Early Cretaceous of Japan, it was said to differ from Cyclammina in having a cribrate rather than slit-like aperture and also having a tendency to uncoil.</p><p>No higher classification was proposed until Maync (1952) placed the genus in the Lituolidae family, Choffatellinae subfamily (and assigning d’Orbigny’s 1850 species – Lituola rugosa to Pseudocyclammina). Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1987) reassigned the Choffatellinae to the family Cyclamminidae Marie, superfamily Loftusiacea Brady.</p><p>However, almost contemporaneously, Septfontaine (1988) tentatively assigned Pseudocyclammina to a new family – the Hauraniidae; new subfamily Amijiellinae, both within the superfamily Lituolacea . This was done primarily upon the basis of the “… progressive appearance of pillars in the ‘ Pseudocyclammina’ gr. parvula/muluchensis/ Anchispirocyclina lineage and in Alveosepta during the Upper Jurassic …” (Septfontaine, 1988; p. 237; caption to figure 4). Loeblich &amp; Tappan’s (1987; p. 102) genus description also included the phrase “… may have a few irregular pillars in a narrow zone …”. Septfontaine (1988) also noted in the same caption that Pseudocyclammina “ appears as polyphyletic ” (written as “… probably polyphyletic ” on p. 244). He went on to state that more research was needed, especially for Cretaceous taxa. Although illustrating several taxa in the Hauraniidae photographically, Pseudocyclammina was not one of them, and only a simple “cartoon- like” sketch was provided.</p><p>Despite Septfontaine’s evident uncertainty, several of his new families including the Hauraniidae were reassigned to a new suborder – the Orbitolinina – by Kaminski (2004) and maintained by him later (Kaminski, 2014) and also to the present day in the WoRMS world foraminifera database (Hayward et al., 2025). It was also a position followed, without discussion, by Simmons &amp; Bidgood (2023). This new suborder was defined in full by Kaminski (2004; p. 251) as “ Test trochospiral or conical, later stage may have reduced number of chambers per whorl, or may become uniserial and rectilinear; chamber interior of advanced taxa subdivided by vertical or horizontal exoskeletal partitions or both, by radial or transverse partitions, or with interseptal pillars.” Kaminski’s re- assignment was presumably made on the basis that other genera in the Hauraniidae / Amijiellinae better fit the new subordinal criteria and Pseudocyclammina (although never firmly assigned to the family/subfamily by Septfontaine) was “swept up” with the others.</p><p>With the exception of “interseptal pillars” – which have not been conclusively proven in the genus (in an extensive treatment of exo- and endoskeletal structures, Hottinger, 1967, did not mention pillars in connection with any Pseudocyclammina species except P. muluchensis n. sp. which is now assigned to Streptocyclammina Hottinger; see also Septfontaine, 1988, and see below) – none of the other subordinal characteristics of the Orbitolinina apply to what we know as Pseudocyclammina . It is difficult to envisage an obvious connection between the alveolar, planispiral Pseudocyclammina and, say, members of the family Orbitolinidae including “classic” internally- complex, uniserial cyclic/annular conical genera such as Orbitolina, for example (see Bidgood et al., 2024).</p><p>Moreover, we have seen no conclusive evidence for the presence of pillars in our studied Cenomanian material (e.g., Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam, 2023; see also Simmons &amp; Bidgood, 2023) and, despite what may have been observed in Late Jurassic material and followed by us previously, we prefer to include (for the present paper) at least Cenomanian members of Pseudocyclammina within the Cyclamminidae herein, together with the morphologically similar genera Buccicrenata and Hemicyclammina (see also Albrich et al., 2015, p. 255).</p><p>Pseudocyclammina is a distinctive subspherical to somewhat axially compressed, planispiral (sometimes uncoiling) genus, with relatively thick, obviously alveolar, chamber walls and septa. In the mid-Cretaceous, Buccicrenata is the most likely confusion genus (see Buccicrenata ex. gr. subgoodlandensis herein), but can be distinguished by its single aperture, whilst that of Pseudocyclammina is cribrate. 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>Pseudocyclammin a is a commonly encountered and arguably diverse genus in Jurassic – Early Cretaceous sediments of Neotethys (e.g. Hottinger, 1967; Banner, 1970; Whittaker et al., 1998) but is relatively uncommon in Cenomanian sediments with only two species known: Pseudocyclammina rugosa (d’Orbigny, 1850) and Pseudocyclammina sarvakensis Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam, 2023 . Confusion taxa include the typically Late Jurassic – Early Cretaceous Pseudocyclammina lituus (Yokoyama, 1890) and the Late Cretaceous Pseudocyclammina sphaeroidea Gendrot, 1968 and Pseudocyclammina massiliensis Maync, 1959 . P. sarvakensis is distinguished from all previously described Pseudocyclammina species by the relatively larger number of chambers (14-16) in the final whorl, and has not been observed to uncoil. P. rugosa is relatively large (0.8 – 4.3 mm in external diameter of the coiled portion according to Maync (1959 a) although illustrations in Maync (1952, 1959) 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) (a diameter: hickness 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 . A summary of the characteristics of the five Pseudocyclammina species mentioned above is shown in Table 2 and the two exclusively Cenomanian species are discussed below.</p><p>We have not considered in further detail the debate between describing the wall of Pseudocyclammina as “alveolar” (Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi- Moghadam, 2023; Simmons &amp; Bidgood, 2023 and as used herein) or “labyrinthic” (Gendrot, 1968; Maync, 1952, 1959) or a combination of both (Banner, 1966, 1970). Hottinger (2006) provided separate definitions (but not illustrations) for both kinds of structure/texture, but these are not unequivocal. Gušić (1975) also provided a discussion, distinguishing Everticyclammina from Pseudocyclammina claiming that the former genus is the only one to show an “alveolar exoskeleton” (p. 15) and the latter a “subepidermal meshwork type ” (p. 13). He went on to say (p. 15) that “ It is unclear whether Pseudocyclammina rugosa… possesses an alveolar rather than subepidermal meshwork exoskeleton… ” leading to more uncertainty in the terminology and raising the question of any significant difference between the terms. The terms used by the various authors above seem to be those of personal preference and further examination of type materials from many taxa would be required to provide clarification, which is beyond the scope of this work.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A60FF911CDAFBF9FC52FEC1	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A61FF941F24FE4EFAF1FD7A.text	039B87F95A61FF941F24FE4EFAF1FD7A.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>Figure 3</p><p>1850 (1847 MS) Lituola rugosa d’Orbigny, vol. 2, p. 185, limited description with no illustration; middle – late Cenomanian, western France.</p><p>1952 Pseudocyclammina rugosa (d’Orbigny) – Maync, pl. 12, figs. 6-10; middle – late Cenomanian, western France.</p><p>1959 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Maync, p. 187, pl. 1, figs. 10-15; middle – late Cenomanian, western France.</p><p>Non 1965 Pseudocyclammina cf. rugosa – Hamaoui, p. 19-20; pl. 1, fig. 11, pl. 5, figs. 6-8, pl. 10, fig. 6; Cenomanian, Israel [= Buccicrenata ex gr. subgoodlandensis].</p><p>? 1967 Pseudocyclammina cf. rugosa – Bismuth et al., pl. XII, figs. 18-20; Cenomanian, Tunisia [small, with unclear identity].</p><p>Non 1967 Pseudocyclammina cf. rugosa – Arkin &amp; Hamaoui, pl. 2, fig. 3; Cenomanian, Israel [= Buccicrenata ex gr. subgoodlandensis].</p><p>Non 1969 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Sampò, pl. XXXIX, figs. 6-8; Albian, Iranian Zagros [= B. ex gr. subgoodlandensis].</p><p>1973 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Bilotte, pl. III, fig. 15; latest Albian-Cenomanian, Pyrenees.</p><p>? 1973 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Berthou, pl. 1, figs. 1, 1a-c; early-middle Cenomanian, Portugal [? = B. ex gr. subgoodlandensis or unconfirmed].</p><p>1974 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Neumann et al., pl. 6, fig. 4; middle – late Cenomanian, western France.</p><p>? 1974 Pseudocyclammina cf. rugosa – Moullade &amp; Peybernès, pl. 3, figs. 2, 5; late Albian, Spain [? = Buccicrenata ex gr. subgoodlandensis].</p><p>Non 1976 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Kalantari, pl. 10, figs. 13-14; Aptian, Iranian Zagros [= B. ex gr. subgoodlandensis].</p><p>Non 1976 Pseudocyclammina cf. rugosa – Kalantari, pl. 22, figs. 17-18, 25; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [= B. ex gr. subgoodlandensis].</p><p>1985 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Bilotte, p. 355, pl. 4, fig. 8; middle – late Cenomanian (total range indicated as Albian – Cenomanian), French Pyrenees.</p><p>1986 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Ben Youssef &amp; Peybernès, pl. fig. 18; middle – late Albian, Tunisia.</p><p>? 1987 Buccicrenata? rugosa – Simmons &amp; Hart, pl. 10.5, fig. 4; early Cenomanian, Oman [not clear,?= B. ex gr. subgoodlandensis; one of us (FS) has also seen similar material from the middle Cenomanian of Oman</p><p>115</p><p>(unpublished data)].</p><p>Non 1993 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Ettachfini, p. 120, pl. 1, figs. 7-11; Cenomanian, Morocco [= Ammobaculites / Lituola, B. ex gr. subgoodlandensis or indeterminate].</p><p>Non 2003 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Aguilero-Franco, pl. 1, fig. 7; Cenomanian, Mexico [prob.= Ammobaculites sp., no obvious alveolar wall].</p><p>Non 2004 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Ettachfini &amp; Andreu, fig. 7E; Cenomanian, Morocco [= Ammobaculites / Lituola, B. ex gr. subgoodlandensis or indeterminate].</p><p>Non 2006 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Ettachfini, pl. 13, fig. 10; late Cenomanian, Morocco [= Ammobaculites / Lituola, B. ex gr. subgoodlandensis or indeterminate].</p><p>Non 2012 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Omaña et al., fig. 5(8); middle-late Cenomanian, Mexico [prob. = Ammobaculites / Lituola sp.].</p><p>Non 2013 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Boavida; pl. 1, fig. 1; Cenomanian, Portugal [?= B. ex gr.</p><p>subgoodlandensis or unconfirmed].</p><p>Non 2013 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Omaña et al., pl. 5, fig. 10; middle-late Cenomanian, Mexico [prob.= Ammobaculites / Lituola sp.].</p><p>? 2014 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Danelian et al., fig. 9(3-6); Cenomanian, Armenia [small and unclear identity].</p><p>Non 2014 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Afghah &amp; Haghighi, pl. 3, fig. 3; Aptian, Iranian Zagros [= Ammobaculites sp. or Lituola sp.].</p><p>2018 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – BouDagher-Fadel, pl. 5.6 (7) middle – late Cenomanian, western France.</p><p>? 2018 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Andrade, pl. M1, figs. 3,4,6; pl. M5, fig. 7; Cenomanian, Portugal [?= B. ex gr. subgoodlandensis or unconfirmed].</p><p>Non 2018 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Omidi et al., pl. 2, fig. 5; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [= P. sarvakensis].</p><p>? 2020 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Simmons et al., fig. 9.1; middle Cenomanian, Turkish Arabian Plate.</p><p>Non 2022 Pseudocyclammina rugose (sic.) – Esfandyari et al., fig. 23l; Cenomanian-Turonian, Iranian Zagros [= P. sarvakensis].</p><p>2023 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Simmons Bidgood, p. 82, fig. 31; Albian – latest? Cenomanian, global review.</p><p>Non 2023 Pseudocyclammina rugosa – Abtahiyan et al., fig. 6b; late Barremian – early Aptian, Iranian Zagros [indeterminate, but not P. rugosa, possibly B. ex gr. subgoodlandensis].</p><p>Reference Images: Maync (1952), Pl. 12, figs. 6-10, p. 50 and Maync (1959), Pl. 1, figs. 10-15.</p><p>Taxonomy/Identity: The typical Cenomanian representative of Pseudocyclammina is P. rugosa, that despite illustration by Maync (1952, 1959) remains poorly known. Lituola rugosa was introduced by d’Orbigny (1850) with a very limited description in a list of Cenomanian foraminifera from France, and there is no illustration. Maync (1952, 1959) 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. Since then, the species has quite frequently been reported from Albian – Cenomanian sediments of Neotethys and the Caribbean (Mexico), but seldom illustrated and often not convincingly. Confusion with Buccicrenata ex gr. subgoodlandensis is common and in many random sections the species are difficult to distinguish from one another, leading to uncertainties in stratigraphic and geographic distribution (see discussion below).</p><p>P. rugosa appears to be relatively large (0.8 – 4.3 mm in external diameter of the coiled whorl according to Maync (1959) although illustrations in Maync (1952, 1959) 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 – 1.9mm, typically 1.4) and 5-7 chambers in the last whorl serve to distinguish it from other species of Pseudocyclammina (Table 2) 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 .</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: middle Albian – undifferentiated middle – late Cenomanian.</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: early Albian.</p><p>Neumann et al. (1974) indicated that at its type locality, the species has an undifferentiated middle – late Cenomanian range. Rey et al. (1977), Decrouez (1978), Saint-Marc (1981), and Berthou (1984) 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. There are no illustrated, unequivocally late Cenomanian records, only those from undifferentiated Cenomanian, or middle – late Cenomanian strata. The oldest confidently illustrated records come from the middle – late Albian of Tunisa (Ben Youssef &amp; Peybernès, 1986).</p><p>Illustrated records from the Aptian or older (e.g., Kalantari, 1976; Afghah &amp; Haghighi, 2014; Abtahiyan et al., 2023 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., Abu Zied, 2007; Habibnia et al., 2010; Mansouri-Daneshvar et al., 2015; Afghah et al., 2016) should be treated with caution. An unillustrated report from the Coniacian – Maastrichtian of Spain (Gräfe, 2005) should most likely be regarded as erroneous.</p><p>Restriction of its range to the early Cenomanian (Velić, 2007) reflects local facies control.</p><p>Geographic Distribution: 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. Confirmed records are limited to the type area in western France, the Pyrenees, Tunisia and possibly Oman and southern Türkiye. Unpublished reports, if confirmed, might extend this distribution, but despite quite numerous records it remains unproven as occurring in Mexico.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A61FF941F24FE4EFAF1FD7A	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A65FF8A1CF4F88FFE59FA2E.text	039B87F95A65FF8A1CF4F88FFE59FA2E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudochoffatella algeriana Peybernes 1988	<div><p>Pseudochoffatella algeriana Peybernès et al., 1988</p><p>Figure 5</p><p>1984 " Pseudochoffatella " n. sp. Peybernès et al., pl. 1, figs. 10-12; Cenomanian, Algeria.</p><p>T 1988 Pseudochoffatella algeriana n. sp. Peybernès et al., text-fig. 2, pl. 1, figs. 1-11; upper Cenomanian, Algeria.</p><p>Reference Images: Peybernès et al. (1988) text fig. 2, pl. 1, figs. 1-11.</p><p>Taxonomy/Identity: First described from the upper Cenomanian of Algeria by Peybernès et al. (1988) having been first identified as a new taxon by Peybernès et al. (1984; see also Peybernès et al., 1986), this species differs from the more commonly recorded Aptian-Albian species P. cuvillieri Deloffre, 1961, and the more recently described Barremian? – Aptian P. minima Schlagintweit et al., 2020, in having a larger test (up to 16 mm diameter in microspheric forms) and a more discoidal rather than reniform test shape. Schlagintweit et al. (2020) provides useful comparative data.</p><p>It superficially resembles other thin, discoidal generic forms discussed herein such as Cyclolina, Cyclopsinella, Mangashtia and Dicyclina but differs in possessing a (small) post-embryonic peneropliform stage and a “… Choffatelliform hypodermis with polygonal subepidermal network ” (Peybernès et al. (1988, p. 458 translated from original).</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: not applicable.</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: late Cenomanian.</p><p>Although described as occurring in the late Cenomanian in the only detailed report of this species (Peybernès et al., 1988), this age assignment is based on co-occurrence with Pseudorhapydionina dubia (De Castro, 1965) . Simmons &amp; Bidgood (2023) noted that P. dubia has a long range within the Cenomanian, at least as old as middle Cenomanian, if not older.</p><p>Geographic Distribution: This species has so far only been reported from Algeria.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A65FF8A1CF4F88FFE59FA2E	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A7AFF8B1D4DF923FE62F963.text	039B87F95A7AFF8B1D4DF923FE62F963.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>Figure 6</p><p>T 1963 Reissella ramonensis n. gen, n. sp. – Hamaoui, p. 62, pl. 1, figs. 1-13, text-fig. 1; late Cenomanian, Israel.</p><p>? 1965 Reissella ramonensis – Hamaoui, pl. 13, figs. 8-9; Cenomanian, Israel.</p><p>1966 Reissella ramonensis – Hamaoui, pl. 5, fig. 8; Cenomanian, Israel.</p><p>Non 1966 Reisella ramonensis – Hamaoui, pl. 3, fig. 6. [prob.= Pseudorhipidionina casertana (De Castro, 1965)]. Non 1970 Reissella ramonensis – Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc, pl. 40, fig. 8. [probably= P. casertana].</p><p>2023 Reisella ramonensis – Simmons &amp; Bidgood, p. 88, fig. 37; late Cenomanian, global review.</p><p>Reference Images: Hamaoui (1963) pl. 1 (1-13), fig. 1.</p><p>Taxonomy/Identity: This small but internally complex taxon has an uncertain suprageneric status as the nature of its wall has yet to be unequivocally determined as originally porcelaneous or agglutinated. Similarities with the soritid Pseudorhipidionina casertana (De Castro, 1965) are clearly evident but subtle differences occur, although these may be difficult to determine in all but pristine, well-oriented thin-sections. 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 . For the present it appears that R. ramonensis is a possibly agglutinated isomorph of P. casertana (see Simmons &amp; Bidgood, 2023, and the species key chart therein for a more extensive discussion), but an unequivocal clarification of its status awaits more material for study.</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: late Cenomanian.</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: not applicable.</p><p>Limited records of this taxon from Israel (illustrated) and from Crete (unillustrated; Leppig, 1976) have so far been noted in late Cenomanian or undifferentiated Cenomanian-Turonian strata respectively. A record of Reissella sp. from the Albian of Türkiye (Solak et al., 2021) is not this species but could be an ancestral form of R. ramonensis or the Pseudorhipidionina group (see Simmons &amp; Bidgood, 2023). A view that R. ramonensis occurs in the Turonian (Lipson-Benitah, 2009) has been discounted by Simmons &amp; Bidgood (2023).</p><p>Geographic Distribution: Very limited distribution in Central Neotethys; Israel and (unconfirmed) Crete (see Simmons &amp; Bidgood, 2023).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A7AFF8B1D4DF923FE62F963	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A7BFF881CFBF8EAFEE8F921.text	039B87F95A7BFF881CFBF8EAFEE8F921.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>Figure 7</p><p>T 1982 Spirocyclina atlasica – Saint-Marc &amp; Rahhali, p. 134, pls. 1-2; late Cenomanian, Moroccan Atlas.</p><p>1984 Spirocyclina atlasica – Dufaure et al., pl. 1, figs. 8- 12; late Cenomanian, Libya.</p><p>1993 Spirocyclina atlasica – Ettachfini, pl. 2, figs. 3-7; late Cenomanian, Morocco.</p><p>1998 Spirocyclina atlasica – Charrière et al., fig. 4(5); fig. 7(1-5); late Cenomanian, Morocco.</p><p>2006 Spirocyclina atlasica – Ettachfini, pl. 13, figs, 1-9; late Cenomanian, Morocco.</p><p>? 2017 Coxites zubairensis – Boukhary et al., p. 4; fig.1; late Cenomanian-early Turonian, Eastern Desert, Egypt.</p><p>2023 Spirocyclina atlasica – Simmons &amp; Bidgood, p. 90, fig. 39; late Cenomanian, Western North Africa.</p><p>Reference Images: Saint-Marc &amp; Rahhali (1982) pls. 1-2.</p><p>Taxonomy/Identity: The dramatically flattened (more so than in Reissella ramonensis) peneropliform coiling style of this species is characteristic (see Simmons &amp; Bidgood, 2023, and the species key chart therein for more information). The generic characteristic is a double row of pores in the apertural face (which can increase to three rows in the final stage).</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: late Cenomanian.</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: not applicable.</p><p>The genus is long-ranging (Kimmeridgian-Santonian; Maync, 1959) but not previously recorded from the Cenomanian until this species was described from the late Cenomanian of the Moroccan Atlas (Saint-Marc &amp; Rahhali, 1982). Almost all records are from Morocco although a plausibly illustrated record also occurs in Libya (Dufaure et al., 1984). The record of Spirocyclina sp. from the late Cenomanian of SE France (Rineau et al., 2021) is probably better referred to as Pseudorhapydionina dubia (De Castro) .</p><p>Geographic Distribution: Limited distribution in North Africa (Morocco and Libya; see Simmons &amp; Bidgood, 2023).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A7BFF881CFBF8EAFEE8F921	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A78FF8E1C96F80BFC7CF890.text	039B87F95A78FF8E1C96F80BFC7CF890.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Reticulinella reicheli (Cuvillier 1969)	<div><p>Reticulinella reicheli (Cuvillier et al., 1969)</p><p>Figure 8</p><p>? 1915 Loftusia libyca nom. nud. – Parona, p. 25; Cenomanian, Libya [probably associated with Praealveolina fide Gohrbandt, 1966].</p><p>T 1969 Reticulina reicheli gen. et sp. nov. – Cuvillier et al., p. 209-224, pls. 1–3, 8–16, text-figs. 1–10, 12; “late Cenomanian – Turonian, possibly Senonian”, Sirte Basin, Libya [most likely Cenomanian] and ??Maastrichtian, Algeria.</p><p>1970 Reticulinella reicheli nom. subst. pro Reticulina Cuvillier et al., 1969 – Bonnefous et al., p. 39.</p><p>1970 Reticulinella reicheli – Deloffre &amp; Hamaoui, fig. 5A; Late Cretaceous, Libya.</p><p>1972 Ovalveolina ovum (d’Orbigny) – Barr &amp; Weegar, pl. 4, fig. 8; [ fide Hamaoui, 1973]; Cenomanian, Libya [Cenomanian age is based on identification of O. ovum, but see discussion below].</p><p>1973 Reticulinella reicheli – Hamaoui, pl. 3, figs. 1-3; pl. 6, figs. 4-7; Late Cretaceous, Libya.</p><p>Non 1976 Reticulinella cf. reicheli – Luperto-Sinni, p. 323-324, pl. 45, figs. 7-16; Senonian, southern Italy [= Reticulinella fleuryi Cvetko et al., fide Schlagintweit et al., 2024a].</p><p>Non 1978 Reticulinella cf. reicheli – Luperto-Sinni &amp; Richetti, pl. 50, figs. 1-4; Senonian, southern Italy [= Reticulinella fleuryi Cvetko et al., fide Schlagintweit et al., 2024a].</p><p>1985 Reticulinella reicheli – Hamaoui in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, p. 41-42, pl. 17, figs. 1-6; late Cenomanian-?Maastrichtian, global review [see discussion below].</p><p>Non 1990 Reticulinella cf. reicheli – Gušić &amp; Jelaska, pl. 14, figs. 4-5; Campanian, Croatia [= Reticulinella fleuryi Cvetko et al., fide Cvetko Tešović et al., 2001].</p><p>Non 2012 Reticulinella reicheli – Orabi et al., fig. 3G; Cenomanian, Egypt [=probably an alveolinid, fide Schlagintweit et al., 2024a].</p><p>Non 2017 Reticulina reicheli – Ahmadi et al., pl. 1, fig. 1; late Albian – Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [indeterminate (possibly a cuneolinid?), but not R. reicheli].</p><p>2018 Reticulinella reicheli – BouDagher-Fadel, pl. 5.4, fig. 3; Cenomanian-Turonian, Libya.</p><p>Non 2019 Reticulinella reicheli – Kiarostami et al., pl. 2, fig. l; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros, [= Rabanitina, probably a new species, research ongoing].</p><p>Non 2021 Reticulinella reicheli – Yazdi-Moghadam &amp; Schlagintweit, fig. 2H; middle – late Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros, [= Rabanitina, probably a new species, research ongoing].</p><p>Non 2021 Reticulinella reicheli – Dousti-Mohajer et al., pl. 3, fig. c; late Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [probably not a foraminifera].</p><p>Non 2021 Rabanitina basraensis – Dousti-Mohajer et al., pl. 1, fig. k; late Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros, [considered by Simmons et al., 2024b to be Reticulinella reicheli but is probably a new species of Rabanitina, reasearch ongoing].</p><p>Non 2021 Reticulinella reicheli – Dehghanian &amp; Afghah, fig. 8.7; late Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros, [= Rabanitina, probably a new species, research ongoing].</p><p>Non 2024a Reticulinella reicheli – Schlagintweit et al., p. 232-235, figs. 2-3; middle-late Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros, [= Rabanitina, probably a new species, research ongoing].</p><p>Reference Images: Cuvillier et al., pls. 1-3, 8-16, text-figs. 1-10, 12.</p><p>Taxonomy/Identity: Superficially, Reticulinella is a homeomorph of globular porcellaneous-walled alveolinids (e.g. Ovalveolina), although in addition to the fundamental nature of the wall, the subepidermal reticulate wall structure is distinct. Some aspects of higher taxonomy remain equivocal. Described as “ microgranulaire, calcaire imperforé avec de très rares éléments agglutinés ” by Hamaoui in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) (= Order Lituolida), it is assigned to the</p><p>Order Loftusiida (“ possessing a bilamellar wall differentiated into an imperforate outer layer, and a thicker inner layer that is perforate ” by Kaminski (2014).</p><p>R. reicheli is spherical to ovoid, planispiral involute, wall microgranular calcareous, with a reticulate subepidermal network with a series of radial and transverse partitions (“beams” and “rafters” sensu Hottinger, 2006) that are discussed below. Apertures multiple, a row of small round openings near the septum base (see Cuvillier et al., 1969 and Hamaoui in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985 for excellent descriptions and illustrations).</p><p>The terms “radial” and “transverse” to describe chamber partitions have been used somewhat inconsistently in the literature when describing Reticulinella and similar genera (e.g., see the type descriptions for the taxa included in Table 3). Hottinger (2006) clarified many aspects of LBF morphological terminology. “Radial” partitions run in the direction of growth and are referred to by Hottinger (2006) as “beams”. Herein we use the term “beam” to point to a shell element that extends vertically from the base to the roof of a chamber and thus occupies the entire chamber height. Given the objective difficulties in defining this skeletal element in some Loftusiida, this definition does not distinguish whether a “beam” is a primary or secondary chamber partition. In Reticulinella they run (in the direction of growth) from one septum towards the next septum, but do not quite reach it, leaving a “preseptal passage”. In some LBF, beam- like structures run between and parallel to the main beams but do not occupy the full chamber height (sometimes called “intercalary beams”; see Figure 7b). Transverse partitions on the other hand run parallel with the primary septa and perpendicular to “beams” in the roof of the chamber. They are minor structures compared with “beams” and are termed “rafters” (Hottinger, 2006). They run across the entire width of the chamber (roof).</p><p>In axial sections Reticulinella resembles Ovalveolina ovum (see comments below and compare Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985; pl. 17, fig. 2 with text fig. 10) and Barkerina Frizzell &amp; Schwartz 1950 (although that genus has no subepidermal network). Rabanitina Smout, 1956 is superficially similar but with a distinctive trochospiral initial stage.</p><p>There are three species of Reticulinella currently recognised: R. reicheli, Reticulinella kaeveri Cherchi, Radoičić &amp; Schroeder, 1989 and Reticulinella fleuryi Cvetko, Gušić &amp; Schroeder, 1997 . R. kaeveri and R. fleuryi are only known from Turonian and younger strata and are smaller, with fewer whorls and lack a genuinely reticulate wall structure. For example, R. kaeveri lacks rafters (Arriaga et al., 2016). In this respect they probably merit removal from the genus Reticulinella (see Schlagintweit et al., 2023a for a discussion of R. kaeveri). They may have a closer affinity with the Barremian form Praereticulinella cuvillieri Deloffre &amp; Hamaoui, 1970 . There is also an approximately homeomorphic Late Cretaceous form, Cuneospirella samnitica Cherchi, Schroeder &amp; Ruberti 2009 . The morphological differences between all these taxa and Barkerina barkerensis Frizzel &amp; Schwartz, 1950 and O. ovum is summarised in Table 3 and Table 4.</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: not applicable.</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: late Cenomanian – Maastrichtian.</p><p>The type material is from Libya (Lidam Formation) and Algeria (Cuvillier et al., 1969). The Algerian material is assigned a Maastrichtian age, but no supporting data is provided. Since location details are scant, this statement cannot be checked. On the other hand, the Lidam Formation of Libya (the primary location of type material) was considered by the authors as late Cenomanian? – Turonian, possibly younger. Most literature (e.g., Hassan &amp; Kendall, 2014; Hallet &amp; Lowes, 2016; Gumati, 2022) assigns the Lidam Formation to the Cenomanian, although definitive proof is lacking. Arguments that Ovalveolina ovum is present (Barr &amp; Weegar, 1972; Hallet &amp; Lowes, 2016) are most likely misidentifications of R. reicheli (Hamaoui, 1973) creating circular reasoning for the age of R. reicheli in the Lidam Formation. Nonetheless, on a regional basis the Lidam Formation seems most likely to be Cenomanian.</p><p>Based on the type description, a range of late Cenomanian – Maastrichtian is given and repeated without substantiation by Arnaud et al. (1981) and Hamaoui in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985). Records from the middle – late Cenomanian part of the Sarvak Formation of the Iranian Zagros (Kiarostami et al., 2019; Dehghanian &amp; Afghah, 2021; Yazdi-Moghadam &amp; Schlagintweit, 2021; Schlagintweit et al., 2024) are considered to represent a new species of Rabanitina, research into which is ongoing. Its presence in the (late) Cenomanian, although likely, must be considered uncertain in the absence of unequivocal calibration. Older (e.g., Orabi et al., 2012; Gheiasvand et al., 2021 – Aptian) and younger records (e.g., Cvetko et al., 1997; Velić, 2007; Benmansour, 2023) are not supported by plausible illustration. Cvetko et al. (1997) and Cvetko Tešović et al. (2001) in discussions of the genus Reticulinella commented that R. reicheli is “most abundant in the Middle Campanian ”. No substantiation for this statement is provided, although Velić (2007) also commented on the presence of the species in the Campanian.</p><p>Geographic Distribution: Southern Neotethys, specifically North Africa. Records from the post-Cenomanian in areas such as the Adriatic are doubted to be this species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A78FF8E1C96F80BFC7CF890	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A7EFF8D1F1BF85DFF15FA0D.text	039B87F95A7EFF8D1F1BF85DFF15FA0D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Charentiidae Loeblich & Tappan 1985	<div><p>Family CHARENTIIDAE Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1985a (diagnosis sensu Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1987)</p><p>124 126</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A7EFF8D1F1BF85DFF15FA0D	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A72FF811D48FEAAFAF4FE02.text	039B87F95A72FF811D48FEAAFAF4FE02.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Charentia cuvillieri Neumann - Villalonga 1965	<div><p>Charentia cuvillieri Neumann, 1965</p><p>Figure 9</p><p>? 1956 Cribrostomoides paralens n. sp. – Omara, p. 887, pl. 103, figs. 1-3; text figs. 3-3, 4d, 4e; Cenomanian, Egypt – fide Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1985; assigned to Charentia) [examination of the types has so far been unable to demonstrate that this species is the (senior) synonym of C. cuvillieri].</p><p>T 1965 Charentia cuvillieri n. gen., n. sp. – Neumann, p. 93-95, pl. 2, figs. 6-12; middle Cenomanian, France.</p><p>1965 Haplophragmoides greigi (Henson) – Hofker, p. 185, pl. 2, figs. 1—7, pl. 3 figs. 1—3; late Aptian-early Albian, Spain.</p><p>1965 Haplophragmoides persica n. sp. – Gollesstaneh, p. 149, pl. 13, figs. 1-5; pl. 14, figs. 1-7; Barremian-Aptian, Iranian Zagros ( fide Schlagintweit, 2014).</p><p>1966 Hemicyclammina praesigali n. sp. – Banner, p. 216; Aptian-Albian, Spain ( fide Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1985).</p><p>1967 Charentia cuvillieri – Hottinger, pl. 9, figs. 1-4; Cenomanian, Spain.</p><p>1968 Tonasia evoluta n. gen., n. sp. – Gorbachik, p. 8-9, pl. 2, figs. 1-5; Berriasian, Crimea.</p><p>? 1973 Charentia cuvillieri – Kerdany et al., p. 93, pl. 1, figs. 9-12; Cenomanian, Gulf of Suez [non-diagnostic external views only].</p><p>? 1973 Charentia cuvillieri – Berthou, pl. 1, figs 2, 2a; early Cenomanian, Portugal.</p><p>1974 Charentia cuvillieri – Saint-Marc, p. 214, pl. I, figs. 9-11; middle Albian, Lebanon (total range reported as middle – late Albian).</p><p>1974 Charentia kosovica n. sp. – Radoičić, p. 143, pl. XII, figs. 1-5; late Cenomanian, Kosovo ( fide Rey et al., 1977).</p><p>1976 Navarella ? sp. – Luperto Sinni, pl. 46, fig. 4; Late Cretaceous, southern Italy.</p><p>1977 Charentia cuvillieri – Rey et al., pl. 3, figs. 11-14; late Albian, Portugal.</p><p>? 1978 Mayncina hasaensis n. sp. Basha, p. 77, pl. 2, figs. 7-11; late Cenomanian, Jordan.</p><p>1979 Charentia cuvillieri - Rey et al., pl. XV, figs. 11-15; late Albian, Portugal.</p><p>1980 Charentia cuvillieri – Arnaud-Vanneau, p. 353, pl. 50, figs. 5-7, 10-11; pl. 76, figs. 7-11; text fig. 124; Barremian-early Aptian, French Jura.</p><p>? 1983 Charentia cuvillieri – Hassanien &amp; Sigal, pl. 1, figs. 11-12; Cenomanian, Egypt [indeterminate illustration].</p><p>1984 Charentia cuvillieri – Arnaud-Vanneau &amp; Darsac, pl. 2, figs. 19, 24; Barremian – early Aptian; French Jura. 1984 Charentia cuvillieri – Canerot, pl. 2, fig. 2; early Cretaceous, Spain.</p><p>1984 Charentia cuvillieri – Dufaure et al., pl. 1, figs. 1-7; Cenomanian, southern Libya.</p><p>1985a Charentia cuvillieri – Loeblich &amp; Tappan, p. 96, pl. 3, figs. 1-13; middle Cenomanian, France.</p><p>1985 Charentia cuvillieri – Arnaud-Vanneau in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, p. 17-18, pl. 3, figs. 1, (“ holotype ”), 2-11; middle Cenomanian, France .</p><p>1985 Nummoloculina ? sp. – Weidich, pl. 3, fig. 8; early – middle Cenomanian, Austria.</p><p>1986 Lituolidae aff. Navarella sp. – Bouyx &amp; Villain, fig. 7k; Late Cretaceous, Afghanistan.</p><p>1987 Charentia cuvillieri – Arnaud-Vanneau et al., fig. A 25 (19, 24); Barremian – early Aptian, French Jura.</p><p>1987 Charentia cuvillieri – Loeblich &amp; Tappan, p. 89, pl. 78, figs. 1-10; middle Cenomanian, France.</p><p>1987 Charentia evoluta (Gorbachik) – Loeblich &amp; Tappan, p. 89, pl. 79, figs. 1-3; Valanginian, Crimea .</p><p>1988 Charentia cuvillieri – Bucur, pl. I, figs. 18-19; Berriasian – Hauterivian, Romania.</p><p>1988 Charentia cuvillieri – Bucur &amp; Cociuba – pl. I, fig. 29; Early Cretaceous Romania.</p><p>? 1989 Charentia cuvillieri – Cherif et al., pl. 1, figs. 11- 12; middle Cenomanian – middle Turonian, Egypt [indeterminate external views only].</p><p>Non 1990 Charentia cf. cuvillieri – Weidich &amp; Al-Harithi, p. 602, pl. 4, figs. 25-27; middle Albian, Jordan. [indeterminate but probably not Charentia].</p><p>1991 Charentia sp. - Altıner, pl. 4, figs. 5-7; late Kimmeridgian, northern Türkiye.</p><p>1991 Charentia cuvillieri – Altıner, pl. 7, fig. 18; Berriasian?, northern Türkiye.</p><p>1991 Charentia cuvillieri – Schlagintweit, p. 34, Pl. 9, fig. 6-9, Aptian, Austria.</p><p>1991 Charentia cuvillieri – Schlagintweit &amp; Weidich, pl. 2, fig. 2; late Albian – middle Cenomanian, Austria.</p><p>1992 Lituola ? sp. – Schlagintweit, p. 331, pl. 1, figs. 6-8; middle Coniacian, Austria.</p><p>1994 Charentia cuvillieri – Bodrogi et al., pl. 13, fig. 9 &amp; 11; Early Cretaceous, Austria &amp; Hungary.</p><p>1994 Charentia cuvillieri – Chiocchini et al., pl. 31, figs. 26-29; Berriasian – Valanginian, central Italy.</p><p>1995 Charentia cf. cuvillieri – Abdallah et al., fig. 19(8); Cenomanian, Tunisia.</p><p>1995 Nummofallotia apula Luperto-Sinni – Abdallah et al., fig. 19(7); Cenomanian, Tunisia.</p><p>1996 Charentia evoluta – Bucur et al. pl. 1, figs. 9-10, Tithonian, Sicily.</p><p>? 1996 Charentia aff. cuvillieri – Kirmaci et al., pl. 4, fig. 12; Barremian – early Aptian, north-west Türkiye.</p><p>1998 Charentia cuvillieri – Cherchi et al., pl. IV; figs. 3 &amp; 5; early Aptian, Yemen.</p><p>Non 1998 Charentia cuvillieri – El-Sheikh &amp; Hewaidy, pl. 1, fig. 8; late Cenomanian, Egypt [= Hemicyclammina whitei (Henson)].</p><p>1999 Charentia cuvillieri – Schlagintweit &amp; Ebli, p. 398, pl. 5, figs. 1-3; late Tithonian – early Valanginian.</p><p>Non 2000 Charentia cuvillieri – Aguilera-Franco, p. 164; late Cenomanian, southern Mexico [septa appear too thick and chambers too numerous].</p><p>2004 Charentia cuvillieri – Ivanova &amp; Kołodziej, fig. 1 (A); Berriasian – Valanginian, Polish Carpathians.</p><p>2004 Charentia cuvillieri – Ettachfini &amp; Andreu, fig. 7H; late Cenomanian, Morocco.</p><p>2004 Charentia cuvillieri – Neagu &amp; Cîrnaru, p. 281, pl. 2, figs. 15-18; pl.4, figs. 13-14; early Aptian, Romania.</p><p>2005 Charentia cuvillieri – Krobicki &amp; Olszewska, p. 220, fig. 3D; reworked, Polish Carpathians.</p><p>2005 Charentia cuvillieri – Schlagintweit &amp; Wagreich, p. 117, pl. 1, fig. 6; early Cenomanian, Austria.</p><p>2005 Charentia cf. cuvillieri – Lukeneder &amp; Schlagintweit, fig. 4(1); Hauterivian, Austria.</p><p>2006 Charentia cuvillieri – Albrich et al., pl. 3, fig. 5; early Valanginian, Spain.</p><p>2006 Charentia evoluta – Kobayashi &amp; Vuks, fig. 4(27- 32); Tithonian-Berriasian, Japan.</p><p>2006 Charentia cuvillieri – Ettachfini, pl. 16, figs. 7-9; late Cenomanian, Morocco.</p><p>? 2006 Melathrokerion spirialis Gorbachik – Kobayashi &amp; Vuks, fig. 4(35-45); Tithonian-Berriasian, Japan.</p><p>2007 Charentia cuvillieri – Schroeder et al., pl. 1, figs. 4- 5; late Aptian, Switzerland.</p><p>2007 Charentia evoluta – Krajewski &amp; Olszewska, p. 299, figs. 5g-h; late Kimmeridgian-Valanginian, Crimea .</p><p>? 2007 Melathrokerion spirialis – Krajewski &amp; Olszewska, p. 299, figs. 5i; late Tithonian -Valanginian, Crimea .</p><p>2008 Charentia cf. cuvillieri – Hosseini &amp; Conrad, pl. 5, fig. F; Berriasian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2008 Charentia cuvillieri – Sudar et al., fig. 4 (3) pars; fig. 9 (1); late Barremian – early Aptian, Serbia.</p><p>2009 Charentia cf. cuvillieri Neumann – Villalonga, p. 100, pl. 4, figs. 7, 9; Campanian, Spain.</p><p>? 2009 Charentia cuvillieri – Ismail et al., p. 401, pl. 1, figs. 4-5; Cenomanian, Eastern Desert, Egypt [indeterminate external views only].</p><p>2010 Charentia cuvillieri – Carevic et al., fig. 5 (9-11); late Barremian – early Aptian, Serbia.</p><p>2010 Charentia cuvillieri – Ivanova &amp; Kołodziej, p. 9, pl. 3, fig. 5-10; reworked, Polish Carpathians.</p><p>2010 Charentia sp. – Jamalian et al., fig. 11n-o; Neocomian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2010 Charentia cuvillieri – Schroeder et al., fig. 11(8); early Aptian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>Non 2012 Charentia cf. cuvillieri – Abyat et al., pl. 1, fig. E; Neocomian, Iranian Zagros [uncertain, but lacks the chroma and thin septa of Charentia].</p><p>2012 Charentia cuvillieri – Chiocchini et al., pl. 174; late Berriasian -early Valanginian, central Italy.</p><p>? 2012 Charentia cuvillieri – Lazar et al., pl. II, fig. 1; pl. III, fig. 5; Aptian, Romania.</p><p>? 2012 Charentia cuvillieri – Rami et al., p. 67, fig. 6 (7); Barremian – Aptian, central Iran.</p><p>? 2012 Charentia cuvillieri – Ghanem et al., fig. 6d (26); early Cenomanian, Syria.</p><p>2013 Charentia cuvillieri – Carevic et al., figs. 14 C-D; fig. 16 B; Barremian – early Aptian, Serbia.</p><p>2013 Charentia cuvillieri – Hfaiedh et al., fig. 12J; late Aptian, Tunisia.</p><p>? 2013 Charentia cuvillieri – Shahin &amp; Elbaz, p. 266, pl. 1, fig. 30; Cenomanian, Egypt [indeterminate external view only].</p><p>? 2013 Charentia cuvillieri – Ghanem &amp; Kuss, fig. 8(12, 16, 17); early Aptian, Syria.</p><p>2014 Charentia cuvillieri – Kobayashi &amp; Wernli, p. 72, pl. III, figs. 11-21; Berriasian – Valanginian, Japan.</p><p>2014 Daxia cenomana Cuvillier &amp; Szakall – Danelian et al., fig. 9(2); Cenomanian, Armenia.</p><p>2014 Charentia sp. – Bucur et al., pl. 5A; Berriasian – Valanginian, Romania.</p><p>? 2014 Charentia cuvillieri – Khodashenas et al., fig. 3P; Barremian, north-east Iran.</p><p>2015 Charentia cuvillieri – Maksoud, p. 134-138, pl. 39, figs. A-S; late Barremian – early Aptian, Lebanon.</p><p>2015 Charentia evoluta – Pleş et al., fig. 3m- n; Kimmeridgian?-Tithonian; Romania.</p><p>2015 Vidalina radoicicae Cherchi &amp; Schroeder – Brčic, pl. 5.6c; late Cenomanian, Croatia.</p><p>? 2015 Charentia cuvillieri – Babazadeh &amp; Dehej, fig. 6jk, fig. 7o-p; Early Cretaceous, central Iran.</p><p>? 2015 Charentia cf. evoluta – Rahiminejad &amp; Hassani, fig. 6P (non M); Cenomanian, central Iran.</p><p>2016 Charentia cuvillieri – Schlagintweit et al., fig. 6EF; late Aptian, Spain.</p><p>? 2016 Charentia cf. cuvillieri – Rahiminejad &amp; Hassani, fig. 3b; Aptian, central Iran.</p><p>Non 2016 Charentia cf. cuvillieri – Afghah et al., pl. 2, fig. 3; Barremian, Iranian Zagros [indeterminate planispiral form, but chambers too numerous and septa too thick for Charentia].</p><p>? 2017 Charentia sp. – Gutierrez-Alejandro et al., fig. 8A, D; Barremian, Mexico.</p><p>2018 Charentia cuvillieri – Luger, p. 57, pl. 1, fig. 10, pl. 10, figs. 3, 6, 8; Albian (also reported from early Cenomanian), Somalia.</p><p>? 2018 Charentia cuvillieri – Andrade, pl. M8, fig. 5; Cenomanian, Portugal.</p><p>? 2018 Charentia cf. cuvillieri – Rostami et al., pl. 2i; Valanginian, Persian Gulf.</p><p>2019 Charentia cuvillieri – Bucur et al., fig. 15a; late Barremian – early Aptian, central Iran.</p><p>2019 Charentia cuvillieri – Özkan &amp; Altıner, fig. 5 (16- 18); early Aptian, Turkish Arabian Plate.</p><p>2020 Charentia cuvillieri – Kaya, pl. D, figs. D-F; Cenomanian, Tajik Basin, Central Asia.</p><p>2020 Charentia cuvillieri – Simmons et al., figs. 9.5-9.6; middle Cenomanian, Turkish Arabian Plate.</p><p>2020 Charentia cuvillieri – Bucur et al., fig. 8A; Berriasian, Serbia.</p><p>2020 Charentia cuvillieri – Al-Mamory &amp; Al-Dulaimi, pl. B, fig. 5; Albian, northern Iraq.</p><p>2020 Charentia cuvillieri – Gheiasvand et al., fig. 9F; late Barremian – Aptian, central Iran.</p><p>2020 Navarella sp. – Sha et al., fig. 9c; Campanian, Western Tibet.</p><p>2020 Charentia cuvillieri – Randazzo et al., fig. 12L; reworked, Sicily.</p><p>? 2021 Charentia cuvillieri – Al-Hassani &amp; Al-Dulaimi, pl. A, fig. 3; Berriasian, southern Iraq.</p><p>2022 Charentia cuvillieri – Andronache et al., fig. 4I-L; Berriasian – Valanginian, Romania.</p><p>2022 Charentia cuvillieri – Hassani, fig. 8(1); early Aptian, central Iran.</p><p>Non 2022 Charentia cuvillieri – Khazaal &amp; Shakir, pl. 2B; Berriasian – Valanginian, southern Iraq [indeterminate planispiral form – too many small chambers for C. cuvillieri].</p><p>2023 Charentia cuvillieri – Simmons &amp; Bidgood, p. 70, fig. 21; Late Jurassic – late Cenomanian, global review.</p><p>2024b Charentia cuvillieri – Schlagintweit et al., fig. 4K; reworked, Slovenia.</p><p>2024 Charentia cuvillieri – Skupien et al., fig. 6D; Tithonian – Berriasian, Czech Republic.</p><p>2024 Charentia cuvillieri – Sun &amp; Schlagintweit, fig. 5; late Barremian – early Aptian, Iran.</p><p>2024 Charentia cf. cuvillieri – Sun &amp; Schlagintweit; fig. 4; Campanian, Tarim Basin &amp; Croatia.</p><p>2025 Charentia cuvillieri – Schlagintweit et al., fig. 5(6, 10-12, 15); Cenomanian, Tarim Basin, China.</p><p>Reference Images: Arnaud-Vanneau in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) pl. 3. See also Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1985) pl. 3 and Maksoud (2015) pl. 41.</p><p>Taxonomy/Identity: This is one of the most widely reported (and illustrated) LBF from the Late Jurassic – Cretaceous of Neotethys. The characteristics and history of this broadly lenticular, planispiral to uncoiling, pseudokeriothecal-walled and widely recorded species are summarised by Arnaud-Vanneau in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985), Simmons &amp; Bidgood (2023) and Sun &amp; Schlagintweit (2024). Chomata-like wall thickenings below the apertural foramen of earlier chambers characterize Charentia, along with thin septa. The species (and genus) has similarities with several other taxa and one of its peculiarities is the variation of the shape of the aperture throughout ontogeny from a triangular arch to a three-pronged opening to a larger vertical part to eventually a narrow slit along the apertural face (see Hassanien &amp; Sigal, 1983; Luger, 2018).</p><p>Everticyclammina greigi (Henson) is superficially similar but readily distinguishable by its alveolar wall. The genus Comaliamma Loeblich &amp; Tappan is also similar but has simple, rather than canaliculate walls and septa. The similar Maastrichtian genus Navarella Ciry &amp; Rat is mainly streptospirally coiled (before uncoiling) and with a broadly-rounded periphery.</p><p>Arnaud-Vanneau in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) recognised two morphotypes of C. cuvillieri – a large form (1.2 – 1.4mm diameter) and a small form (0.78 – 0.83mm diameter). The two forms also appear to have different stratigraphic ranges: small forms from around the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary (where they are often referred to as Charentia evoluta (Gorbachik) and possibly Melathrokerion spirialis Gorbachik), and the large forms from the Cenomanian – Campanian. However, Schlagintweit &amp; Wagreich (2005; p. 117) state that these smaller morphotypes “ can hardly be distinguished from C. cuvillieri ”. An even smaller form – Charentia nana (Arnaud-Vanneau, 1980) with a diameter between 0.365 – 0.480 mm has been described, although a pseudokeriothecal wall structure for this form remains to be demonstrated. Herein the species is treated sensu lato that includes small forms in the Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous, and larger forms known from the Late Cretaceous.</p><p>Cribrostomoides paralens Omara from the Cenomanian of Egypt (Omara, 1956) is a possible (senior) synonym, as suggested by Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1985a). The authors have observed CT-scan images of the type specimens of C. paralens (generated by the Natural History Museum, London) but did not observe convincing evidence of either a pseudokeriothecal wall or the characteristic aperture forms.</p><p>Other ostensibly Cenomanian taxa referred to Charentia include C. kosovica Radoičić (a likely synonym of C. cuvillieri) and C. granulosa Kerdany &amp; Eissa, C. hasaensis Basha and C. rummanensis Basha, but their relationship to C. cuvillieri (either morphotype) or even to the genus is debatable and requires re-examination of all type material. Synonymy with Hemicyclammina whitei (Henson) cannot be excluded. Some older species assigned to Charentia – Charentia arabica Tobolina et al. in Kuznetsova et al., 1996 and Charentia atlasica Fares 1975 remain poorly known precluding meaningful comment.</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: late Kimmeridgian – Campanian. Common throughout the Early Cretaceous – Cenomanian.</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: not applicable.</p><p>Using a sensu lato concept of this species means that it is reported with a very long stratigraphic range. The oldest records are from the late Kimmeridgian of Crimea (Krajewski &amp; Olszewska, 2007) and northern Türkiye (Altıner, 1991), and the youngest from the Campanian of the Tarim Basin and Spain (Sun &amp; Schlagintweit, 2024). There are plentiful records from the Berriasian – Cenomanian.</p><p>The use of C. cuvillieri as a biozonal marker (e.g. for the Berriasian – Al-Hassani and Al-Dulaimi, 2021) is inappropriate, except at the most local level. The species, especially when treated sensu lato, is long ranging.</p><p>Geographic Distribution: Throughout its entire stratigraphic range this species is widespread across the northern and southern margins of Neotethys with records as far east as Japan, the Tarim Basin, the Tajik Basin and Tibet. Only records from the Caribbean (Mexico) are uncertain. Within the Cenomanian most records are from the circum-Mediterranean and the Arabian Plate, although a new record (Schlagintweit et al., 2025) demonstrates occurrence in the Tarim Basin, China.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A72FF811D48FEAAFAF4FE02	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A71FF841F28FDCAFDB5FC6D.text	039B87F95A71FF841F28FDCAFDB5FC6D.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>Figure 10</p><p>T 1966 Neoendothyra apenninica De Castro, p. 328, pls. I-III (non pl. III, figs. 4-8), text figs. 5-6; Turonian-Senonian, Italy.</p><p>1967 Moncharmontia apenninica De Castro nom. nov., p. 475.</p><p>1967 Neoendothyra apenninica – Bignot &amp; Guernet, p. 264-265, pl. 1, figs. 8-11; early Senonian, Greece.</p><p>1970 Moncharmontia apenninica – Fleury, pl. 2, fig. 4; Senonian, Greece.</p><p>1974 Montcharmontia apenninica (sic) – Bignot &amp; Poisson, pl. III, fig. 6; Cenomanian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>1976 Moncharmontia apenninica – Luperto-Sinni, pl. 48, figs. 6-7; Senonian, Italy.</p><p>1977 Moncharmontia apenninica – Chiocchini &amp; Mancinelli, p. 133, pl. XL, fig. 1; pl. XLI, fig. 1; Senonian, central Italy.</p><p>1978 Moncharmontia apenninica – Luperto-Sinni &amp; Ricchetti, pl. 45, figs. 6-7; Late Cretaceous, Italy.</p><p>1982 Montcharmontia apenninica apenninica (sic) - Altıner &amp; Decrouez, pl. 7, fig. 7; Senonian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>1985 Moncharmontia apenninica – Bilotte, p. 369, pl. 5, fig. 1; late Cenomanian, Pyrenees.</p><p>1988 Moncharmontia apenninica – Drobne et al., pl. 24, figs. 6, 7 [= Fleuryana adriatica De Castro et al. fide De Castro et al., 1994].</p><p>? 1988 Moncharmontia apenninica – Sartorio &amp; Venturini, p. 119; early Senonian, Italy [= Fleuryana adriatica De Castro et al. fide De Castro et al., 1994].</p><p>1989 Moncharmontia apenninica – Drobne et al., pl.3, figs. 10, 11, 12 [= F. adriatica fide De Castro et al., 1994].</p><p>1989 Moncharmontia apenninica – Molinari- Paganelli &amp; Tilia Zuccari, Fig. 15 [= F. adriatica fide De Castro et al., 1994].</p><p>1990 Moncharmontia ex gr. apenninica – Gušić &amp; Jelaska, pl. 14, figs. 10-11 (non fig. 9); Campanian, Croatia.</p><p>1990 Moncharmontia apenninica – Sribar &amp; Plenicar, pl. 5, fig. 4; Coniacian – early Santonian, Slovenia.</p><p>1992 Moncharmontia apenninica – Schlagintweit, p. 334, pl. 1, figs. 10-12, text fig. 1; late Turonian – Santonian, Austria.</p><p>1992 Moncharmontia apenninica – Foglia, pl. 3, figs. 8, 11; late Turonian – early Senonian, southern Italy.</p><p>1994 Moncharmontia apenninica – Chiocchini et al., pl. XXII, figs. 16-19; early Senonian; central Italy.</p><p>1994 Moncharmontia apenninica – Ramirez del Pozo &amp; Martin-Chivelet, pl. 1, fig. 5; Late Cretaceous, Spain.</p><p>1998 Moncharmontia apenninica – Koch et al., pl. 2, fig. 7; Turonian, Slovenia [age in part based on occurrence of M. apenninica].</p><p>? 2000 Moncharmontia apenninica – Benedetti et al., fig. 53; early Senonian, north-east Italy.</p><p>Non 2000 Moncharmontia apenninica – Aguilera-Franco, p. 165; middle – late Cenomanian, Mexico [indeterminate, but number of chambers far too numerous].</p><p>2001 Moncharmontia apenninica – Cvetko Tešović et al., fig. 7 (G-I); Campanian, Croatia.</p><p>2003 Moncharmontia apenninica – Polavder, fig. 4(12); early Campanian, Serbia.</p><p>? 2003 Moncharmontia apenninica – Korbar &amp; Husinec, p. 177, pl. 2, fig. 1; Turonian –?Coniacian; Croatia.</p><p>Non 2003 Moncharmontia apenninica – Aguilera-Franco, pl. 1, fig. 4; Cenomanian, Mexico [= Biconcava bentori]. Non 2004 Moncharmontia aff. apenninica – Ettachfini &amp; Andreu, fig. 8D; late Cenomanian, Morocco [= Biconcava bentori].</p><p>2005 Montcharmontia apenninica (sic) – Vaziri et al., pl. 2, figs. 14-15; Santonian – Campanian/Maastrichtian?, central Iran.</p><p>Non 2006 Moncharmontia aff. apenninica – Ettachfini, pl. 16, fig. 10; late Cenomanian, Morocco [= Biconcava bentori].</p><p>2008 Moncharmontia apenninica – Chiocchini et al., p. 123, pl. XXIX, fig. 3; pl. XXX, fig. 1; late Turonian – Santonian, central Italy.</p><p>2008 Moncharmontia apenninica – Frijia &amp; Parente, fig. 4i; Turonian, southern Italy.</p><p>2008 Moncharmontia apenninica – Checconi et al., pl. 1, figs. 4-7; Coniacian – early Campanian, southern Italy.</p><p>? 2008 Moncharmontia apenninica – Schlüter, fig. 2.3d; Campanian, southern Italy.</p><p>? 2008 Moncharmontia apenninica – Schlüter et al., fig. 3d; Campanian, southern Italy.</p><p>2011 Montcharmontia apenninica (sic) – Vaziri, pl. 2, figs. N-O; Santonian – Campanian/Maastrichtian?, central Iran.</p><p>2011 Moncharmontia apenninica – Jez et al., fig. 7(d, f); Coniacian-Santonian, Slovenia.</p><p>2012 Moncharmontia apenninica – Chiocchini et al., pl. 130, figs. 1-12; Coniacian-Santonian (range shown to begin in late Turonian), Central Italy.</p><p>2012 Moncharmontia apenninica – Rahimpour-Bonab et al., fig. 8(N-O); Turonian, Iranian Zagros [age in part based on presence of M. apenninica].</p><p>Non 2012 Moncharmontia apenninica – Ghanem et al., fig. 6d (11, 19); early Cenomanian, Syria [= M. compressa].</p><p>2013 Moncharmontia apenninica – Rahimpour-Bonab et al., fig. 8(Q); Turonian, Iranian Zagros [age in part based on presence of M. apenninica].</p><p>? 2013 Moncharmontia apenninica – Shahin &amp; Elbaz, p. 270; pl. 1, figs 32-33; Cenomanian, Egypt [indeterminate external views only].</p><p>2014a Moncharmontia apenninica – Omidvar et al., pl.1, figs. R-S; Turonian, Iranian Zagros [age in part based on presence of M. apenninica].</p><p>2014b Moncharmontia apenninica – Omidvar et al., fig. 4(4-6); Turonian, Iranian Zagros [age in part based on presence of M. apenninica].</p><p>2015 Moncharmontia apenninica – Frijia et al., fig. 8(H- I); Turonian-Campanian, Italy.</p><p>2015 Moncharmontia apenninica – Solak et al., fig. 9FG; Coniacian – Santonian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>2016 Moncharmontia apenninica – Arriaga et al., p. 14, fig. 5; Turonian, southern Italy.</p><p>2017 Moncharmontia apenninica – Solak et al., fig. 11(A-B); late Campanian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>2017 Moncharmontia apenninica – Koç, fig. 10(A1-3); age uncertain in text and figure caption, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>? 2018 Moncharmontia apenninica – Omidi et al., pl. 2, fig. 4; Turonian, Iranian Zagros [age in part based on the presence of M. apenninica].</p><p>2019 Montcharmontia apenninica (sic) – Özkan &amp; Altıner, fig. 9(19-23); Turonian [=?Cenomanian fide Simmons et al., 2020], Turkish Arabian Plate.</p><p>2019 Moncharmontia apenninica – Solak et al., fig. 10(A-B); late Campanian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>? 2019 Moncharmontia apenninica – Le Goff et al., fig. 5C; Campanian, Albania.</p><p>2020 Moncharmontia apenninica – Solak et al., fig. 14(FG); Turonian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>2020 Moncharmontia apenninica – Sinanoğlu et al., pl. 1, figs. 8-9; Maastrichtian, Türkiye.</p><p>2021 Moncharmontia apenninica – Sinanoğlu, pl. 1, fig. 8; Maastrichtian, Türkiye.</p><p>2021 Moncharmontia apenninica – Bagherpour et al., fig. 12e-f; Turonian, Iranian Zagros (age in part based on the presence of M. apenninica, but independently supported by strontium isotope values; forms intermediate to M. compressa).</p><p>2021 Moncharmontia apenninica – Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam, p. 22, pl. 1, figs. A-L; middle – late Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2021 Moncharmontia apenninica – Yazdi-Moghadam &amp; Schlagintweit, fig. 2G; middle – late Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2021 Moncharmontia apenninica – Dousti-Mohajer et al., pl. 1, fig. l; late Cenomanian; Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2021 Montcharmontia apenninica (sic) – Özkan, fig. 11 (21-22); Campanian, Turkish Arabian Plate.</p><p>2023 Moncharmontia apenninica – Simmons &amp; Bidgood, p. 75, fig. 25; upper middle Cenomanian-Maastrichtian, global review.</p><p>? 2023a Moncharmontia apenninica – Mehrabi et al., fig. 11M; Santonian (?), Persian Gulf.</p><p>2023b Moncharmontia apenninica – Mehrabi et al., fig. 6Q; Turonian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2024 Moncharmontia apenninica – Consorti et al., fig. 3L, P; early – middle Campanian, Italy.</p><p>2024 Moncharmontia apenninica – Křížová et al., fig. 4ab; early – middle Turonian, north-east Italy.</p><p>2024 Moncharmontia apenninica – Solak &amp; Taslı, p. 6, fig. 2E-H; late Campanian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>Reference Images: De Castro (1966), figs. 5-6, pls. I- V (not pl. III, figs. 4-8).</p><p>Taxonomy/Identity: De Castro’s original description (1966) is comprehensive (see also Arriaga et al., 2016; Simmons &amp; Bidgood, 2023, and the species key chart therein). M. apenninica differs from M. compressa (De Castro) in being larger, less compressed (almost subglobular) and with a larger proloculus. Cvetko Tešović et al. (2001) have provided a comprehensive biometric analysis between the two species.</p><p>Moncharmontia is very similar to Fleuryana De Castro et al. 1994, with the only substantial difference being the nature of the aperture which is cribrate in Moncharmontia, but single, slit-like and basal in Fleuryana . Fleuryana gediki Solak et al. 2020 is very similar to M. apenninica, but in addition to apertural differences, F. gediki has slightly fewer chambers in the final whorl and thinner walls. Differences are discussed by Solak &amp; Taslı (2024). Species of Fleuryana are only known from Turonian and younger strata.</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: middle Cenomanian – Maastrichtian. Scarce in the Cenomanian and Maastrichtian.</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: not applicable.</p><p>Commonly considered to be not older than Turonian (e.g. Chiocchini &amp; Mancinelli, 1977; Omidvar et al., 2014a, b; Frijia et al., 2015; Solak et al., 2015, 2019; Arriaga et al., 2016; Solak &amp; Taslı, 2024), plausible specimens occurring together with middle-late Cenomanian taxa (e.g., Chrysalidina gradata d’Orbigny, 1839, Cisalveolina fraasi (Gümbel, 1872) and Simplalveolina simplex (Reichel, 1936)) clearly indicate the species can be as old as (middle) Cenomanian. These have been recorded (illustrated) in the Turkish Taurides (Bignot &amp; Poisson, 1974) and the Iranian Zagros (Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam, 2021; Dousti-Mohajer et al., 2021).</p><p>Unillustrated/unverifiable records attributed to Cenomanian strata also occur in Mexico (e.g., Aguillera- Franco, 2000; Omaña et al. 2012, 2013), Egypt (Shahin &amp; Elbaz, 2013) and Oman (Piuz &amp; Meister, 2013).</p><p>It is probable that some Turonian records may have that age attributed by “circular reasoning” and that a Cenomanian age might not be excluded (e.g., Özkan &amp; Altıner, 2019, from Türkiye).</p><p>See Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2021), Simmons &amp; Bidgood (2023) and Solak &amp; Taslı (2024) for a more extensive discussion on stratigraphic range. The species is often used as a biozonal marker (e.g. for Turonian strata in the Iranian Zagros (Omidvar et al., 2014b); Turonian and younger strata in Italy (De Castro, 1991)), but now that the species is confidently known from the Cenomanian (at least on the Arabian Plate and Türkiye) and to be long-ranging, such assessments should be treated with care.</p><p>Geographic Distribution: In post-Cenomanian strata, the species is widespread within Neotethys, with many records from the northern Mediterranean, as far north as Austria. There are also records from the Arabian Plate (Zagros) and Central Iran. Cenomanian records are limited but include the Iranian Zagros and Türkiye. Records from Mexico are unproven.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A71FF841F28FDCAFDB5FC6D	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A74FF851C82FC7DFD10FA2E.text	039B87F95A74FF851C82FC7DFD10FA2E.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>Figure 11</p><p>T 1966 Neoendothyra apenninica compressa De Castro, p. 20, pl. III, figs. 4-8; Turonian-Senonian, Italy.</p><p>1967 Moncharmontia compressa De Castro nom. nov., p. 475.</p><p>1970 Moncharmontia apenninica compressa – Fleury, pl. 2, figs. 2-3; Senonian, Greece.</p><p>? 1972 Moncharmontia apenninica compressa – Bignot, pl. 16, figs. 6-8; Senonian, Croatia [= Fleuryana adriatica De Castro et al. fide De Castro et al., 1994].</p><p>? 1978 Moncharmontia (?) cf. apenninica compressa – Berthou &amp; Schroeder, pl. 9, fig. 2; late Albian, Portugal [hard to determine if this is Moncharmontia in the random sections presented].</p><p>1982 Montcharmontia apenninica compressa (sic) - Altıner &amp; Decrouez, pl. 7, fig. 8; Senonian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>1985 Moncharmontia apenninica – Bilotte, p. 369, pl. 15, fig. 9; late Santonian, Pyrenees.</p><p>1994 Moncharmontia compressa – Chiocchini et al., pl. 23, figs. 2-3, 10; early Senonian, central Italy.</p><p>2001 Moncharmontia compressa – Cvetko Tešović et al., fig. 7(N); Coniacian-Campanian, Croatia.</p><p>2006 Moncharmontia compressa – Taslı et al., fig. 7(JK); Coniacian-Santonian, Türkiye.</p><p>2006 Moncharmontia apenninica – Sari, pl. 6.3, figs. 4?, 5, 6?; late Cenomanian – Turonian; Turkish Taurides [late Cenomanian age judged as plausible].</p><p>2008 Moncharmontia apenninica – Schlüter, fig. 2.3k; Campanian, southern Italy.</p><p>2008 Moncharmontia apenninica – Schlüter et al., fig. 3k; Campanian, southern Italy.</p><p>2009 Moncharmontia apenninica - compressa – Sari et al., pl. 4, figs. 4-?5; Turonian-Coniacian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>2011 Moncharmontia compressa – Jez et al., fig. 7g; Coniacian-Santonian, Slovenia.</p><p>? 2012 Moncharmontia cf. compressa – Korbar et al., fig. 5M, Turonian, Croatia [age partly based on presence of M. compressa].</p><p>? 2012 Moncharmontia apenninica – Ghanem et al., fig. 6d (11, 19); early Cenomanian, Syria.</p><p>? 2017 Moncharmontia (?) sp. – Solak et al., fig. 8(M-N); middle – late Cenomanian, Turkish Taurides [or = Biconcava bentori].</p><p>? 2020 Fleuryana adriatica De Castro et al. 1994 – Solak et al., fig. 14(A-E); Turonian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>2021 Moncharmontia compressa – Sinanoğlu, pl. 1, fig. 9; Maastrichtian, Türkiye.</p><p>2023 Moncharmontia compressa – Simmons &amp; Bidgood, p. 77, fig. 27; early Cenomanian?-Maastrichtian, global review.</p><p>Reference Images: Taslı et al. (2006) fig. 7(J-K).</p><p>Taxonomy/Identity: A smaller and more laterallycompressed Moncharmontia species compared with M. apenninica and with only a single row of apertural openings. Cvetko Tešović et al. (2001) have provided a comprehensive biometric analysis between the two species, although in random thin-sections separation is difficult and there are forms that appear intermediate between the two.</p><p>It is very similar to the genus Fleuryana, especially F. adriatica De Castro, which has a single aperture, rather than multiple apertural openings. Records of F. adriatica from the Turonian of Türkiye by Solak et al. (2020), are virtually indistinguishable from M. compressa . F. adriatica is also long-ranging and further work is needed to establish the degree of separation of these two taxa. Differences are discussed by Solak &amp; Taslı (2024).</p><p>Simmons &amp; Bidgood (2023) further discuss the differences between the two Moncharmontia species and between them and their two Fleuryana counterparts.</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: Turonian – Maastrichtian (scarce in the Maastrichtian).</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: late Cenomanian.</p><p>Commonly regarded as Turonian and younger (e.g., Chiocchini &amp; Mancinelli, 1977). Most plausible, illustrated records of M. compressa are from Turonian and younger (up to Maastrichtian) strata. Cenomanian records are either poorly/equivocally illustrated or not illustrated at all, with the possible exception of that by Sari (2006). The late Albian record of Berthou &amp; Schroeder (1978) is very doubtful, as is the early Cenomanian record of Ghanem et al. (2012). A possible middle – late Cenomanian record (Solak et al., 2017) as “ Moncharmontia (?) sp.” is unconfirmed. Unillustrated records from the Cenomanian include those from the Natih Formation of Oman by Piuz &amp; Meister (2013) and Piuz et al. (2014).</p><p>Geographic Distribution: This species is known from the Mediterranean region (Italy, Adriatic, Türkiye, Pyrenees) in the post-Cenomanian (although not the Arabian Plate?). In the Cenomanian records are doubtful, but the most probable is from the Turkish Taurides.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A74FF851C82FC7DFD10FA2E	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A75FFBB1CFCF9E5FECAF9BE.text	039B87F95A75FFBB1CFCF9E5FECAF9BE.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>Figure 12</p><p>T 1957 Peneroplis turonicus n. sp. Said &amp; Kenawy, p. 82, pl. 13, figs. 14a–c, 16a–c; Turonian (now considered Cenomanian fide Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam, 2022), Egypt.</p><p>Non 1973 Peneroplis turonicus – Kerdany et al., pl. 1, fig. 16-18; Cenomanian, Egypt [= Biconcava bentori Hamaoui fide Hamaoui in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985].</p><p>1974 Peneroplis cf. turonicus – Saint-Marc, p. 235, pl. 8, figs. 5–9; middle-late Cenomanian, Lebanon (Turonian age discounted fide Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam, 2022).</p><p>1974 Foraminifer F-50 – Radoičić, pl. 6, figs. 5-6; early Turonian (now considered Cenomanian fide Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam, 2022), Serbia.</p><p>1976 Peneroplis cf. turonicus – Charvet et al., pl. 7, figs. 2-3; late early – late Cenomanian, Greece.</p><p>1981 Peneroplis cf. turonicus – Saint-Marc, pl. 4, figs. 11–12; middle-late Cenomanian, Lebanon (Turonian age discounted).</p><p>1989 Merlingia cf. cretacea (sic) Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc – Kuss &amp; Malchus, text-figs. 48-49; Cenomanian, Egypt.</p><p>1990 Pseudolituonella reicheli Marie – Šribar &amp; Pleničar, pl. 2, fig. 8; middle – late Cenomanian, Slovenia.</p><p>1994 Peneroplis cf. turonicus -Velić &amp; Vlahović, pl. 5, figs. 1-4; middle-late Cenomanian, Croatia.</p><p>2004 Peneroplis cf. turonicus – Chiocchini et al., pl. 6, fig. 6; late Cenomanian, southern Italy.</p><p>2006 Peneroplis cf. turonicus – Ettachfini, pl. 15, figs. 1- 2; late Cenomanian, Morocco.</p><p>2006 Pseudolituonella reicheli – Taslı et al., Fig. 6 D; middle – late Cenomanian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>2012? Peneroplis cf. turonicus – Chiocchini et al., pl. 109, fig. 1 (pars), 2–8; late Cenomanian, southern Italy.</p><p>2013 Pseudolituonella reicheli – Al-Dulaimi et al., fig. 9/8; late Cenomanian, Southern Iraq.</p><p>? 2013 Peneroplis parvus De Castro – Ghanem &amp; Kuss, fig. 14(10); late Cenomanian, Syria.</p><p>Non 2013 Peneroblis cf. turonicus (sic) – Shahin &amp; Elbaz, p. 278, pl. 3, fig. 3; Cenomanian, Egypt [= Peneroplis parvus].</p><p>2016 Peneroplis turonicus – Assadi et al., fig. 6 a5; middle – late Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2018 Peneroplis parvus – Omidi et al., pl. 4, fig. 8; middle – late Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2020 Peneroplis turonicus – Solak et al.,?fig. 6M, fig. 10S–T,?fig. 13I; late Cenomanian, Western Taurides, Türkiye.</p><p>2021 Pseudolituonella reicheli – Dousti-Mohajer et al., pl. 1i; middle – late Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2021 Peneroplis planatus (Fichtel and Moll) – Brčić et al., fig. 9i; late Cenomanian, Croatia.</p><p>2021 “ Peneroplis ” turonicus – Consorti &amp; Schlagintweit, fig. 2H; late Cenomanian, Albania-Kosova.</p><p>? 2021 Peneroplis sp. – Solak, pl. 2E; middle – late Cenomanian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>? 2021 Peneroplis turonicus – Dousti-Mohajer et al., pl. 3a; middle – late Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2022 Neodubrovnikella turonica – Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam, p. 4, figs. 3A; 4A-F, 5-6; upper early – late Cenomanian, southern Neotethys.</p><p>Non 2022 Peneroplis turonicus – Esfandyari et al., fig. 25j; Cenomanian – early Turonian, Iranian Zagros [= Pseudolituonella reicheli].</p><p>2023 Neodubrovnikella turonica – Simmons &amp; Bidgood, p. 70, fig. 19; (upper early?) middle-late Cenomanian, global review.</p><p>2023 Neodubrovnikella turonica – Xu et al., fig. 3c, Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>Non 2023 Peneroplis turonicus – Moghaddam et al., fig. 5v; Cenomanian – early Turonian, Iranian Zagros [= Pseudolituonella reicheli].</p><p>2024 Peneroplis turonicus – Moghaddam et al., fig. 2l; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2024 Neodubrovnikella turonica – Křížová et al., fig. 4rs; late Cenomanian, north-east Italy.</p><p>Reference Images: Schlagintweit &amp; YazdiMoghadam (2022) p. 4, figs. 3A; 4A-F, 5-6. Taxonomy/Identity: The taxonomic status of this species and its identity has recently been reviewed by Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2022) who recognised that this is in fact an agglutinated taxon with a pseudokeriothecal wall, not a species of the porcellaneous genus Peneroplis (indeed also not Turonian). It was assigned to the genus Neodubrovkinella, the only other species of which, Neodubrovnikella maastrichtiana Schlagintweit &amp; Rashidi, is Maastrichtian (Schlagintweit &amp; Rashidi, 2018; Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam, 2022). See also Simmons &amp; Bidgood (2023).</p><p>It is similar to Peneroplis parvus De Castro and appears to be an agglutinated isomorph of this miliolid genus (see also Peneroplis cairensis Chiocchini, 2008). N. turonica is smaller (c. 0.25-0.8 mm) and with fewer chambers in the last whorl (7-8) than P. parvus and P. cairensis (Chiocchini, 2008) . Peneroplis is also always planispiral whereas N. turonica is frequently not perfectly planispiral.</p><p>It is also often confused in the literature with Pseudolituonella reicheli Marie which has a muchreduced coiled part, a cylindrical rather than flattened uncoiled portion, and apertures that are cribrate, rather than in a row as in N. turonica .</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: middle-late Cenomanian.</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: upper early Cenomanian.</p><p>Originally regarded as being restricted to the Turonian (hence the name), a re-assessment of the age of the type specimens from Egypt by Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2022), together with a review of other ostensibly Turonian records, indicates that this species is in fact restricted to the (middle-late) Cenomanian (see also Velić, 2007). Records in the upper part of the early Cenomanian are based on illustrated but uncertainly agecalibrated records (Charvet et al., 1976), or unillustrated records (Decrouez, 1975), from Greece (and see also Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam, 2022, for records from the Iranian Zagros).</p><p>Geographic Distribution: Throughout Neotethys, from Morocco to Iran (see Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam, 2022).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A75FFBB1CFCF9E5FECAF9BE	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A4BFFB81D4BF81FFAEAF89D.text	039B87F95A4BFFB81D4BF81FFAEAF89D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cyclolina cretacea d'Orbigny 1846	<div><p>Cyclolina cretacea d’Orbigny, 1846</p><p>Figure 13</p><p>T 1846 Cyclolina cretacea n. sp. – d'Orbigny, p.139; pl. 21, fig. 22-25; Turonian (now regarded as middle Cenomanian – Moreau, 1976), western France.</p><p>1919 Cyclolina cretacea – Douvillé, p. 1131; text-fig. 2; Cenomanian, western France.</p><p>1949 Cyclolina cretacea – Cuvillier &amp; Szakall, p. 11; pl. 2, fig. 15; pl. 13, fig. 11; Cenomanian, western France.</p><p>1964 Cyclolina cretacea – Loeblich &amp; Tappan, p. C301- C302; text-fig. 207 (1a-b); middle Cenomanian, western France.</p><p>1964 Cyclolina cretacea – Neumann, p. 49-52; pl. 1, fig. 1-4; text-fig. 1; Cenomanian, western France.</p><p>1967 Cyclolina cretacea – Neumann, p. 128-132; pl. 15, fig. 1-3; text-fig. 78-79; Cenomanian, western France.</p><p>? 1978 Cyclolina cf. cretacea – Berthou &amp; Schroeder, pl. 9, fig. 2; latest Albian, Portugal.</p><p>1985 Cyclolina cretacea – Cherchi in Schoeder &amp; Neumann, p. 18-19, pl. 4, figs. 1-11; middle Cenomanian, western France.</p><p>1987 Cyclolina cretacea – Loeblich &amp; Tappan, p. 94, pl. 86, figs. 1-8; middle Cenomanian, western France.</p><p>Non 2011 Cyclolina aff. cretacea – Boix et al., p. 816, fig. 10a-d; Coniacian, Spanish Pyrenees [most likely a new species].</p><p>Reference Images: Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) pl. 4, figs. 1-11.</p><p>Taxonomy/Identity: This species was comprehensively reviewed by Cherchi in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985). No further taxonomic study has been carried out since then.</p><p>The genus Cyclolina was introduced by d’Orbigny (1846), with the species Cyclolina cretacea its type by monotypy. It is a simple, large (up to 6.7 mm) discoidal, microgranular/finely agglutinating form, increasing in thickness towards the periphery. Adult chambers are cyclic, with concentric sutures slightly depressed, and a simple interior with no internal partitions. A multiple aperture of rounded pores is scattered in many rows over the apertural face. Three ontogenetic stages are recognised: (i) a central embryonic apparatus consisting of a protoconch and a deuteroconch. The maximum inner diameter of the protoconch varies between 0.08 and 0.1 mm. In equatorial section, the deuteroconch is crescentshaped; its diameter varies between 0.1 and 0.12 mm; (ii) the embryonic apparatus is followed by a rectilinear series of 4-5 undivided sickle-shaped chambers; (iii) 40- 55 undivided annular chambers, of which the height and thickness increase during ontogeny (description after Cherchi in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985; Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1987).</p><p>Confusion with the soritid genera Broeckina Munier-Chalmas, 1882 and Pastrikella Cherchi, Radoičić &amp; Schroeder, 1976 is possible in random sections, although suggestions that some illustrations of C. cretacea from western France (Neumann, 1964, 1967) are of these genera (Cherchi et al., 1976) is rejected (Saint-Marc, 1977; Cherchi in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985). It may also be confused with Balkhania Mamontova / Neobalkhania Cherchi, Radoičić &amp; Schroeder, where the subepidermal network is often not well discernible.</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: middle Cenomanian.</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: latest Albian and early and late Cenomanian.</p><p>The only reliable illustrated records of this species are those pertaining to the type and nearby localities in western France as illustrated and documented by Cherchi in Schoeder &amp; Neumann (1985). These are middle Cenomanian, and Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) thus restricted the range of the species to the middle Cenomanian. Saint-Marc (1966) mentioned the species (not illustrated) from Landes in western France in association with Praealveolina tenuis, thus undifferentiated middle – late Cenomanian. Calonge et al. (2002) reported (not illustrated) the species from Spain in association with Praealveolina iberica, thus possibly early Cenomanian. It was reported (not illustrated) from Albian/Cenomanian transition beds of Portugal (Berthou, 1973; Berthou &amp; Lauverjat, 1979) but restricted to the latest Albian by Berthou &amp; Schroeder (1978) who illustrated an uncertain “cf.” form. A report from the late Cenomanian –?early Turonian of Kuwait (El-Naggar &amp; Al-Rifaiy, 1973) is not supported by a convincing illustration.</p><p>Boix et al. (2011) illustrated an "aff." form, probably a new species (larger than C. cretacea from the type locality), from the Coniacian – Santonian of Spain. One of us (LC) has observed similar forms in the similar aged Ilam Formation of the Iranian Zagros. Very small forms (up to an equatorial diameter of 1.10 mm) of Cyclolina sp. were found by Taslı &amp; Solak (2019) in the late Albian of the Turkish Taurides.</p><p>Geographic Distribution: Confirmed occurrences are restricted to France but this species has been reported (though unconfirmed) more widely. It was reported, but not illustrated from Croatia (Sakač, 1970; Magas et al., 1999), Greece (Zambetakis-Lekkas et al., 1995) and the Iranian Zagros (e.g., Omidvar et al., 2014a, b; Rikhtegarzadeh et al., 2016; Asghari et al., 2022).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A4BFFB81D4BF81FFAEAF89D	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A49FFB91CA1FF18FC71F7A9.text	039B87F95A49FFB91CA1FF18FC71F7A9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cyclopsinella neumannae Cherchi 1980	<div><p>Cyclopsinella neumannae Cherchi, 1980</p><p>Figure 14</p><p>? 1948c Zekritia langhami n. gen., n. sp. – Henson, p. 95, pl. 11, fig. 7; “Turonian” (possibly Cenomanian), Qatar.</p><p>? 1964 Cyclolina sp. – Bozorgnia &amp; Banafti, pl. LXXXII; fig. 1; Cenomanian, central Iran.</p><p>1964 Cyclopsinella steinmanni (Munier-Chalmas) – Neumann, p. 51-52; pl. 1, fig. 5; pl. 2, fig. 1-3, 5-8; middle Cenomanian (after Moreau, 1976), western France.</p><p>1967 Cyclopsinella steinmanni – Neumann, p. 162-164; pl. 27, fig. 1-5; middle Cenomanian (after Moreau, 1976), western France.</p><p>T 1980 Cyclopsinella neumannae n. sp. – Cherchi, p. 74- 79; pl. 1, fig. 1-4; pl. 2, fig. 1-4; pl. 3, fig. 1-4; middle Cenomanian (after Moreau, 1976), Western France.</p><p>1985 Cyclopsinella neumannae – Cherchi in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, p. 19-21, pl. 5, figs. 1-6; middle Cenomanian (after Moreau, 1976), western France.</p><p>1987 Cyclopsinella steinmanni – Loeblich &amp; Tappan, pl. 87, figs, 2-4; middle Cenomanian (after Moreau, 1976), western France.</p><p>? 1998 Zekritia langhami – Whittaker et al., p. 87-88, pl. 107, figs. 5-6; “Turonian” (possibly Cenomanian), Qatar.? 2018 Zekritia langhami – BouDagher-Fadel, pl. 5.22, fig. 1; “Turonian” (possibly Cenomanian), Qatar.</p><p>Reference Images: Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) pl. 5, figs. 1-6.</p><p>Taxonomy/Identity: The genus Cyclopsinella was introduced by Galloway (1933) with Cyclopsina steinmanni Munier-Chalmas, 1887 as described from the Santonian of southern France and northern Spain as the type species (known to range to the late Maastrichtian – see Schlagintweit (2020) for a review). It is a large, discoidal, microgranular/finely agglutinating form, that in the macrospheric generation has a protoconch and deuteroconch followed by numerous cyclic chambers. Later chambers have endoskeletal pillars arising from a median position on the chamber floor to extend radially from one septum the next, and may bifurcate and fuse to give an irregular appearance in thin-section and a misleading false appearance of two layers of chambers. Multiple apertures are present in a double row of pores. Mangashtia Henson, 1948c (emended Fourcade et al., 1997) is similar but the pillars are in the form of beams and only a single row of apertural pores are present.</p><p>Specimens described as C. steinmanni from the middle Cenomanian of western France (Neumann, 1964, 1967) formed the basis of the introduction of Cyclopsinella neumannae by Cherchi (1980) and further documented by Cherchi in Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985), which was the last taxonomic discussion of this species.</p><p>Specimens of C. neumannae are typically 4 – 6 mm in diameter (max. 6.6 mm), with test thickness increasing towards the periphery to c. 0.3 mm. Four ontogenetic stages are known: (i) a central embryonic apparatus, formed of a protoconch and deuteroconch. The protoconch, with a diameter between 0.078 and 0.092 mm, is ellipsoidal or more rarely subspherical; (ii) the embryo is followed laterally by a series of 4 undivided sickle-shaped chambers; (iii) there follows a series of 15- 20 annular undivided annular chambers; (iv) The last ontogenetic stage is characterized by annular chambers, divided in the equatorial plane. This dividing partition is interrupted by large holes which are, in the first half of this stage, frequent, and connected by stolons that are sometimes a little oblique.</p><p>C. steinmanni is distinguished from C. neumannae by the larger dimensions of the test (6 – 7 mm in diameter) and of the embryonic apparatus (protoconch: 0.15 mm; deuteroconch: 0.2 mm). It lacks sickle-shaped chambers following the embryo. Cyclopsinella roselli described from the Campanian of Spain (Villalonga et al., 2019) is probably a synonym of C. steinmanni (Schlagintweit, 2020) .</p><p>Zekritia langhami described as a new genus and species by Henson (1948c) from the Turonian (possibly Cenomanian on regional grounds – Le Blanc, 2015; Bromhead et al., 2022) is a possible synonym (Gendrot, 1964; Fourcade et al., 1997; Schlagintweit, 2020), but description is limited to a single thin-section specimen and crucial features cannot be seen (Whittaker et al, 1998) although the cyclopsinellid structure of the pillars (Hottinger, 2006, p. 12) can be seen. Zekritia and Z. langhami are effectively taxa of uncertain status (Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1987). Probably mistakenly, BouDagher-Fadel (2018) considered Zekritia a soritid.</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: middle Cenomanian.</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: late Cenomanian.</p><p>The only confirmed record is the type description from the middle Cenomanian of France (Cherchi, 1980; Cherchi in Schroeder &amp; Neumann, 1985; age after Moreau, 1976). The species has been recorded (as "cf.") but not illustrated from the late Cenomanian of Morocco (Ettachfini &amp; Andreu, 2004) and Cyclopsinella sp. has been recorded from the late Cenomanian of Kuwait, although an illustration (pl. 6, fig. 13) is most likely not this genus (El-Naggar &amp; Al-Rifaiy, 1973). These same authors also report but do not illustrate Zekritia from the Mishrif Formation of Kuwait, occurring alongside Praealveolina, Cisalveolina, etc. Thus, most likely late Cenomanian. An illustration of " Cyclolina sp. " from the undifferentiated Cenomanian of central Iran (Bozorgnia &amp; Banafti, 1964) may be this species. As noted above, Z. langhami might be a synonym, and the stratigraphic position of its type occurrence (from the Mishrif Formation of Qatar) suggests a late Cenomanian or possibly early Turonian age (Le Blanc, 2015, Bromhead et al., 2022; Simmons et al., 2024a).</p><p>Geographic Distribution: Confirmed occurrences are restricted to France but this species has been reported (though unconfirmed) ranging as far eastwards as Qatar and central Iran.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A49FFB91CA1FF18FC71F7A9	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A4EFFBD1D4BFADCFE84FEC1.text	039B87F95A4EFFBD1D4BFADCFE84FEC1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Mangashtia viennoti Henson 1948	<div><p>Mangashtia viennoti Henson, 1948c</p><p>Figure 15</p><p>T 1948c Mangashtia viennoti n. gen, n. sp. Henson, p. 94-95, pl. XII, figs. 16-21; Cenomanian-Turonian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>Non 1965 Mangashtia viennoti – Gollestaneh, p. 344- 348, pl. 104, figs. 1–2; pl. 105, figs. 1-6; pl. 106, figs. 1- 5; pl. 107, figs. 1-8; late Oxfordian-Kimmeridgian, Iranian Zagros. [= Levantinella egyptiensis Fourcade et al. 1997].</p><p>Non 1996 Mangashtia viennoti – Hughes, pl. 1 (pars); Kimmeridgian, Saudi Arabia. [= Levantinella egyptiensis].</p><p>1997 Mangashtia viennoti – Fourcade et al., p. 183, figs. 5–6, 7.1–7.6; late Cenomanian? – Turonian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>1998 Mangashtia viennoti – Whittaker et al., p. 48–49, pl. 71, figs. 1–4; late Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros. Explanation for the late Cenomanian age attribution is not given.</p><p>Non 2004a Mangashtia viennoti – Hughes, fig. 26 (8). Kimmeridgian, Saudi Arabia. [= Levantinella egyptiensis].</p><p>2013 Mangashtia viennoti – Rahimpour-Bonab et al., fig. 8T; Turonian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2014a Biplanata peneropliphormis (sic) Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc – Omidvar et al., pl. 1(I); Cenomanian-Turonian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2014b Mangashtia viennoti – Omidvar et al., fig. 4.1; Turonian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>? 2014 Mangashtia viennoti – Afghah &amp; Fadaei, labelled fig. 8g, but referring to fig. 9g; late Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros. [Effectively indeterminate, but possibly a fragment of Biplanata peneropliformis Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc].</p><p>Non 2016 Mangashtia viennoti – Rikhtegarzadeh et al., pl. 1, fig. 13; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros. [Indeterminate biserial foraminifera].</p><p>? 2017 Mangashtia viennoti – Jamalpour et al., pl. 2, fig. h. Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros. [Effectively indeterminate but might be a fragment of Biplanata peneropliformis].</p><p>2018 Mangashtia viennoti – BouDagher-Fadel, p. 306- 307; pl. 5.1, fig. 14; pl. 5.9, fig. 5. Cenomanian-Turonian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>Non 2019a Mangashtia viennoti – Ghalandari et al., Pl. 1, fig. G; Jurassic, Persian Gulf. [= indeterminate, but not M. viennoti].</p><p>Non 2019b Mangashtia viennoti – Ghalandari et al., text-fig. 7C; Jurassic, Persian Gulf. [= indeterminate, but not M. viennoti].</p><p>? 2019 Biplanata peneropliformis Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc – Kiarostami et al., pl. 2, fig. j; Santonian [erroneous label, probably Cenomanian], Iranian Zagros.</p><p>? 2021 Mangashtia viennoti – Bagherpour et al., fig. 12k; Turonian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>? 2021 Mangashtia viennoti – Dousti-Mohajer et al., pl. 1, fig. h; early Turonian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2021 Cycledomia iranica (Henson) – Dousti-Mohajer et al., fig. 3l; early Turonian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2022 Cycledomia iranica – Esfandyari et al., fig. 25b; late Cenomanian?, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>Non 2022 Mangashtia viennoti – Dousti-Mohajer et al., fig. 5c; late Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros. [= Biplanata peneropliformis].</p><p>2023a Mangashtia viennoti – Schlagintweit et al., p. 8, figs. 2E, 4A, C-F, 6, 7E-I; middle –?late Turonian, Iranian Zagros. [Probably can be restricted to mostly middle Turonian – Simmons et al., 2024a, b].</p><p>Non 2023a Mangashtia viennoti – Mehrabi et al., fig. 11(O); Santonian; Persian Gulf. [= new taxon to be described, Schlagintweit et al., 2024c].</p><p>Non 2024 Mangashtia viennoti – Moghaddam et al., fig. 2h; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros. [= Biplanata peneropliformis].</p><p>Reference Images: Fourcade et al. (1997); Schlagintweit et al. (2023a).</p><p>Taxonomy/Identity: First described from rather fragmentary material by Henson (1948c) from "Cenomanian-Turonian" limestones of the Izeh Zone of the Iranian Zagros, a detailed emended illustrated diagnosis for Mangashtia and the type species Mangashtia viennoti was published by Fourcade et al. (1997).</p><p>The test is compressed, discoidal with numerous annular chambers. Apertures are multiple, aligned in one row in the middle of the apertural face. The axes of the stolons are radial. Numerous subcylindrical or elongated pillars that are perpendicular to the septa are present in the central zone of the chambers. Pillars are aligned from one chamber to the next. The marginal zone of the chamber is not internally subdivided. The embryo of the megalospheric form consists of a globular proloculus with a simple wall.</p><p>Originally listed by Loeblich and Tappan (1987) in their “genera of uncertain status”, they noted that the genus is “unrecognisable” because many of the essential characters were not described by Henson (1948c). Fourcade et al. (1997) revised the genus based on the study of new topotype material, as well as specimens preserved in the F.R.S. Henson &amp; Associates Collection housed in the Natural History Museum (London) and placed the genus in the subfamily Cyclopsinellinae . Critically, they recognised that Mangashtia lacks an initial planispiral stage as suggested by Henson (1948c).</p><p>Mangashtia differs from Cyclopsinella in the nature of the internal structure (pillars in the form of beams) and in its apertural characteristics (a single row of pores rather than a double row). Occasionally the Cenomanian species Pastrikella balkanica Cherchi, Radoičić &amp; Schroeder has been confused with Mangashtia (Cherchi et al., 1976), but it lacks pillars.</p><p>Fourcade et al. (1984) introduced Mangashtia? egyptensis for a form from the Late Jurassic of Egypt. Later (Fourcade et al., 1997), this was taken as the type species of the new genus Levantinella . Although similar in some random sections to Mangashtia, Levantinella is peneropliform and compressed axially. A simple proloculus followed by a planispiral evolute stage and a later uniserial stage. Chambers contain internal structures in the form of “pillars” in the shape of a zigzag blade situated in the median plane of the chamber. In the marginal zone of the chamber, this pilaroid structure forms intercalating digitations between two apertures of the same row, but it never reaches the lateral wall. Subepidermal partitions are absent. Apertures are aligned in rows that alternate from one side of the equatorial plane to the other. Thus, Levantinella differs from Mangashtia in the presence of a planispiral stage and in the presence of multiple apertures in alternating rows. L. egyptensis is the identity of the taxon described from the Jurassic but ascribed to M. viennoti (e.g., Gollesstaneh, 1965; Hughes, 1996, 2004a, b).</p><p>The taxonomy of this species has undergone a relatively complex pathway and was once proposed to be the possible senior synonym of Biplanata peneropliformis (Whittaker et al., 1998) but Schlagintweit et al. (2023a) and Simmons &amp; Bidgood (2023) disagreed with that opinion and regard the two species as distinctly separate, although certain views in random thin-sections do show superficial similarities (see Schlagintweit et al., 2023a, for comparative illustrations). Nevertheless, records in the literature where the two species have been mistaken for one another occur and which has complicated evaluation of M. viennoti 's stratigraphic distribution. Mangashtia has many 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 and the test thickens towards the periphery. Fourcade et al. (1997) suggested a clear stratigraphic separation of the occurrence of B. peneropliformis (Cenomanian) and M. viennoti (Turonian) in their studied section from the Iranian Zagros.</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: early to middle Turonian.</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: late Cenomanian, Coniacian – Santonian.</p><p>First described from the undifferentiated “Cenomanian-Turonian” Sarvak Formation of Iran by Henson (1948c), a detailed emended description by Fourcade et al. (1997) somewhat refined the range as late Cenomanian? – Turonian. The biostratigraphy of the Sarvak Formation (and its regional equivalents) has long been debated (Omidvar et al., 2014a, b; Bromhead et al. 2022; Schlagintweit et al., 2023a; Hosseini et al., 2024; Simmons et al., 2024a). Nevertheless, the youngest Sarvak Formation, where preserved, is early – middle Turonian. However, this is not commonly preserved in many areas due to a tectonic/eustatic-induced sea level fall in the middle Turonian (Schlagintweit et al., 2023a; Simmons et al., 2024a). Schlagintweit et al. (2023a) concluded that, with correct identification of M. viennoti, it is possible to equate the range of M. viennoti with the Wynd (1965) assemblage zone (biofacies) 29, and which is "most likely Turonian" (Wynd, 1965) or intra-Turonian (i.e. no younger than middle Turonian in age (Simmons et al., 2024a) and represents the youngest preserved Sarvak Formation. Schlagintweit et al. (2023a) defined a Reticulinella ? – Mangashtia foraminiferal association (Zone 29b) in recognition of this.</p><p>Purported records of M. viennoti from the Cenomanian part of the Sarvak Formation or its regional equivalents (often unverified by illustration) should mostly be treated with caution (e.g., Afghah &amp; Fadaei, 2014 illustration indeterminate; Jamalpour et al., 2017 illustration indeterminate; Dousti-Mohajer et al., 2022 and Moghaddam et al., 2024 illustrated but incorrectly identified). An exception is the record of “ Cycledomia iranica ” by Esfandyari et al. (2022). This is, in fact, a specimen of M. viennoti . Unfortunately, there is no clear definition of where in the Sarvak Formation this specimen was recovered from, but much of the associated fauna is late Cenomanian. Whittaker et al. (1998) regarded the types of M. viennoti as being of late Cenomanian age but gave no explanation for their reasoning. Records of “ Mangashtia sp. ” from the probable late Cenomanian Mishrif Formation of Kuwait (El-Naggar &amp; Al-Rifaiy, 1973) are not this genus, and are possibly Cycledomia .</p><p>Records from sediments younger than Turonian are also doubtful (e.g., from the Santonian of the Persian Gulf – Ilam Formation – by Mehrabi et al., 2023a, illustrated but identification doubted – Schlagintweit et al. 2024c). Abdolahi et al. (2024) reported but did not illustrate M. viennoti from the Turonian uppermost Sarvak Formation and the overlying Santonian Ilam Formation in a well from the Dezful Embayment of the Iranian Zagros.</p><p>Geographic Distribution: Restricted to the Arabian Plate/Zagros region. The species is apparently absent from the circum-Mediterranean region (e.g., Velić 2007; Chiocchini et al., 2012; Frijia et al., 2015; Schlagintweit et al., 2023a).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A4EFFBD1D4BFADCFE84FEC1	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A4DFFBD1CA9FC95FDD5F84E.text	039B87F95A4DFFBD1CA9FC95FDD5F84E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cuneolina compressa Schlagintweit 1988	<div><p>Cuneolina compressa Schlagintweit, 1988</p><p>Figure 16</p><p>1976 Cuneolina sp. – Luperto Sinni, pl. 30, fig. 4; Senonian, Italy.</p><p>T 1988 Cuneolina pavonia compressa n. sp. – Schlagintweit, p. 25, pl. 1, figs. 1-11; late Turonian or Coniacian, Germany (Northern Calcareous Alps).</p><p>2025 Cuneolina compressa – Schlagintweit et al., p.253, figs. 50-52; Cenomanian, SW China (Tarim Basin).</p><p>Reference Images: Schlagintweit (1988); Schlagintweit et al. (2025).</p><p>Taxonomy/Identity: The name refers to the reduced test thickness (= strong compression in the plane of biseriality) compared to the type-species C. pavonia and other species. With a comparably thin wall, fine septa and radial partitions, as well as the rudimentary character of the partitions, C. compressa can be regarded a primitive species of the genus Cuneolina differentiating it from all other species described. Some similarities exist to Vercorsella (ex Cuneolina) tenuis (Velić &amp; Gušić, 1973), a taxon from the Valanginian of Croatia (see Velić, 2007) and Albania (Schlagintweit et al., 2008).</p><p>C. compressa was originally described as a subspecies by Schlagintweit (1988) because of a smaller size and thickness compared to C. pavonia . It is now elevated to a full species (see also the WoRMS catalogue – Hayward et al., 2025).</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: Cenomanian – Coniacian.</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: not applicable.</p><p>Geographic Distribution: So far recorded (with illustrations) only from its type-locality in southern Bavaria (Northern Calcareous Alps, Germany), from Italy and from far to the east in southwestern China (Tarim Basin). Velić (2007, p. 18) reported the species without illustration from the late Turonian of Croatia.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A4DFFBD1CA9FC95FDD5F84E	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A4DFFB61F37FF18FEAAF82D.text	039B87F95A4DFFB61F37FF18FEAAF82D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cuneolina d'Orbigny 1839	<div><p>Cuneolina ex gr. pavonia d’Orbigny, 1846</p><p>Figure 17</p><p>1839 Cuneolina pavonia n. sp. – d’Orbigny, p. 151; Nomen nudem – no description.</p><p>T 1846 Cuneolina pavonia – d’Orbigny, p.253, figs. 50- 52; Turonian (reinterpreted as Cenomanian), western France.</p><p>1850 Cuneolina conica n. sp. – d’Orbigny, p. 186; Turonian (reinterpreted as Cenomanian), western France.</p><p>1900 Cuneolina conica – Schlumberger, p. 461-462, pl 8, figs. 8-10; Turonian (reinterpreted as Cenomanian), western France.</p><p>1947 Cuneolina walteri n. sp. – Cushman &amp; Applin, p. 30, pl. 10, figs 4-5; middle Cenomanian, Florida</p><p>1948b Cuneolina pavonia var. parva var. nov. – Henson, pp. 624-627, pl. XIV, figs. 1-6; pl. XVII, figs. 7-12; pl. XVIII, figs. 12-14; Santonian (variously reinterpreted as Albian or Turonian), Egypt.</p><p>1961 “Cuneolinas” – Cuvillier, pl. XLII, fig. 1; “ Lower Senonian ”, Aquitaine, France .</p><p>1962 Cuneolina pavonia parva – Sartoni &amp; Crescenti, p. 278-279, pl. 31, fig. 2; pl. 32; pl. 47, figs. 4-6; Albian – intra-Late Cretaceous, southern Italy.</p><p>1964 Cuneolina pavonia – Loeblich &amp; Tappan, figs. 193/1-2; Cenomanian, western France.</p><p>1964 Cuneolina sp. – Bozorgnia &amp; Banafti, pl. LXXVII, fig. 2; late Albian – Cenomanian, central Iran.</p><p>1964 Cuneolina sp. – Bozorgnia &amp; Banafti, pl. LXXX, fig. 2; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>1964 Cuneolina cf. hensoni – Bozorgnia &amp; Banafti, pl. LXXIX, fig. 1; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>? 1965 Cuneolina pavonia parva – Gollesstaneh, p. 165- 166, pl. 24, figs. 1-4; Early Cretaceous (precise age uncertain), Iranian Zagros.</p><p>1965 Cuneolina walteri – Applin &amp; Applin, pl. 2, figs. 1- 2; middle Cenomanian, Florida .</p><p>1967 Cuneolina conica – Bismuth et al., pl. 12, fig. 8; Cenomanian, Tunisia.</p><p>1967 Cuneolina pavonia – Neumann, pl. 53, fig. 1; Cenomanian, western France.</p><p>1968 Cuneolina conica – Gendrot, p. 676-677, pl. 4, fig. 16; Santonian, southern France.</p><p>1968 Cuneolina pavonia – Gendrot, p. 676-677, pl. 4, figs. 17-19; Santonian, southern France.</p><p>1969 Cuneolina sp. – Sampò, pl. XXXVII, fig. 16; pl. XLII, figs. 13, 17; Aptian, Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>1973 Cuneolina pavonia-parva – Berthou, p. 2, fig. 3; late Cenomanian, Portugal.</p><p>1974 Cuneolina pavonia – Saint-Marc, p. 220, pl. 2, fig. 1; Albian – Turonian, Lebanon.</p><p>1974 Cuneolina gr. pavonia – Bignot &amp; Poisson, pl. 1, fig. 1; pl. 2, fig. 1; Cenomanian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>? 1976 Iraqia simplex Henson – Kalantari, pl. 15, fig. 10; Albian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>1976 Cuneolina cf. pavonia – Kalantari, pl. 18; pl. 22, fig. 5; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>1976 Cuneolina gr. pavonia – Decrouez, p. 79-82, pl. 14, figs. 3-4, pl. 17, figs. 1, 5; Late Cretaceous, Greece [ fide Cvetko Tešović et al., 2001]</p><p>1977 Cuneolina pavonia – Rey et al., p. 381, pl. 3, figs. 8-9; late Albian, Portugal.</p><p>1977 Cuneolina pavonia parva – Velić, pl. 29, figs. 1-3, 5; early Albian, Croatia.</p><p>1977 Cuneolina pavonia – Velić, pl. 29, figs. 4, 6-7; early Albian, Croatia.</p><p>1977 Cuneolina ex. gr. pavonia parva – Velić, pl. 31, figs. 2-4; late Albian, Croatia.</p><p>1978 Cuneolina gr. pavonia – Decrouez, pl. 1, figs. 2-3; early – late Cenomanian, Greece.</p><p>1978 Cuneolina sp. – Luperto Sinni &amp; Richetti, pl. 46, figs. 1-11; Santonian – Maastrichtian, southern Italy.</p><p>1979 Cuneolina pavonia parva Sartoni &amp; Crescenti [sic] – Bachmann &amp; Risch, pl. 8, figs. 7-9; early Cenomanian, Greece.</p><p>1981 Cuneolina pavonia – Bismuth et al., pl. 1, figs. 7-8; late Cenomanian, Tunisia.</p><p>1981 Cuneolina pavonia – Saint-Marc, pl. 1, fig. 4; Albian – Turonian, Lebanon.</p><p>1982 Cuneolina gr. pavonia – Altıner &amp; Decrouez, pl. 3, figs. 13-14; Aptian – Cenomanian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>1982 Cuneolina pavonia – Mouty &amp; Saint-Marc, pl. 1, fig. 9; latest Aptian – Cenomanian, Syria.</p><p>1984 Cuneolina gr. pavonia – Chiocchini et al., pl. 5, figs. 1-3; mid-Cretaceous, Italy.</p><p>1985 Cuneolina conica – Bilotte, pl. 5, fig. 3; Cenomanian, French Pyrenees.</p><p>1985 Cuneolina gr. pavonia-parva – Bilotte, pl. 5, fig. 4; late Cenomanian, French Pyrenees.</p><p>1988 Cuneolina gr. pavonia – Kuss &amp; Schlagintweit, p. 83, pl. 18, fig. 5; pl. 20, figs. 9-10; latest Aptian – early Cenomanian, Sinai, Egypt.</p><p>1988 Cuneolina pavonia – Sartorio &amp; Venturini, p. 109, 112, 113; Albian-Santonian; Italy.</p><p>1988 Cuneolina pavonia – Sartorio &amp; Crescenti, p.113; “Lower Senonian”, southern Italy.</p><p>1990 Cuneolina pavonia – Weidich &amp; Al-Harithi, p. 604, pl. 3, fig. 6; pl. 4, fig. 24; late Albian – Cenomanian, Jordan.</p><p>1990 Cuneolina pavonia – Šribar &amp; Pleničar, pl. 4, fig. 5; late Turonian, Slovenia.</p><p>1991 Cuneolina pavonia parva – Schlagintweit, p. 36, pl. 11, figs. 13-16; late Aptian – early Albian, Austria.</p><p>1991 Cuneolina walteri – Scott &amp; Gonzalez-Leon, p. 58, fig. 5O; Albian, Mexico.</p><p>1992 Cuneolina ex gr. pavonia – Schlagintweit, p. 336- 337, text-fig. 6; pl. 2, figs. 1-6; Cenomanian – Coniacian, Austria. Demonstrates the initial chambers are planispiral rather than trochospiral.</p><p>1993 Cuneolina pavonia – Grötsch et al., fig. 5B-E; late Albian, Slovenia.</p><p>1995 Cuneolina sp. cf. C. pavonia – Arnaud-Vanneau &amp; Sliter, p. 554, pl.4, figs. 1-5; late Albian, Mid-Pacific seamounts.</p><p>1995 Cuneolina parva – Arnaud-Vanneau &amp; Sliter, p.554, pl, 5, figs. 6-9; late Albian, Mid-Pacific seamounts.</p><p>1998 Cuneolina pavonia parva – Whittaker et al., p. 28- 29; pl. 4, figs. 1-2; pl. 45, figs. 7-8; pl. 46, figs. 1-6; Type material of Henson (1948b) of uncertain age (see text), Egypt .</p><p>1999 Cuneolina walteri – Scott &amp; Finch, fig. 4A-C; late Albian, Honduras.</p><p>2000 Cuneolina pavonia – Aguilera-Franco, p. 160; middle – late Cenomanian, Mexico.</p><p>2000 Cuneolina conica – Aguilera-Franco, p. 161; middle – late Cenomanian, Mexico.</p><p>2000 Cuneolina pavonia – Benedetti et al., fig. 54; Late Cretaceous, Montenegro.</p><p>2001 Cuneolina pavonia – Cvetko Tešović et al., p. 601- 602, fig. 6B-C; Campanian, Brac Island, Croatia.</p><p>2004 Cuneolina gr. pavonia – Menegatti, p. 2/24-2/25, pl. 7, fig. 5; pl. 8, figs. 2-3, 6; pl. 9, fig. 5; Cenomanian, Dubai.</p><p>? 2005 Cuneolina pavoni [sic] – Vaziri et al., pl. 2, figs 5- 7; Campanian – Maastrichtian, central Iran. [Fragmentary specimens].</p><p>2006 Cuneolina pavonia – Husinec &amp; Sokač, fig. 9 H- L; Albian, Croatia.</p><p>2006 Cuneolina pavonia – Taslı et al., fig. 6L; middle – late Cenomanian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>2009 Cuneolina pavonia – Sari et al., pl. 3, fig. 7; middle Cenomanian – Coniacian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>? 2009 Cuneolina pavonia – Shirazi et al., pl. 1, figs. 10- 11; Albian – Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [Fragmentary specimens].</p><p>? 2009 Nakkadyia awadi n. gen, n. sp. – Ismail et al., 402-403; text-fig. 4; pl. 3, figs. 1-5; pl. 4, figs. 2-4; Cenomanian, Egypt.</p><p>2010 Cuneolina pavonia – Spalluto &amp; Caffau, fig. 13AB; Albian – Cenomanian, southern Italy.</p><p>Non 2011 Cuneolina pavonia – Shirazi et al., pl. 2, fig. 16; Albian, Iranian Zagros. [=Indeterminate textulariid].</p><p>2011 Cuneolina parva – Filkorn &amp; Scott, p. 186, figs. 4.9-4.12; late Albian, Mexico.</p><p>? 2011 Cuneolina pavonia – Roozbahani, pl. 1, fig. 11; Albian, central Iran. Indeterminate fragment.</p><p>? 2011 Cuneolina walteri – Roozbahani, pl. 2, fig. 3; Albian, central Iran. Indeterminate fragment.</p><p>2012 Cuneolina pavonia – Ghanem et al., fig. 6c/3, 8, 11; fig. 6d/1-2; Albian – Cenomanian, Syria.</p><p>2012 Cuneolina pavonia – Chiocchini et al., pl. 96; middle Cenomanian, southern Italy.</p><p>2012 Cuneolina sp. 1 – Chiocchini et al., pl. 82; early Cenomanian, southern Italy.</p><p>2012 Cuneolina pavonia – Orabi et al., fig. 5A, C; late Cenomanian, Egypt.</p><p>2012 Cuneolina parva – Orabi et al., fig. 5B; late Cenomanian, Egypt.</p><p>2012 Cuneolina cylindrica Henson – Orabi et al., fig.5 E; late Cenomanian, Egypt. [May be an oblique and/or partial section].</p><p>2012 Cuneolina pavonia – Spalluto, fig. 4a; Albian – Cenomanian, southern Italy.</p><p>2013 Cuneolina parva – Ghanem &amp; Kuss, fig. 10/13; fig. 12/13; Albian – Cenomanian, Syria.</p><p>2013 Cuneolina pavonia – Ghanem &amp; Kuss, fig. 11/2-4; Albian – Cenomanian, Syria.</p><p>2013 Dicyclina sp. – Ghanem &amp; Kuss, fig. 12/30; Albian – Cenomanian, Syria.</p><p>2013 Cuneolina pavonia – Omaña et al., pl. 1, fig. 2; pl. 5, fig. 5; late Cenomanian, Mexico.</p><p>? 2013 Cuneolina aff. C. parva – Hfaiedh et al., fig. 12/L- N; Aptian, Tunisia.</p><p>2013 Cuneolina hensoni – Shanin &amp; Elbaz, pl. 1, fig. 44; late Cenomanian, Sinai .</p><p>2013 Cuneolina pavonia – Shanin &amp; Elbaz, pl. 1, figs. 45-46; late Cenomanian, Sinai .</p><p>2014b Cuneolina pavonia – Omidvar et al., fig. 4/3; late Cenomanian – intra-middle Turonian (as interpreted following Simmons et al., 2024a), Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2014 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Afghah et al., Fig. 11F; early Cenomanian(?), Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2015 Cuneolina conica – Albrich et al., fig. 13 H, O; fig. 14 C-D; Campanian, Spain.</p><p>2015 Cuneolina pavonia – Solak et al., fig. 9A; Cenomanian – Coniacian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>2016 Cuneolina pavonia – Rikhtegarzadeh et al., pl. 3, fig. 1; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>Non 2016 Cuneolina pavonia – Ghaseminia et al., fig. 4L; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros. [Indeterminate textulariid].</p><p>2017 Cuneolina pavonia – Ahmadi et al., pl. 1, fig. 11; Albian – Cenomanian (probably late Albian – early Cenomanian), Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2017 Cuneolina pavonia – BouDagher-Fadel et al., fig. 11/8-10; Albian – early Cenomanian, Tibet.</p><p>2017 Cuneolina pavonia – Hamedanian et al., pl. 1/F; Aptian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>? 2017 Cuneolina gr. pavonia – Koç, fig. 6/G1-2; Aptian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>2018 Cuneolina pavonia – Luger, p. 66-67, pl. 6, figs. 1, 2, 5; late Albian – Early Cenomanian, Somalia.</p><p>2019 Cuneolina pavonia – Omaña et al., p. 709, fig. 10ab, middle – late Cenomanian, Mexico.</p><p>2019 Cuneolina parva – Omaña et al., p. 709-711, fig. 10c-f; middle – late Cenomanian, Mexico.</p><p>? 2019 Cuneolina pavonia – Kiarostami et al., pl. 1K; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2019 Cuneolina pavonia – Saeedi Razavi et al., pl. 2, fig. 10; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2019 Cuneolina pavonia – Solak et al., fig., 8R-T; fig. 10T; middle – late Cenomanian, late Campanian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>2019 Cuneolina pavonia – Taslı &amp; Solak, fig. 10/5; late Albian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>2019 Cuneolina ex gr. pavonia – Özkan &amp; Altıner, fig. 9/14; early – middle Cenomanian (as interpreted by Simmons et al., 2020), south-eastern Türkiye.</p><p>2020 Cuneolina sp. – Haftlang et al., fig. 2/24; Santonian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>? 2020 Cuneolina pavonia – Randazzo et al., fig. 9R; Albian – Cenomanian, Sicily.</p><p>2020 Cuneolina pavonia – Solak et al., fig. 6T?; fig. 11N- O; fig. 14S; Albian?, late Cenomanian – Turonian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>2021 Cuneolina parva – Solak et al., p. 678, figs. 5.1-5.3; Albian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>2021 Cuneolina pavonia – Sinanoglu, p. 276-277, pl. 1, figs. 15-16; Maastrichtian, southern Türkiye.</p><p>2021 Cuneolina pavonia – Saedi Razavi et al., pl. 1, fig. 8; late Cenomanian (as interpreted herein), Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2021 Cuneolina sp. – Özkan, fig. 11/13; Campanian, southeast Türkiye.</p><p>2021 Cuneolina pavonia – Dousti-Mohajer et al., pl. 1j; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>? 2021 Cuneolina pavonia – Nagm et al., fig. 4E; late Cenomanian, Egypt.</p><p>2021 Cuneolina parva – Solak, pl. 2A-C; middle – late Cenomanian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>2021 Cuneolina pavonia – Solak, pl. 3E-F; late Cenomanian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>2021 Cuneolina pavonia – Gholamalian &amp; Fanati Rashidi, pl. 3, fig. 1; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2021 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Radmacher et al., pl. 1, figs. 8-9; Albian-Santonian Guatemala.</p><p>Non 2022 Cuneolina pavonia – Esfandyari et al., fig. 25c; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros. [Probably Praetaberina bingstani].</p><p>? 2022 Cuneolina pavonia – Dousti-Mohajer et al., fig. 4l; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros. [Test is possibly annular, thus suggesting Dicyclina].</p><p>2023 Cuneolina gr. C. pavonia – Solak &amp; Taslı, fig. 10C, K; late Aptian – Albian, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>2025 Cuneolina pavonia – Salmouna et al., fig. 15D; Turonian, Tunisia.</p><p>2025 Cuneolina pavonia ( ? parva) – Messaoud et al., fig. 8 (f-g); Turonian, Jordan.</p><p>Reference Images: Schlagintweit (1992); Whittaker et al. (1998).</p><p>Taxonomy/Identity: As noted by Scott &amp; Gonzalez-Leon (1991), discrimination among the species of Cuneolina (currently composed of 16 accepted species; WoRMS.org – Hayward et al., 2025) is difficult because many were defined by exterior features and the corresponding features or internal features are not known in the same detail for each species. Furthermore, thin-sections usually reveal only partial sections through the specimens.</p><p>As can be understood from the long synonymy list (which is only partial and does not include unillustrated records of which there are many), relatively large fan-shaped cuneolinids are common components of Cretaceous Neotethyan carbonate sediments. They are known from Central America (e.g., Filkorn &amp; Scott, 2011), the peri-Mediterranean (e.g. Solak &amp; Taslı, 2023), the Middle East (e.g., Saint-Marc, 1974), Tibet (e.g., BouDagher-Fadel et al., 2017), and guyots in the Pacific (e.g., Arnaud-Vanneau &amp; Sliter, 1995). These have been described under a variety of names such as Cuneolina pavonia d’Orbigny (the type species of Cuneolina), Cuneolina parva Henson and Cuneolina conica d’Orbigny. Some authors maintain that separate species can be distinguished (e.g. Arnaud-Vanneau &amp; Sliter, 1995; Ghanem &amp; Kuss, 2013), others place them into synonymy (with C. pavonia the senior synonym) (e.g. Saint-Marc, 1974; Luger, 2018), and there are advocates to use a “group” concept (e.g. Altıner &amp; Decrouez, 1982; Simmons &amp; Hart, 1987; Kuss &amp; Schlagintweit, 1988; Schlagintweit, 1992; Solak &amp; Taslı, 2023). Pending a full taxonomic review and evaluation of intra-specific variation, we feel that use of “ Cuneolina ex gr. pavonia ” is the best solution for the moment and includes a group of similar taxa that are hard to separate from one another in many thin-sections. This includes C. pavonia, C. parva, C. conica, and Cuneolina walteri Cushman &amp; Applin. This grouping does not include Cuneolina compressa Schlagintweit, 1988 that is smaller, with a thinner wall, and with finer septa and radial partitions.</p><p>The following description by Kuss &amp; Schlagintweit (1988) is a useful summary of the concept of “ Cuneolina ex gr. pavonia ”: “ …represents a highly developed flabelliform Cuneolina with a convex base [apertural face]. The primary chambers of the test are divided by radial partitions into chamberlets, forming narrow rectangular shapes with a height approximately twice width. Secondary subepidermal partitions (both horizontal and vertical) are developed. Unilocular proloculus large, measuring about 0.11 mm in diameter. Size (in mm): height: 0.75 – 2.0 mm; thickness 0.27 – 0.3 mm. The angle of inclination [apical angle] of the test varies too greatly to use the width of individual tests as a characteristic measurement.”</p><p>A description of C. conica is similar (Albrich et al., 2015): “ Fan-shaped shell, biserially arranged, with low and broad chambers occupying an opening angle [apical angle] of about 70º. The number of chambers is about 20. The shell varies from 0.7mm to 1.2 mm in length. The exoskeleton consists of well-developed beams and rafters. The number of beams per chamber can reach about 20 in the last chamber ”.</p><p>C. pavonia was mentioned by d’Orbigny in 1839 and a description subsequently provided by him in 1846 based on material from Ile Madam, France. Although originally considered as Turonian by d’Orbigny, Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1964) regarded the types as Cenomanian. Schlumberger (1900) subsequently described the species from the Santonian of Spain.</p><p>C. parva was originally described as a subspecies (because of a smaller size) of C. pavonia by Henson (1948b) but has often been regarded as a species in its own right (e.g. Arnaud-Vanneau &amp; Sliter, 1995). It was first described from Egypt from a section considered to be Santonian, but subsequently regarded as Albian (Arnaud-Vanneau &amp; Sliter, 1995) or Turonian (Whittaker et al., 1998).</p><p>C. walteri was described from the middle Cenomanian of Florida (Cushman &amp; Applin, 1947; Applin &amp; Applin, 1965), with a supposed relatively small size: Length up to 1.00 mm; breadth up to 1.40 mm; thickness 0.30 mm. The indistinct sutures are said to be a distinguishing feature, and it has a markedly flaring test. Nonetheless, Filkorn &amp; Scott (2011) regarded it as synonymous with C. parva (see also Omaña et al., 2019), in turn noting that this is hardly distinguishable from C. pavonia .</p><p>The Early Cretaceous species Cuneolina hensoni Dalbiez, 1958 is similar to C. ex gr. pavonia but has a much coarser internal structure with broad rectangular, almost square chamberlets. There are a number of other Cretaceous species of cuneolinids. These include Cuneolina axinoides Arnaud-Vanneau, 1980; Vercorsella arenata Arnaud-Vanneau, 1980; Scythiolina camposaurii (Sartoni &amp; Crescenti, 1962); Vercorsella laurentii (Sartoni &amp; Crescenti, 1962); Vercorsella scarsellai (De Castro, 1963); and Cuneolina sliteri Arnaud-Vanneau &amp; Premoli-Silva, 1995 and other species assigned to Scythiolina Neagu 1997 and Histerolina Neagu 1997 . All are smaller and less flabelliform than C. ex gr. pavonia, and with fewer radial partitions and typically no or few secondary subepidermal partitions. Those assigned to Vercorsella have a slit-like aperture including the earliest species, V. halleinensis Schlagintweit &amp; Gawlick, 2005 from the late Tithonian – early Berriasian of Austria, also recorded by Hosseini &amp; Conrad (2008) from the Berriasian of Iran. The poorlyknown Late Cretaceous Cuneolina cylindrica Henson, 1948b is characterised by an acute apical angle leading to a narrow, cylindrical test shape.</p><p>Random sections of C. ex gr. pavonia can be confused with the discoidal genus Dicyclina (see separate species entries) that has annular chambers. As mentioned by Brönnimann et al. (1983), Dicyclina represents a more specialized form and is regarded as the final stage in the evolution of a flabelliform Cuneolina . Nakkadyia awadi introduced by Ismail et al. (2009) from the Cenomanian of Egypt might be an intermediate form between Cuneolina and Dicyclina (and is considered as a taxon of uncertain status by WoRMS.org – Hayward et al., 2025). Given that it is not truly annular (i.e. it is said to be fan-shaped) it is tentatively regarded as a synonym of Cuneolina ex gr. pavonia pending further research. As noted by Schlagintweit (1992) and Cvetko Tešović et al. (2001) the embryonic apparatus of advanced Cuneolina ex gr. pavonia comprises a globular eccentric proloculus surrounded by low and wide chambers (i.e. with a subembryonic zone similar to that of Dicyclina schlumbergeri). However, that of D. schlumbergeri is larger and more complex. Axial sections also have a similarity in the nature of septa and subepidermal partitions.</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: Aptian – Maastrichtian. Common records throughout this range.</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: not applicable.</p><p>The long range of C. ex gr. pavonia is well established. Sartoni &amp; Crescenti (1962) introduced a biozone of Cuneolina pavonia parva for the Albian – Cenomanian and of Cuneolina pavonia parva and Dicyclina schlumbergeri for the Turonian – Senonian (intra-Late Campanian) period of the southern Apennines, Italy. However, according to Chiocchini et al. (2012) the range of Cuneolina pavonia in the Apennines is restricted to within the late Cenomanian. The oldest specimens of C. ex gr. pavonia appear to be Aptian (Altıner &amp; Decrouez, 1982; Mouty &amp; Saint-Marc, 1982; Kuss &amp; Schlagintweit, 1988, Schlagintweit et al., 2016; Solak &amp; Taslı, 2023 and – possibly – Gollesstaneh, 1965 and Koç, 2017) and the taxon has long been regarded as long-ranging throughout the mid-Cretaceous and into the upper part of the Late Cretaceous (Saint-Marc, 1974; Velić, 2007). Barremian records (e.g. Soklić, 2019) are not confirmed by illustration. It appears to range throughout the Late Cretaceous to the Maastrichtian (Caus &amp; Cornella, 1983; Sinanoğlu et al., 2020), giving a total long range of Aptian – Maastrichtian.</p><p>Locally, the inception or extinction of C. ex gr. pavonia may have stratigraphic significance (e.g. Aguilero-Franco, 2000, 2003), but given the long range of the taxon these will be facies-controlled events.</p><p>Geographic Distribution: Very widespread from the Caribbean/Central America region (including mid-Pacific seamounts), and through Neotethys as far east as Somalia and Tibet.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A4DFFB61F37FF18FEAAF82D	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A46FFB41F20FF18FA2FFA8D.text	039B87F95A46FFB41F20FF18FA2FFA8D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pseudotextulariella cretosa (Cushman 1932)	<div><p>Pseudotextulariella cretosa (Cushman, 1932)</p><p>Figure 18</p><p>T 1932 Textulariella cretosa n. sp. – Cushman, p. 97-98; pl. 11, figs. 17-19; Cretaceous, southern England.</p><p>1937 Textulariella cretosa – Cushman, p. 61, pl. 6, figs. 26-28; Cretaceous, southern England.</p><p>1948 Textulariella cretosa – Williams-Mitchell, p. 97, pl. 8, fig. 1; early Cenomanian ( Schloenbachia varians Zone), southern England.</p><p>1953 Pseudotextulariella cretosa (Cushman) – Barnard in Barnard &amp; Banner, p. 198-199; fig. 6B-I; early Cenomanian ( Schloenbachia varians Zone), southern England.</p><p>1963 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Barnard, p. 48-51, pl. 7, figs. 1-6, 8; text-figs. 6a-d, 7a-f, 8a-c; early Cenomanian ( Schloenbachia varians Zone), southern England.</p><p>1964 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Loeblich &amp; Tappan, fig. 202 (3-4); Cenomanian, southern England.</p><p>1965 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Charollais &amp; Brönnimann, pl. 2, figs. a-b; pl. 3, figs. a-b; early Cenomanian ( Schloenbachia varians Zone), southern England.</p><p>1966 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Grönhagen &amp; Luterbacher, text-figs. 1-3; Cenomanian, Swiss Jura .</p><p>1966 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Brönnimann, pl. 3, figs. 1-2, 5; early Cenomanian ( Schloenbachia varians Zone), southern England.</p><p>Non 1972 Pseudotextulariella sp. cf. P. cretosa – El-Naggar &amp; Al-Rifaiy, fig. 5 (3-4); middle – late Cenomanian, Kuwait [simple biserial form].</p><p>1972 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Gawor-Biedowa, p. 34-35, pl. 3, figs. 4a-b; Cenomanian, Poland.</p><p>? 1975 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Heller, pl. 2, fig. 1; Cenomanian, Poland [poor external view only].</p><p>1977 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Carter &amp; Hart, p. 23- 24, pl. 2, fig. 12; early – middle Cenomanian, southern England.</p><p>1980 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Frieg, p. 238, pl. 2, figs. 12-13; early – middle Cenomanian, northern Germany.</p><p>1983 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Peryt, p. 438, pl. 21, fig. 6; early – middle Cenomanian, Poland.</p><p>? 1983 Pseudotextulariella cf. cretosa – Schroeder &amp; Willems, pl. 4, fig. 6; Cenomanian, northern Spain [indeterminate].</p><p>? 1985 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Weidich, pl. 4, fig. 2; early – middle Cenomanian, southern Germany [indeterminate].</p><p>1987 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Leary, p. 75, pl. 13, figs. 1-3; late Cenomanian, North Sea.</p><p>1989 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Hart et al., pl. 7.2; figs. 11-12; intra-early – middle Cenomanian, southern England.</p><p>1989 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Frieg, text-fig. 2, pl. 1, figs. 1-2, 4-11; intra-late Albian – intra-early Cenomanian, northern Germany.</p><p>1990 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Hart et al., figs. 3, l, o; intra-early – middle Cenomanian, southern England.</p><p>1991 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Packer, pl. 2, fig. 13; Cenomanian, Denmark.</p><p>? 1993 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Al-Rifaiy et al., pl. 1, fig. 8; late Cenomanian, Jordan [external view only].</p><p>1993 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Witte et al., pl. 2, figs. 8-9; middle Cenomanian, Netherlands.</p><p>1996 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Mitchell, pl. 1, figs. 9-10; early – middle Cenomanian, northern England.</p><p>? 1996 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Zghal et al., pl. 1, figs. 9-10; middle Albian (range given as middle – late Albian), Tunisia [uncertain external view only].</p><p>1998 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Mitchel &amp; Carr, pl. 4, fig. 4; intra-early – middle Cenomanian, southern England.</p><p>2000 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Herngreen et al., pl. 3, fig. 82; middle Cenomanian, The Netherlands.</p><p>2002 Pseudotextulariella sp. – Császár, pl. 4, figs. 3-4; late Albian – early Cenomanian, Hungary [age is based on the presence of the genus].</p><p>2002 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Bucur &amp; Baltres, p. 83-84, pl. 3, figs. 1-10, pl. 4, figs. 1-8; early Cenomanian, Dobrogea, Romania.</p><p>Non 2013 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Shahin &amp; Elbaz, pl. 2, figs 1-2; Cenomanian, Sinai, Egypt [lacks complexity of internal architecture].</p><p>2021 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Besen et al., p. 424, fig. 8s; undifferentiated late Albian – (middle) Turonian, northern Germany.</p><p>2023 Pseudotextulariella cretosa – Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam, fig. 5m-n [specimens illustrated by Brönnimann, 1966].</p><p>Reference Images: Brönnimann (1966).</p><p>Taxonomy/Identity: This species was introduced by Cushman (1932) as Textulariella cretosa with a limited description from the Cretaceous Chalk of southern England. It was adopted by Barnard (in Barnard &amp; Banner, 1953) as the type species for his new genus Pseudotextulariella . Further information was given by Barnard (1963), Charollais &amp; Brönnimann (1965), Frieg (1989), Bucur &amp; Baltres (2002), and Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2023).</p><p>Pseudotextulariella is subconical, early stage triserial (no trochospiral initial stage e.g., Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1987), later biserial with chambers subdivided by vertical and horizontal partitions (beans and rafters). The aperture is interiomarginal. A small embryo is present in a form called Pseudotextulariella sp. by Dufaure et al. (1984). Although probably of this genus, this specimen seems to fit with neither the morphology of P. cretosa or Pseudotextulariella brevicamerata Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam, 2023 (see also Pseudotextulariella sp. illustrated by Solak et al., 2020). An embryo is also possibly visible in the illustrations of P. cretosa by Grönhagen &amp; Luterbacher (1966, fig. 2b).</p><p>P. cretosa is a distinctively large (up to 1.75 mm in test height and maximum diameter) and complex species with multiple orders of rafters (see Table 1 of Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam, 2023). Only two orders of beams appear to be present. However, some specimens are quite small – see Gawor-Biedowa (1972) who recorded dimensions of around 0.6 – 0.9 mm. Frieg (1989) considered that both simple, smaller, microspheric, and more complex, larger, macrospheric forms occurred. P. brevicamerata (see below) and Valanginian Pseudotextulariella courtionensis Bronnimann, 1966 are smaller and only have one order of rafters and reduced height of chamber lumen.</p><p>Other supposed species of Pseudotextulariella – Pseudotextulariella salevensis Charollais, Brönnimann &amp; Zaninetti, 1966, Pseudotextulariella scarsellai De Castro, 1963, Pseudotextulariella subalpina Arnaud-Vanneau, 1980 and “ Pseudotextulariella barnardi ” Gollesstaneh, 1965 – can be assigned to other genera (see WoRMS online catalogue, Hayward et al., 2025; Schlagintweit, 2014). Pseudotextulariella sp. 1 of Chiocchini et al. (1994) from the late Cenomanian of Italy, is a simple biserial form, without the architectural complexity of the genus.</p><p>The holotype of P. cretosa (external view) has been re-illustrated by Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (https://collections.nmnh.si.edu/search/ paleo/?ark=ark:/65665/3aaf1d197dc954c1680875acc558 00236) .</p><p>https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&amp;i d=1045991</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: Intra-late Albian – late Cenomanian (common in suitable facies within the intra-early – middle Cenomanian).</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: middle Albian, Turonian – Coniacian.</p><p>A species whose range is highly facies-dependent. Supposedly (according to Barnard, 1963) the type specimens are from the Lower Chalk at Charing, Kent, England (early Cenomanian, Schloenbachia varians Zone). Williams-Mitchell (1948) and Barnard &amp; Banner (1953) considered the species a useful marker for this zone. In more recent research, Wilkinson &amp; Hopson (2011) recognised the inception of P. cretosa as indicating foraminiferal Zone 9 of Carter &amp; Hart (1977), UKB3 of Hart et al. (1989) and BGS 2 of Wilkinson (2011) which indicates a level close to the base of the dixoni Zone or high in the mantelli zone. Carter &amp; Hart (1977) remarked that it “ occurs in large numbers in the lower levels of the Cenomanian ” but showed that the inception (base of their Zone 9) is intra-early Cenomanian (see also Hart et al., 1989).</p><p>Outside of chalk facies, the species is known from open marine marly facies of the intra-late Albian (Frieg, 1989; Besen et al., 2021) and has been reported from the latest Albian of Switzerland by Grönhagen &amp; Luterbacher (1966) but not illustrated. Magniez-Jannin (1983) reported it from the late Albian of northern France.</p><p>P. cretosa is said to range up to the near top middle Cenomanian of northern France (Amédro et al., 1978) but is not illustrated. Besen et al. (2021) reported it from the middle Turonian and further extended the range to the Coniacian (Besen et al., 2023) but without illustration. Reported but not illustrated from the late Cenomanian of the Czech Republic (Cech et al., 2005; Zitt et al., 2010). The last appearance datum is considered a marker horizon for middle Cenomanian in the North Sea (King et al., 1989), but Leary (1987) found rare and small specimens in the late Cenomanian.</p><p>Geographic Distribution: The species is mostly known from the marls of the chalk facies from north-west Europe (southern England, northern France, northern Germany, Poland), but has been recorded, if seldom illustrated, from the northern margin of Neotethys in Switzerland (Grönhagen &amp; Luterbacher, 1966; Brönnimann, 1966), northern Spain (Gräfe, 2005), the Czech Republic (Čech et al., 2005; Zitt et al., 2010), Hungary (Görög, 1996; Császár, 2002) and Romania (Bucur &amp; Baltres, 2002). It appears to be absent from the Mediterranean and Arabian Plate, notwithstanding some highly uncertain records (see synonymy list).</p><p>Pseudotextulariella brevicamerata Schlagintweit &amp;</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A46FFB41F20FF18FA2FFA8D	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A45FFA91F1BFAD7FC63F914.text	039B87F95A45FFA91F1BFAD7FC63F914.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dicyclinidae Loeblich & Tappan 1964	<div><p>Family DICYCLINIDAE Loeblich &amp; Tappan 1964 (diagnosis sensu Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1987) Genus Dicyclina Munier-Chalmas 1887 (see Table 1 for diagnosis)</p><p>Dicyclina is morphologically one of a group of agglutinating genera characterised by a large, flattened disc with an initial embryonic stage (forming the thickest part of the test), followed by a small planispiral stage (or no planispiral stage at all) and finally a post-embryonic stage where the characteristic biseriate chambers are added annularly or cyclically (i.e., Cyclolina, Cyclopsinella, Mangashtia and Dicyclina). These are also somewhat reminiscent of porcellaneous forms such as Broeckina . Dicyclina differs from all the others in that it has a relatively large and complex embryonic apparatus, and that it adds successive annular chambers alternately either side of the median equatorial plane (i.e. in two alternating layers analogous to the term “biserial”). The other annular genera herein add successive single annular chambers across the median plane. Some genera (e.g., Mangashtia, Cyclopsinella) may give the appearance of 2-layers of chambers as their annular chambers have a series of radial pillars or clusters of pillars in the middle of the chambers but these “chambers” therefore do not alternate.</p><p>As with all LBF, a descriptive terminology when naming the fossilised parts of the organism’s shell is required and variations of these are often used to discriminate between taxa. The nomenclature and characteristics of internal structures are especially important. A comprehensive illustrated glossary of descriptive terms applied to the study of foraminifera in general was provided by Hottinger (2006) which has achieved “standard” status among most workers and is followed here. Members of the Dicyclinidae (which at present includes only the genus Dicyclina) display variably complex internal structures and Figure 20 shows, in very generalised schematic form, the broad disposition and identity of these.</p><p>Specific variation in Dicyclina is based primarily on (a) the nature of the embryonic apparatus (Figure 20 part a); (b) the number and disposition of both the radial (“beams”) and transverse (“rafters”) elements which together evolve externally to form a subepidermal network beneath the outer test wall (Hottinger, 1978) and (c) the general shape (in axial cross-section) of the primary chamber septa and attachments thereto such as other “rafters” and the annular “groove” or “gutter” running close to the free edge of the septa (Figure 20 part b).</p><p>In some cases when dealing with these morphological attributes, the exact nature of these features; their relationship to other features; and their biological function(s) are not clear or are unknown. Theoretically, elongated unclosed (stolons) or tubular closed (canals) spaces serve for protoplasmic flow or differentiation of protoplasmic activity in foraminifera (see e.g. Hottinger &amp; Dreher, 1974). For example, in species of Dicyclina (studies of which are challenged in general by a lack of suitable material) both the form and function of the annular “groove” or “gutter” are imperfectly known with some workers (e.g., Schlumberger &amp; Choffat, 1904, and Neumann, 1967) showing the “gutter” as fully enclosed, whereas we believe (see inset image in Figure 20) the “gutter” is open and connected to the foramina and is an active part of the protoplasmic flow system.</p><p>Another feature imperfectly known is the nature and position of the radial (i.e., running from the embryonic region in the direction of annular growth) “grooves” or “canals” which lie in between the radial partitions themselves (“beams”) and which – although shown herein running immediately below the outer chamber wall (which is removed in our schematic illustration) – could equally be positioned at the lower part of the transverse “rafters”.</p><p>Meanwhile for the purposes of this article the “naming of parts” is sufficient to provide a useful descriptive framework.</p><p>The (generally) large diameter and relative thinness of the Dicyclina test, plus the tendency for its post-embryonic disc to undulate, means that specimens in thin section are seldom complete and oriented optimally to display many of the features mentioned above. Moreover, because of the disc-like nature of the test with the embryonic zone at the centre, it is very often difficult to discern on which side of the embryo the sub- and supra-embryonic zones are in fact placed (this is not an issue in conical genera like Orbitolina). This makes identification to species level especially challenging in random sections and even important taxonomic elements are sometimes not observed in type material (see Dicyclina qatarensis and Table 5 below). In practice, many specimens cannot be identified more definitively than “ Dicyclina sp. ”, even when a species name has been attached. Saint-Marc (1974, 1981) did not identify Dicyclina beyond generic level in his material from Lebanon, presumably in acknowledgement of this issue.</p><p>Furthermore, some transverse sections of species of Dicyclina – especially when only fragmentary – resemble fragmentary axial sections of non-discoidal/cyclic genera such as Cuneolina (e.g., compare Figure 17 of C. ex gr. pavonia with Figure 22 of D. schlumbergeri herein). Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1990a) (following Brönnimann et al., 1983 and others) hypothesised that Dicyclina had in fact developed from Cuneolina by becoming fully annular and based on (p. 330) “… identical internal chamber structures and a very pronounced initial spiral stage, which was more and more reduced in the course of the phylogenesis ”. To this one might add that Dicyclina has a larger, more complex embryonic apparatus than even the most advanced Cuneolina . In practice, some specimens are best identified as “ Cuneolina / Dicyclina sp. ” (Simmons et al., 2020; see also discussion in section on Cuneolina ex gr. pavonia in this paper).</p><p>The status of Dicyclina taxonomy remains somewhat ambiguous. Schroeder &amp; Neumann (1985) in their extensive treatment of mid-Cretaceous larger foraminifera did not include Dicyclina (or Cuneolina for that matter) in their work, stating that they are “… still subject of anatomical and taxonomical problems to be solved. ” (p. 8). Despite subsequent smaller publications on Dicyclina by Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1990a, b), and as is clear from the following discussions on the genus and the individual species, these problems have yet to be fully resolved.</p><p>The online WoRMS catalogue of foraminifera records six possible species of Dicyclina (Hayward et al., 2025) . Of these, Dicyclina lusitanica Egger, 1902 belongs in the genus Anchispirocyclina ( fide Hottinger, 1967) and Dicyclina aegyptiaca Hewaidy, 1993 lacks sufficient internal description to distinguish it as a Dicyclina and to separate it from possible synonyms (thus a taxon inquirendum pending further study of type material). In any case, it (and the associated “ Dicyclina sp. A ”) were described from Maastrichtian strata and are thus outside</p><p>152</p><p>the focus of this paper. Therefore, four species of Dicyclina are included herein: Dicyclina schlumbergeri Munier-Chalmas 1887 (the type species of the genus); D. qatarensis Henson 1948b; D. simplex Cherchi &amp; Schroeder 1990a and D. sampoi Cherchi &amp; Schroeder 1990b . They are distinguished from one another by a combination of overall size (diameter), embryonic apparatus size and complexity (i.e., the presence/absence of secondary chamberlets in the supra- or sub-embryonic zones), and whether transverse subepidermal partitions (in this case, “rafters”) are limited to the inside of the peripheral chamber wall or also occur on the septa (as shown in Figure 20b). The numbers of (a) annular chambers per mm radius and (b) radial partitions (“beams”) per quadrant are also used. Overall chamber shape in axial section may also be useful, at least for distinguishing D. simplex from other taxa (Figure 21). D. qatarensis is probably the most poorly described/defined and Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1990b) regarded it as (p. 210) “… a badly defined and unrecognisable species ” citing a lack of a megalospheric embryo visible in the type material. It is also excluded from general discussions of Middle East Dicyclina by Schlagintweit &amp; Rashidi (2018) and Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2021). The species as can currently be best understood is further discussed below.</p><p>On the other hand, D. schlumbergeri is a very widelyreported taxon over a long stratigraphic interval (late Albian-Maastrichtian – but see discussion below) and it is likely that this has been used as a “bucket” term for dicyclinids found in random orientations that are technically indeterminate at species level if using “best practice”. This emphasises the need for deliberate or fortuitously good, oriented sections, ideally displaying the embryonic apparatus, septa, and sub-epidermal partitions which show both genus and species characteristics before arriving at a specific determination (Frijia et al., 2015).</p><p>Prior to 1990 and the introduction of D. simplex and D. sampoi (Cherchi &amp; Schroeder, 1990a, b), almost all records of Dicyclina, if assigned to a species, were assigned to D. schlumbergeri . Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1990a, b) challenged this paradigm implying that there was an evolutionary plexus from D. simplex (e.g. Cenomanian) to D. schlumbergeri (e.g. Coniacian and younger) with D. sampoi (e.g. Cenomanian) forming a separate Arabian Plate evolutionary lineage. D. simplex has a relatively simple embryonic apparatus and D. schlumbergeri a complex one, thus Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1990a) envisaged an evolution plexus of embryonic apparatus development similar to that seen in the Orbitolininae (e.g. Schroeder, 1975; Schroeder et al., 2010). That D. sampoi has a complex embryonic apparatus and occurs in the Cenomanian suggests it belongs to a separate lineage according to Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1990b). Although many authors have ignored or were unaware of this (i.e. continuing to use D. schlumbergeri as a sensu lato term), the large number of records of Dicyclina published since 1990 allow the hypothesis of Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1990a, b) to be tested.</p><p>In summary (see discussion of each of the four species of Dicyclina below), the phylogeny of Dicyclina is a little more complex than envisaged by Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1990a, b) and some subsequent workers. All validated records of Dicyclina in Coniacian – Maastrichtian strata are D. schlumbergeri with D. simplex restricted to the Cenomanian and D. sampoi to the Cenomanian –?Turonian. However, D. schlumbergeri is also known from the middle – late Cenomanian of Mexico only. Thus, it appears that independent lineages of Dicyclina with a complex embryo appeared in the Cenomanian in both Mexico ( D. schlumbergeri) and the Arabian Plate ( D. sampoi). By Coniacian times, D. schlumbergeri had replaced D. sampoi or a repetitive form of evolution had occurred. The relationship to D. simplex is unclear.</p><p>The morphological details “above” of the differences between the four species are discussed in the individual species treatments and summarised in Table 5 and (excluding D. qatarensis) in Figure 21.</p><p>As a genus, Dicyclina is widely known from Neotethys (as far east as the Arabian Plate) and the Caribbean in rocks ranging in age from supposedly Albian to Maastrichtian (e.g. Cherchi &amp; Schroeder, 1990a, b). Within this review we have been unable to confirm any Albian records of Dicyclina and even early Cenomanian records are doubtful. Such specimens may have been confused with Cuneolina . Omaña et al. (2019) state that D. schlumbergeri is very common in the Albian and Cenomanian strata of Mexico but offer no clear-cut evidence of Albian occurrences. Rey et al. (1977) report but do not illustrate Dicyclina sp. from the late Albian of Portugal. Saint-Marc (1974, 1978) places the inception of Dicyclina in the middle Cenomanian in Lebanon, although in his 1981 work the Neotethyan inception of the genus occurs within the early Cenomanian. Herein we consider Dicyclina to be a middle Cenomanian – Maastrichtian genus, at least in terms of confident records of its occurrence.</p><p>Biozonations utilising Dicyclina (e.g. Wynd, 1965; Taslı et al., 2006; Omidvar et al., 2014b; Haftlang et al., 2020; Omidi et al., 2018) are typically recognising a local biofacies, rather than a chronostratigraphically significant discrete range.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A45FFA91F1BFAD7FC63F914	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A59FFA21F14F955FA9CFD54.text	039B87F95A59FFA21F14F955FA9CFD54.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dicyclina schlumbergeri Munier-Chalmas 1877	<div><p>Dicyclina schlumbergeri Munier-Chalmas, 1877</p><p>Figure 22</p><p>T 1877 Dicyclina schlumbergeri n. gen., n. sp. Munier-Chalmas, p. 30-31; Senonian, southern France (type material lost) [probably Coniacian – Santonian see Gendrot, 1968] .</p><p>1904 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Schlumberger &amp; Choffat, p. 148-149, text-figs. 1-2; Senonian, southern France [probably Coniacian – Santonian see Gendrot, 1968].</p><p>? 1948b Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Henson, pl. XIV, fig. 9; Maastrichtian, Qatar &amp; Iraq [fragment only].</p><p>? 1956 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Bonet, p. 406-7, pls. 5- 7; Cenomanian, Mexico [fragments only].</p><p>? 1961 Dicyclina cf. qatarensis – Hamaoui, pl. 1, figs. 2- 6; Cenomanian, Israel.</p><p>Non L 1964 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Loeblich &amp; Tappan, p. C303, fig. 209 (1a-1b); middle Cenomanian, France [lectotype invalid fide Cherchi &amp; Schroeder, 1990a = D. simplex].</p><p>? 1966 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Luperto Sinni, pl. 13, fig. 3; Santonian?, southern Italy [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>? 1967 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Luperto Sinni, p. 176- 177, pl. 10, fig. 1; pl. 13, fig. 1; late Cenomanian – Santonian, southern Italy [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>1967 Dicyclina cf. schlumbergeri – Neumann, pl. 55, fig. 3; pl. 56, figs. 1-2; early Senonian, southern France.</p><p>Non 1967 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Neumann, pl. 55, fig. 2; Cenomanian, western France [from the type locality/strata of D. simplex].</p><p>? 1967 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Neumann, pl. 55, fig. 1; Santonian, Spain [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>1968 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Gendrot, p. 677-678, pl. V, figs. 14-16; Coniacian – Santonian, southern France. [fig. 15 designated as a Neotype by Cherchi &amp; Schroeder, 1990a] .</p><p>? 1970 Dicyclina sp. – Hamaoui &amp; Saint-Marc, pl. 40, fig. 14; late Cenomanian, Lebanon.</p><p>1976 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Luperto-Sinni, p. 308- 309, pl. 33, figs. 1-6; pl. 34, figs. 1; Senonian, southern Italy.</p><p>1978 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Luperto-Sinni &amp; Richetti, pl. 47, figs. 1-7; pl. 48, figs. 1-6; pl. 49, figs. 1- 6; Santonian – Maastrichtian, southern Italy.</p><p>? 1984 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Bilotte, pl. 5, fig. 2; middle Cenomanian, Pyrenees [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>1984 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Bilotte, pl. 15, fig. 2; early Campanian, Pyrenees.</p><p>? 1984 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Bilotte, pl. 25, fig. 5; Maastrichtian, Pyrenees [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>? 1987 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Simmons &amp; Hart, pl. 10.4, fig. 5; middle-late Cenomanian, Oman [= D. simplex or D. schlumbergeri, possibly Cuneolina ex. gr. pavonia].</p><p>? 1987 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Al-Rifaiy &amp; Cherif, pl. II, fig. 11; Turonian, Jordan [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>1987 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Loeblich &amp; Tappan, pl. 157, fig. 7 (non 8-10); Senonian, France.</p><p>Non 1987 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Loeblich &amp; Tappan, pl. 157, figs. 8-10; Cenomanian, France [ fide Cherchi &amp; Schroeder, 1990a = D. simplex].</p><p>? 1988 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Sartorio &amp; Venturini, p. 114 lower image, p. 115 upper image, p. 121; Senonian, southern Italy.</p><p>? 1988 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Sartorio &amp; Venturini, p. 115 lower image; upper Senonian, Tunisia.</p><p>Non 1989 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Rosales-Dominguez, fig. 11B; Albian-early Cenomanian; southwest USA [= Cuneolina sp.].</p><p>? 1990 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Šribar &amp; Pleničar, pl. 4, fig. 4; late Turonian, southwest Slovenia [indeterminate fragment].</p><p>N 1990a Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Cherchi &amp; Schroeder, figs. 5-11; Coniacian, France &amp; Sardinia.</p><p>? 1992 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Kalantari, pl. 77; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>1994 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Chiocchini et al., pl. 23, fig. 16; Senonian, central Italy.</p><p>Non 1998 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Charrière et al., fig. 4 (3a, 6); late Cenomanian, Morocco [= D. simplex].</p><p>2000 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Aguilera-Franco, p. 161; middle-late Cenomanian, southern Mexico.</p><p>2001 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Cvetko Tešović et al., p. 602, fig. 6D-H; Campanian, Brač Island, Croatia.</p><p>? 2003 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Polavder, fig. 5 (17- 18); Santonian-Campanian, former Yugoslavia [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>Non 2004 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Khosrow Tehrani &amp; Afghah, pl. 2, fig. 4 [= Broeckinella arabica Henson fide Schlagintweit &amp; Rashidi, 2016].</p><p>? 2005 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Vaziri et al., pl. 2, fig. 4; Santonian-Maastrichtian, central Iran [indeterminate fragment].</p><p>? 2006 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Taslı et al., fig. 7U; Coniacian-Santonian, southern Türkiye [= Dicyclina sp.]. 2007 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Velić, pl. 23, figs. 1-4; Santonian-Campanian, Adriatic platform.</p><p>? 2008 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Schlüter et al., fig. 3E; late Campanian, southern Italy [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>Non 2008 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Khosrow Tehrani et al., pl. 1, fig. 6 [= Broeckinella arabica Henson fide Schlagintweit &amp; Rashidi, 2016].</p><p>? 2008 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Ahmadi et al., pl. 3, fig. 1; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [best considered as Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>Non 2009 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Sari et al., pl. 3, figs. 8-9; age uncertain, reworked, Turkish Taurides [= D. simplex fide Schlagintweit &amp; Rashidi, 2018].</p><p>? 2010 Dicyclina sp. – Cavin et al., fig. 9F; late Cenomanian-middle Turonian, Morocco. [image captioned as Dicyclina sp. but referred to as D. schlumbergeri in text (p. 405)].</p><p>Non 2011 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Vaziri, fig. 2D, F; Santonian-Maastrichtian, central Iran [most likely Cuneolina sp.].</p><p>2011 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Khosrotehrani et al., pl. 1, fig. C; Santonian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>? 2011 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Amer, pl. 19, fig. 1; Cenomanian, western Iraq [best considered as Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>2012 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Chiocchini et al., pl. 134, figs. 1-8; Santonian, central Italy.</p><p>Non 2012 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Rahimpour-Bonab et al., fig. 8G; Cenomanian – Turonian, Iranian Zagros [= D. sampoi].</p><p>? 2012 Dicyclina shlumbergeri [sic] – Kiarostami et al., pl. 2, fig. 10; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>? 2012 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Omaña et al., fig. 5(1); late Cenomanian, Mexico [= Dicyclina / Cuneolina sp.].</p><p>Non 2013 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Rahimpour-Bonab et al., fig. 8U; Turonian [?], Iranian Zagros [= D. sampoi].</p><p>? 2013 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Al-Dulaimi et al., fig. 10(1); late Cenomanian; southern Iraq [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>2013 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Omaña et al., pl. 1, figs. 2, 4; pl. 4, figs. 2, 4; late Cenomanian, Mexico.</p><p>? 2013 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Shahin &amp; Elbaz, p. 276, pl. 2, figs. 3-4; late Cenomanian, Egypt [= Dicyclina / Cuneolina sp.].</p><p>? 2014a Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Omidvar et al., pl. 2, fig. P; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>Non 2014b Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Omidvar et al., fig. 3(10); Cenomanian-Turonian, Iranian Zagros. [= D. sampoi Cherchi &amp; Schroeder fide Schlagintweit &amp; Rashidi, 2018].</p><p>Non 2014 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Afghah et al., fig. 11(f); early Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [= Cuneolina ex. gr. pavonia].</p><p>Non 2014 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Afghah &amp; Yaghmour, pl. 2, fig.3; pl. 3, fig. 2; Maastrichtian, Iranian Zagros [perhaps Dicyclina sp., but embryonic apparatus too simple to be D. schlumbergeri].</p><p>? 2014 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Shahin &amp; Elbaz, fig. 6/6; late Cenomanian, Egypt [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>? 2015 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Frijia et al., fig. 9C; Coniacian-Campanian, central Italy [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>Non 2015 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Babazadeh &amp; Dehej, fig. 7 (i, j, k); early Albian, central Iran. [= Balkanica balkhanica Mamontova fide Schlagintweit, 2024].</p><p>Non 2016 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Ghaseminia et al., fig. 4E; Coniacian – Santonian, Iranian Zagros [indeterminate fragment that cannot be assigned to a genus].</p><p>Non 2016 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Kazemzadeh &amp; Loftpoor, pl. 2, fig. 6; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [indeterminate fragment, but unlikely to be Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>? 2016 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Rikhtegarzadeh et al., pl. 1, figs. 3-5; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros. [= Dicyclina / Cuneolina sp.].</p><p>? 2016 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Dehghani et al., pl. 2, fig. 7; Campanian-Maastrichtian, Iranian Zagros [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>? 2016 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Assadi et al., fig. 6(b2); Cenomanian-Turonian, Iranian Zagros [indeterminate fragment].</p><p>? 2017 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Consorti et al., fig. 3A; late Santonian? – middle Campanian, Italy [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>? 2017 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Rikhtegarzadeh et al., pl. 1, fig. 3; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [axial section that may be D. simplex or D. schlumbergeri].</p><p>? 2017 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Koç, fig. 10D; Santonian-early Campanian, central Taurides, Türkiye [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>? 2017 Dicyclina schlumbergeri [sic] – Jamalpour et al., pl. 2d; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>2018 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Schlagintweit &amp; Rashidi, fig. 7a-f; late Maastrichtian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>Non 2019 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Saedi Razavi et al., pl. 1, fig. 3; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [= D. sampoi].</p><p>Non 2018 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Omidi et al., pl. 2, fig. 9; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [= D. simplex].</p><p>2019 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Omaña et al., p. 711, fig. 10 (g-j); middle-late Cenomanian, Mexico.</p><p>? 2019 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Özkan &amp; Altıner, fig. 9 (1-2); Cenomanian, southeast Türkiye [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>Non 2019 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Alloul, fig. III.9C; Cenomanian, southwest Algeria. [= D. qatarensis].</p><p>2019 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Villalonga et al., p. 29, pl. 12(a-f); middle Campanian, Spanish Pyrenees.</p><p>? 2020 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Sinanoğlu et al., pl. 1, fig. 19; Maastrichtian, Turkish Arabian Plate [axial section only].</p><p>? 2020 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Consorti, fig. 3B; Late Cretaceous, central Italy [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>? 2020 Cuneolina pavonia d’Orbigny – Solak et al., fig. 11N; late Cenomanian, western Taurides, Türkiye [probably best regarded as Dicyclina / Cuneolina sp.].</p><p>? 2020 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Fabbi et al., fig. 5 (l, n); Santonian, Italy [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>2021 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Bagherpour et al., fig. 12h; Coniacian-Santonian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>Non 2021 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Gholamalian &amp; Fanati Rashidi, pl. 3, figs 4-5; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [= indeterminate foraminifera, not Dicyclina].</p><p>? 2021 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Saedi Razavi et al., pl. 1, fig. 3; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [axial section of D. simplex or D. schlumbergeri].</p><p>2021 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Özkan, fig. 11(12); Campanian, Turkish Arabian Plate.</p><p>? 2021 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Sinanoğlu, p. 277, pl. 1, fig. 19; Maastrichtian, Turkish Arabian Plate.</p><p>? 2021 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Dousti-Mohajer et al., pl. 2, fig. u; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>Non 2021 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Radmacher et al., pl. 1, figs. 8 (cf.), 9; Albian-Santonian, Guatemala [= Cuneolina pavonia].</p><p>? 2021 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Shapourikia et al., fig. 8f; Turonian [?], Iranian Zagros [= Dicyclina / Cuneolina sp.].</p><p>? 2022 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Dousti-Mohajer et al., fig. 4k; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>? 2022 Dicyclina shlumbergri (sic) – Al-Dulaimi et al., pl. 1D; middle-late Cenomanian, southern Iraq [effectively indeterminate].</p><p>? 2022 Dicyclina cf. schlumbergeri – Ghanbarloo et al., fig. 4k;?fig. 6d; Maastrichtian, Iranian Zagros [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>? 2022 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Esfandyari et al., fig. 25a; Cenomanian-Turonian, Iranian Zagros [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>2023a Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Mehrabi et al., fig. 11 (C-D); Santonian, Persian Gulf.</p><p>? 2023b Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Mehrabi et al., fig. 6(R); Turonian, Iranian Zagros [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>? 2023b Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Schlagintweit et al., fig. 3E, H, L; Campanian, Croatia [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>Non 2023 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Al-Salihi &amp; Ibrahim, pl. 1, fig. E, pl. 3, fig. f; middle – late Cenomanian, southern Iraq [? = D. sampoi and D. qatarensis].</p><p>? 2024 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Božović et al., fig. 3(c); Turonian – Santonian, Montenegro [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>Reference Images: Luperto-Sinni &amp; Richetti (1978), pl. 47, figs. 1-7; pl. 48, figs. 1-6; pl. 49, figs. 1-6; Cvetko Tešović et al., (2001) figs. 6D- H; Schlagintweit &amp; Rashidi (2018) fig. 7a-f; Villalonga et al. (2019) pl. 12, figs. a-f.</p><p>Taxonomy/Identity: First described from the Senonian of the Étang de Berre, Bouches-du-Rhône province of France by Munier-Chalmas (1877), the original types of D. schlumbergeri are said to be lost (Cherchi &amp; Schroeder, 1990a). The species was later recorded from the Île Madame, Charente-Maritime department by Schlumberger &amp; Choffat (1904) from which population Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1964) designated a lectotype. This, however, is not valid according to Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1990a) because the specimen does not come from the type locality, nor, in fact, does it belong to D. schlumbergeri (it is D. simplex).</p><p>Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1990a) chose a neotype based on an axial section previously illustrated by Gendrot (1968) from the Coniacian of the Étang de Berre locality .</p><p>Cvetko Tešović et al. (2001) noted that specimens of D. schlumbergeri from the Campanian of Croatia indicated a value of 5-7 annular chambers per mm of radius (see also Table 5). They also described the structure of the embryonic apparatus, situated in the centre of the test, noting that is composed of an irregular ellipsoidal or globular embryonic chamber followed by a subembryonic zone. The upper part of the embryonic chamber shows a well-developed layer of subepidermal chambers (chamberlets), which are sometimes subdivided by very short septula. The dimensions of the embryonic apparatus range from 0.82 – 1.2 mm, which is larger than type material from the Coniacian of France: 0.65 – 0.95 mm (Cherchi &amp; Schroeder, 1990a). Thus, they speculated this was a consequence of the phylogenetic evolution of D. schlumbergeri during the Late Cretaceous.</p><p>Following Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1990a), Cvetko Tešović et al. (2001) noted that the wall of D. schlumbergeri can display a pseudokeriothecal texture. The fine size of these features led them to believe that these served to facilitate exchange of gases rather than house algal symbionts. The features are most likely (or similar to) the “egg holder” structures of Hottinger (2006; fig. 40) which facilitate gas-exchange of the housed symbiont and thus are not mutually exclusive.</p><p>Specimens from the late Maastrichtian of the Iranian Zagros by Schlagintweit &amp; Rashidi (2018; fig. 7a, b &amp; e) show that the approximate number of radial elements per quadrant of D. schlumbergeri is approximately 20-?25. These are useful biometric data not mentioned in the type descriptions, and confirm the qualitative assessment of differences between D. schlumbergeri and D. qatarensis by Henson (1948b), the former species having lower annular and radial element densities than the latter (see below).</p><p>D. simplex is smaller than D. schlumbergeri and the post-embryonic disc is also, relatively, the thickest of all the Dicyclina species. D . sampoi has characteristically hook-shaped septa in transverse section (even “S”-shaped in some views) compared with the more curved, “C”- shaped septa of other species, and with subepidermal partitions confined to attachment to the inside of the outer wall and not both the wall and septa like D. schlumbergeri . This results in a smoother outline to the wall, without the depressed sutures seen in D. simplex and D. schlumbergeri . However, there are specimens with the embryonic apparatus of D. sampoi that show rafters attached to the septal wall (see Omidvar et al., 2014b; fig. fig. 3.10 and Solak et al. 2020; fig. 10U), thus the clear secondary partitions in the subembryonic zone of the embryonic apparatus of D. sampoi may be the best evidence for clear identity since in D. schlumbergeri they are absent or, at best, rare. It is probable that (along with the rather convoluted taxonomic history), specimens not clearly showing these features which otherwise distinguish species of D. qatarensis, D. simplex and D. sampoi are often “by default” labelled as D. schlumbergeri .</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: middle – late Cenomanian (local range in Mexico only); common records from Coniacian – Maastrichtian elsewhere.</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: Not applicable although Turonian records could be anticipated and exist in unconfirmed records, although we know of none.</p><p>Despite the many records of D. schlumbergeri in the published literature, only a relatively small proportion are illustrated, and of those only a few can be confidently identified. Therefore, confident assessment of stratigraphic range is based a small amount of material.</p><p>The published stratigraphic range of D. schlumbergeri is confused by imprecise use of the species name. Prior to the introduction of D. simplex and D. sampoi by Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1990a, b) almost all records of Dicyclina were assigned to D. schlumbergeri and even today the name continues to be applied with a lack of precision. Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1990a) suggested that as the phylogenetic descendant of D. simplex, D. schlumbergeri might be a Coniacian and younger species. This notion has been followed by a number of authors including Cvetko Tešović et al. (2001), Velić (2007), Chiocchini et al. (2012), Schlagintweit &amp; Rashidi (2018) and Schlagintweit &amp; Yazdi-Moghadam (2021). This phenomenon was first hinted at by Henson (1948b) with his separation of D. qatarensis (supposedly Cenomanian) and D. schlumbergeri (supposedly younger) (see also archive records in Le Blanc, 2015).</p><p>This appears to be partially correct (i.e., that verified records from the Mediterranean region and Arabian Plate are Coniacian – Maastrichtian), but there are several verified records from middle – late Cenomanian in Mexico only (Aguilera-Franco, 2000; Omaña et al., 2013, 2019). This suggests the species arose in the Caribbean and then migrated eastwards to the Mediterranean and Arabian Plate where it replaced other Dicyclina species by the Coniacian, or that there is a more complex pattern of evolution with homeomorphy and repetition of phylogeny from a Cuneolina ancestor. As noted above, Cvetko Tešović et al. (2001) suggested that the embryonic apparatus of D. schlumbergeri increases in size through its Coniacian – Maastrichtian evolution.</p><p>Geographic Distribution: Validated records of this species have a wide stratigraphic distribution from Mexico, across much of the Mediterranean, and from the Arabian Plate. It is also reported from Florida (Applin &amp; Applin, 1965). Interestingly, the occurrences from Mexico are distinctly older (Cenomanian) than those elsewhere which are Coniacian – Maastrichtian.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A59FFA21F14F955FA9CFD54	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A52FFA11FD2FC95FDDBFD9F.text	039B87F95A52FFA11FD2FC95FDDBFD9F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dicyclina qatarensis Henson 1948	<div><p>Dicyclina qatarensis Henson, 1948b</p><p>Figure 23</p><p>T 1948b Dicyclina qatarensis n. sp. Henson, p. 622, pl. XIV, fig. 8; Cenomanian, Qatar.</p><p>Non 1961 Dicyclina cf. qatarensis – Hamaoui, pl. 1, figs. 2-6; Cenomanian, Israel [?= D. schlumbergeri].</p><p>1998 Dicyclina qatarensis – Whittaker et al., p. 31, pl. 48, figs. 5-7; Cenomanian, Palestine / Israel &amp; Qatar.</p><p>2008 Dicyclina qatarensis – BouDagher-Fadel, pl. 5.3, figs. 8-9; Cenomanian, Qatar.</p><p>? 2008 Cuneolina sp. – Ahmadi et al., pl. 2, fig. 3; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2009 Dicyclina sampoi Cherchi &amp; Schroeder – Ismail et al., p. 402, pl. 2, figs. 3, 5, 9 (not 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10-11); late Cenomanian, Egypt.</p><p>2013 Dicyclina qatarensis – Ghanem &amp; Kuss, fig. 14 (20, 48-50); late Cenomanian, Syria.</p><p>? 2014 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Afghah &amp; Fadaei, fig. 7(g); early Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [fragment illustrated with a high density of radial partitions; precision of age doubtful].</p><p>2018 Dicyclina qatarensis – BouDagher-Fadel, pl. 5.11, figs. 1-3; pl. 5.12, figs. 8-9; Cenomanian, Qatar.</p><p>2018 Dicyclina qatarensis – Omidi et al., pl. 2, fig. 10; Turonian [?], Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2019 Dicyclina schlumbergeri Munier-Chalmas – Alloul, fig. III.9C; Cenomanian, southwest Algeria.</p><p>? 2023 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Al-Salihi &amp; Ibrahim, pl. 3, fig. F; middle – late Cenomanian, southern Iraq.</p><p>Reference Images: Whittaker et al. (1998) pl. 48, figs. 5-7.</p><p>Taxonomy/Identity: The limited illustrated records and the poor-quality type material provide challenges for firm identity of this species. The original type material of Henson (1948b) shows no embryonic chambers and only a limited number of sections (see also Whittaker et al., 1998). Even subsequent illustrations (see synonymy list above) provide only limited additional observations. Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1990b) regarded it as an “… unrecognisable species ”. Nevertheless, D. qatarensis appears distinguishable at least from D. schlumbergeri and even D. simplex and D. sampoi in having a characteristically very large number (c. 100/quadrant) of densely-packed radial partitions (“beams”) and chamberlets. It is possible that D. qatarensis is a microspheric form of another species of Dicyclina, probably D. sampoi given that D. schlumbergeri appears to be absent from the Cenomanian of Arabia (although is present in younger strata). However, that is impossible to prove without access to populations in which both “taxa” are present. Herein, we retain the use of the name D. qatarensis for specimens of Dicyclina that have distinctive densely packed radial partitions and chamberlets – however, see for example some illustrations of D. sampoi by Ismail et al. (2009) and Figure 24 below.</p><p>Hamaoui (1961) stated that his illustrated records of D. cf. qatarensis (pl. 7, figs. 2-6 therein) “… strongly resemble Dicyclina qatarensis …” (p. 13). However, we believe the partial subequatorial oblique section of Hamaoui (1961: pl. 7, fig. 2) does not show the characteristically densely-packed radial partitions (c. 100/quadrant) typical of D. qatarensis that it purports to, and that the transverse section (pl. 7, fig. 3) shows chambers very similar to those of D. schlumbergeri (see Figure 21 b-c herein). If correct, this would be the only record of D. schlumbergeri in the Cenomanian from outside Mexico, but on the meagre evidence available, must be regarded as doubtful.</p><p>D. qatarensis is sometimes erroneously recorded as D. qatarica (e.g., El-Naggar &amp; Al-Rifaiy, 1972, 1973; Al-Salihi &amp; Ibrahim, 2023 and also by Hamoui, 1961 (p. 7), in what must be a lapsus calami).</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: middle – late Cenomanian.</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: Turonian.</p><p>The types from Qatar (Henson, 1948b) are almost certainly Cenomanian (association with Praealveolina reported by Le Blanc, 2015). Other illustrated records of this species are from the middle – late Cenomanian or undifferentiated Cenomanian. The exception is that of Omidi et al. (2018) that is said to be from the Turonian part of the Sarvak Formation of the Iranian Zagros, although proof of this age is not compelling from the data presented. The early Cenomanian record of Afghah &amp; Fig. 24. Comparison between features of D. qatarensis (a-c. Whittaker et al., 1998; d. Henson, 1948b; e. BouDagher-Fadel, 2018), and those of D. sampoi (B-form) (f-l. Ismail et al., 2009). Similarities suggest the two taxa may be synonymous.</p><p>Fadaei (2014) is uncertain, at least in terms of identity and very doubtful in terms of age.</p><p>Geographic Distribution: This species appears to be restricted to Egypt and the Arabian Plate (Eastern Neotethys). Although the type material was from Qatar, Henson (1948b) also reported the species from Jordan, the Levant region and Iran. In addition, Whittaker et al. (1998) reported it from Iraq, Kuwait and Yemen although it is possible that some of these records are referable to other Dicyclina species, especially D. schlumbergeri, as Whittaker et al. (1998) report an unexplained age-range for D. qatarensis as Turonian-Maastrichtian.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A52FFA11FD2FC95FDDBFD9F	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A51FFA11C88FDCAFBAFFEC0.text	039B87F95A51FFA11C88FDCAFBAFFEC0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dicyclina simplex Cherchi & Schroeder 1990	<div><p>Dicyclina simplex Cherchi &amp; Schroeder, 1990a</p><p>Figure 25</p><p>1964 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Loeblich &amp; Tappan, p. C303, fig. 209 (1a-1b); middle Cenomanian, France.</p><p>1967 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Neumann, pl. 55, fig. 2; middle Cenomanian, western France.</p><p>1987 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Loeblich &amp; Tappan, pl. 157, figs. 8-10; middle Cenomanian, western France.</p><p>T 1990a Dicyclina simplex n. sp. Cherchi &amp; Schroeder, p. 331, figs. 1-4; middle Cenomanian, western France.</p><p>1998 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Charrière et al., fig. 4 (3a, 6); late Cenomanian, Morocco.</p><p>2009 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Sari et al., pl. 3, figs. 8- 9; age uncertain, reworked, Turkish Taurides.</p><p>? 2013 Dicyclina sampoi – Ghanem &amp; Kuss, fig. 13 (20- 21); middle Cenomanian, Syria.</p><p>? 2017 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Rikhtegarzadeh et al., pl. 1, fig. 3; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [axial section that may be D. simplex or D. schlumbergeri].</p><p>2018 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Omidi et al., pl. 2, fig. 9; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>? 2021 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Saedi Razavi et al., pl. 1, fig. 3; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [axial section of D. simplex or D. schlumbergeri].</p><p>Reference Images: Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1990a), figs. 1-4.</p><p>Taxonomy/Identity: D. simplex, first described from the middle Cenomanian of France, is the smallest of the Dicyclina species (max. diameter c. 3mm). It also has the most spherical and simple embryo compared with D. schlumbergeri and D. sampoi (the embryo of D. qatarensis has not been properly observed). It also has (relatively) the thickest post-embryonic test thickness of all Dicyclina species.</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: middle – late Cenomanian.</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: not applicable.</p><p>There are relatively few verified records of this species that was introduced by Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1990a) for material previously assigned to D. schlumbergeri from the middle Cenomanian of western France. The only other well dated record is that of Charrière et al. (1998) from the late Cenomanian of Morocco. Others (e.g. Omidi et al., 2018) have an undifferentiated Cenomanian age (but probably middle – late Cenomanian), whilst that of Sari et al. (2009) represents reworked material.</p><p>Geographic Distribution: Sporadic distribution, including western France, Morocco, the Turkish Taurides and Iranian Zagros.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A51FFA11C88FDCAFBAFFEC0	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A51FFA71F2CFE21FED3FA0E.text	039B87F95A51FFA71F2CFE21FED3FA0E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dicyclina sampoi Cherchi & Schroeder 1990	<div><p>Dicyclina sampoi Cherchi &amp; Schroeder, 1990b</p><p>Figure 26</p><p>? 1965 Dicyclina sp – Hamaoui, pl. 13, fig. 12; Cenomanian, Israel.</p><p>1969 Dicyclina sp. – Sampò, pl. 43, fig. 8 (non pl. 43, fig. 16;? pl. 43, figs. 7, 9, 14, 15); middle – late Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>1988 Dicyclina sp. – Sartorio &amp; Venturini, p. 114 (upper fig.); Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>T 1990b Dicyclina sampoi n. sp. Cherchi &amp; Schroeder, p. 204-210, figs. 10-23; middle-late Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2009 Dicyclina sampoi – Ismail et al., p. 402, pl. 2, figs. 1-11 [not 3, 5, 9 =? D. qatarensis – see that species herein]; late Cenomanian, Egypt.</p><p>2012 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Rahimpour-Bonab et al., fig. 8G; Cenomanian – Turonian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2013 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Rahimpour-Bonab et al., fig. 8U; Turonian (?), Iranian Zagros.</p><p>Non 2013 Dicyclina sampoi – Ghanem &amp; Kuss, fig. 13 (20-21); middle Cenomanian, Syria. [=? D. simplex].</p><p>2014b Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Omidvar et al., fig. 3.10; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros ( fide Schlagintweit &amp; Rashidi, 2018).</p><p>2018 Dicyclina sampoi – Schlagintweit &amp; Rashidi, fig. 6; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>? 2018 Dicyclina sampoi – Omidi et al., pl. 2, fig. 11; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>2019 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Saedi Razavi et al., pl. 1, fig. 3; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros.</p><p>2020 Dicyclina sampoi – Solak et al., fig. 10U; late Cenomanian, Western Taurides, Türkiye.</p><p>? 2021 Dicyclina sampoi – Gholamalian &amp; Fanati Rashidi, pl. 3, figs 2-3; Cenomanian, Iranian Zagros [= Dicyclina sp.].</p><p>? 2023 Dicyclina schlumbergeri – Al-Salihi &amp; Ibrahim, pl. 1, fig. E; middle – late Cenomanian, southern Iraq.</p><p>Reference Images: Schlagintweit &amp; Rashidi (2018) fig. 6; Solak et al. (2020); fig. 10U.</p><p>Taxonomy/Identity: First described from the middle-late Cenomanian of the Iranian Zagros by Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1990b), based in part upon an illustration of a Dicyclina sp. by Sartorio &amp; Venturini (1988), D. sampoi differs from other Dicyclina species in the characteristically hook-shaped nature of its septa in transverse section (even “S”-shaped in some views, perhaps depending on section orientation) and with subepidermal partitions confined to attachment to the inside of the outer wall and not both the wall and septa like D. schlumbergeri (however, see below). It may be difficult to observe but the secondary chamberlets in the upper part of the supra-embryonic zone and the lower part of the sub-embryonic zone are also less well developed in D. schlumbergeri .</p><p>Cherchi &amp; Schroeder (1990b) stated that “… D. sampoi cannot be integrated in the evolutionary lineage characterised by D. simplex and D. schlumbergeri …” (1990b, p. 210 as hypothesised by them in 1990a) and conclude that this demonstrates polyphyletic origins of Dicyclina species. They suggest a “European” origin for D. schlumbergeri and D. simplex and a Near and Middle East origin for D. sampoi .</p><p>Cherchi &amp; Schroeder’s types (1990b) show transverse chamber partitions (“rafters”) confined to the inner side of the outer wall between the septa and they describe this feature as one of the ways of distinguishing D. sampoi from D. schlumbergeri (which has rafters on both surfaces). However, some illustrated occurrences of D. sampoi appear to also show rafters on the inner part of the septal wall as well as the chamber roof (e.g., see Rahimpour-Bonab et al., 2012, fig. 8G; Rahimpour-Bonab et al., 2013, fig. 8U; Omidvar et al., 2014b, fig. 3(10); Solak et al., 2020, fig. 10U). It is possible, therefore, that that these two species may only be distinguished by their respective supra- and subembryonic characteristics.</p><p>The specimen of D. sampoi illustrated by Ghanem &amp; Kuss (2013) from Syria (especially fig. 13(20)) does not show the characteristic “hook- shaped” septa of D. sampoi in transverse view, whilst the embryonic apparatus (fig. 13(21)) seems to fit that of D. simplex .</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: middle – late Cenomanian (common).</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: Turonian.</p><p>The species was first described (as Dicyclina sp.) from probable middle – late Cenomanian of the Iranian Zagros (Sampò, 1969; Cherchi &amp; Schroeder, 1990b). Since then, it has been recorded from the late Cenomanian of the Turkish Taurides (Solak et al., 2020) and Egypt (Ismail et al., 2009). Most records come from the undifferentiated Cenomanian of the Zagros (e.g. Schlagintweit &amp; Rashidi, 2018), although Rahimpour-Bonab et al. (2013) present evidence that it can be found in the Turonian part of the Sarvak Formation in this region. However, the very same specimen illustrated is given an undifferentiated Cenomanian – Turonian age by Rahimpour-Bonab et al. (2012) and a Cenomanian age by Omidvar et al. (2014b).</p><p>Geographic Distribution: The vast majority of verified records of this species come from the Iranian Zagros with a single record from Egypt and a record from the Turkish Taurides.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A51FFA71F2CFE21FED3FA0E	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A57FFA41CDAFA5BFD33FC12.text	039B87F95A57FFA41CDAFA5BFD33FC12.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dictyopsellidae Bronnimann, Zaninetti & Whittaker 1983	<div><p>Family DICTYOPSELLIDAE Brönnimann, Zaninetti &amp; Whittaker 1983 (diagnosis sensu Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1987)</p><p>Genera Dictyopsella Munier-Chalmas 1900 and</p><p>Conorbinella Poroshina 1976 (see Table 1 for diagnosis)</p><p>Unlike other genera discussed above, these two genera are discussed together in this section because of a rather convoluted suprageneric taxonomic history. The genus Dictyopsella (type species Dictyopsella kiliani Munier-Chalmas in Schlumberger, 1900), with or without its subfamily the Dictyopsellinae which would include Conorbinella (type species Conorbinella azerbaidjanica Poroshina, 1976), has had a varied history with regard to its higher classification, being placed at different times by different authors in the Trochamminidae, the Barkerinidae, the Ataxophragmiidae, the Remaneicidae and the Dictyopsellidae, and to the superfamilies Orbitolinacea and Loftusiacea (see Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1985b, for a discussion on this topic). This was due primarily to its internal complexity not being well understood.</p><p>Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1985b) transferred the Dictyopsellidae Brönnimann et al. (1983) to the superfamily Loftusiacea and included in it the genera Dictyopsella, Conorbinella and Dictyopselloides n. gen. However, they reverted the Dictyopsellidae family back to within the Ataxaophragmiacea (=Ataxophragmoidea) superfamily in their extensive 1987 treatment – though without an explicit explanation – and included a fourth genus in the family, Andamookia Ludbrook, 1966 . This position (within the order Loftusiida) was maintained by Kaminski (2014) and the WoRMS foraminiferal database (Hayward et al., 2025).</p><p>Dictyopsella is a low conical trochospiral genus which because of its complex internal structure was compared to the externally similar Coxites . However, the latter genus has an internal median plate which may bifurcate or digitate, whereas the former genus has many radiating radial partitions (beams) (Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1985b, 1987).</p><p>It is the nature of subepidermal “network” or “mesh” (comprised of radial beams and cross-cutting rafters) that seems, morphologically, to distinguish Dictyopsella from the three other genera in the family (note age-ranges taken from Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1987):</p><p>Conorbinella: radial partitions (beams) only [Barremian-Aptian (but possibly as young as Cenomanian – see below)]</p><p>Dictyopselloides: radial partitions (beams) with a few incipient rafters in later chambers [Santonian-?Campanian]</p><p>Andamookia: radial partitions (beams) with a few transverse rafters [Aptian]</p><p>Dictyopsella: radial partitions (beams) as well as intercalary beams extending from the outer wall towards the centre, and shallow secondary cross-cutting partitions (rafters) projecting inwards from upper and lower chamber surfaces forming a full sub-epidermal network [Cenomanian-Maastrichtian]</p><p>In some examples of Dictyopsella, the “mesh- like” nature of the subepidermal network can obscure the radial nature of the beams near the test surface (see Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1985b, figs. 1-5 and Figure 27d below).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A57FFA41CDAFA5BFD33FC12	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A54FFA41CE8FC5CFC3CFDD9.text	039B87F95A54FFA41CE8FC5CFC3CFDD9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dictyopsella charentensis Loeblich & Tappan 1985	<div><p>Dictyopsella charentensis Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1985b</p><p>Figure 27</p><p>T 1985b Dictyopsella charentensis Loeblich &amp; Tappan, p. 179, pl. 1, figs. 9-11; pl. 2, figs. 1-9; fig.1; Cenomanian, France.</p><p>Reference Images: Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1985b), p. 179, fig. 1; pl. 1, figs. 9-11; pl. 2, figs. 1-9. The holotype has been rephotographed and illustrated by the Smithsonian National Museum for Natural History: https://collections.nmnh.si.edu/search/paleo/?ark=ark:/65 665/31ddbcd412c514eddaa915bf61c9c7c2d</p><p>Taxonomy/Identity: Described by Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1985b, p. 179) as a “small lenticular Dictyopsella …” SEM illustrations nevertheless show a typical “discorbid” shape with a subcircular outline and a moderately concave umbilical side. Chambers are typically crescentic and evolute on the spiral side with strongly oblique, depressed sutures and typically subtriangular and involute on the umbilical side with slightly curved and depressed radial sutures. In umbilical view the final chamber occupies up to a third of the test circumference. The subepidermal network is distinct.</p><p>D. charentensis differs from the Santonian D. kiliani in being smaller, more lenticular, and in having a less extensive subepidermal network and from the Maastrichtian D. hofkeri Loeblich &amp; Tappan, 1985b in having a smaller umbilicus and depressed sutures. Another Santonian form, D. muretae Hottinger, 1967, has more numerous chambers (8-14 cf. 6-7). Dictyopsella chalmasi Schlumberger, 1900 has been shown to belong to the genus Hemicyclammina (Caus et al., 1978) .</p><p>Dictyopsella cuvillieri Gendrot, 1968 was designated the type species of Dictyopsellinoides by Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1985, and re-confirmed by Sun &amp; Schlagintweit, 2024). The early Turonian Dictyopsella fragilis Hercogová, 1988 is impossible to assess further due to the lack of detail on the internal structure.</p><p>Apart from Loeblich &amp; Tappan’s record from France, there seems to be no further mention of this species in the literature concerning other occurrences.</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: Cenomanian (undifferentiated).</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: not applicable.</p><p>Geographic Distribution: Western Neotethys (France).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A54FFA41CE8FC5CFC3CFDD9	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
039B87F95A54FFA51F34FD09FB4DFA48.text	039B87F95A54FFA51F34FD09FB4DFA48.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Conorbinella libanica (Saint-Marc 1973)	<div><p>Conorbinella? libanica (Saint-Marc, 1973)</p><p>Figure 28</p><p>T 1973 Dictyopsella libanica n. sp. – Saint-Marc, p. 410, pl. 1-2; early Cenomanian, Lebanon.</p><p>1974 Dictyopsella libanica – Saint-Marc, p.221, pl. 1, figs. 12-18; late Albian, Lebanon.</p><p>? 1979 Dictyopsella sp. – Velić &amp; Sokač, pl. 3, fig. 8; late Albian, Croatia.</p><p>1981 Dictyopsella libanica – Saint-Marc, pl. 1, figs. 8-10; late Albian, Lebanon.</p><p>? 1985 Dictyopsella sp. – Bilotte, pl. 4, fig. 2; Cenomanian, French Pyrenees.</p><p>? 1990 Dobrogelina ? cf. angulata – Bilotte &amp; Pamouktchiev, pl. 1, figs. 5-10; Albian, Bulgaria.</p><p>? 2015 Dictyopsella cf. libanica – Schlagintweit et al., fig. 5h; early-middle Cenomanian, Spain.</p><p>? 2021 Dictyopsella sp. – Rineau et al., fig. 7k; late Cenomanian, southern France.</p><p>Reference Images: Saint-Marc (1973), pl. 1-2, p. 410. Taxonomy/Identity: First described as Dictyoconella libanica from the early Cenomanian of Lebanon by Saint-Marc (1973), he indicated (his new species has a “ system of shallow subepidermal blades ” (i.e., beams herein) with another “ system of blades more or less perpendicular to the previous ones …” (i.e., rafters herein) which are “ much less well developed ”. He went on to state that the combination of these groups of blades constituted “ a sketch of a network ”. Furthermore, he distinguished D. libanica from all known species of the genus by its “ poorly developed sub-epidermal network ”.</p><p>However, of Saint-Marc’s (1973) 45 illustrations, only one (pl. 1, fig. 1; the holotype) shows hints of a partial “network”. This led Loeblich &amp; Tappan (1985b) to conclude that this lack of a distinctive subepidermal mesh justified the species’ removal from Dictyopsella and suggested that it “may be” a Conorbinella, a position we have tentatively followed here. However, the hint of at least a partial network does not therefore exclude assignment to Dictyopselloides .</p><p>Confident Stratigraphic Range: late Albian – middle Cenomanian.</p><p>Uncertain Stratigraphic Range: late Cenomanian.</p><p>The age range of this species is difficult to assess. Saint-Marc (1973) first recorded his new species from the early Cenomanian of Lebanon but subsequently restricted the species’ range to the late Albian (1974b; Table 3; 1981). Schlagintweit et al. (2015) recorded and illustrated a form Dictyopsella cf. libanica from the early-middle Cenomanian of the Altimira Formation of Spain. That specimen shows radial beams but no signs of rafters and no hint of any “mesh- like” subepidermal network and therefore the identity is questionable</p><p>It was recorded (but unillustrated) under the same name from the Mauddud Formation (late Albian-early Cenomanian) of the Northern Arabian Gulf by Awa (1987).</p><p>It was also recorded (as Dictyopsella libanica) from the middle Cenomanian part of the Villa de Vés Formation of Spain by Vicedo et al. (2011) and from the late Cenomanian part of the Casa Medina Formation of Spain by Caus et al. (2009) but was unillustrated in both cases .</p><p>Berthou (1984) reports two taxa named as Dictyopsella cf. kiliani and Dictyopsella cf. libanica from the late Cenomanian – early Turonian of Portugal, but no illustration or description is provided (see also Crosaz-Galletti, 1979).</p><p>Geographic Distribution: Although not well known or widely recorded, the above references suggest a distribution in Mediterranean Neotethys.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039B87F95A54FFA51F34FD09FB4DFA48	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;Consorti, Lorenzo;Schlagintweit, Felix	Simmons, Michael, Bidgood, Michael, Consorti, Lorenzo, Schlagintweit, Felix (2025): A Review Of The Identity And Biostratigraphy Of Cenomanian “ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera: Part 2 - The Order Loftusiida (Excluding The Suborder Orbitolinina). Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 21 (1): 103-192, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07, URL: https://doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2025.01.07
