Peneroplis de Montfort 1808

Schönfeld, Joachim & Lübbers, Julia, 2020, Checklist, assemblage composition, and biogeographic assessment of Recent benthic foraminifera (Protista, Rhizaria) from São Vincente, Cape Verdes, Zootaxa 4731 (2), pp. 151-192 : 157

Genus Peneroplis de Montfort 1808

Peneroplis carinatus d’Orbigny 1839a , p. 33, pl. 3, figs. 7, 8 [Plate 2, Fig. 13, Plate 5, Fig. 4]. Wright & Hay (1971), p. 33, pl. 13, fig. 9. Javaux & Scott (2003), p. 17, figs. 3.10 and 3.11. Araujo & Machado (2008), p. 38, pl. 1, figs. 10, 11. “ Laevipeneroplis carinatus ” Sanchez (2010) , p. 160, p. 1, fig. 6. Note: the markedly lower chamber height, a higher number of chambers, and the closed umbilicus discriminates this species from Peneroplis proteus .

Peneroplis pertusus (Forskål) = Nautilus pertusus Forskål 1775, p. 125 , no. 65 [Plate 2, Fig. 8, Plate 5, Figs. 6,7]. Cushman (1930b), p. 35, pl. 12, figs. 3–6. Bock (1971), p. 34, pl. 13, fig. 10. Jones (1994), p. 29, pl. 13, figs. 16–17, 23. Mouanga (2017), p. 211, pl. 10, figs. 18–19. Note: One specimen of the dead assemblage from Baia das Gatas has developed a rectilinear stage similar to Coscinospira arietina ( Batsch 1791) . The aperture constitutes a series of pores in the depression on the apertural face of the last chamber, some are bordered by a lip, which is a diagnistic feature of Peneroplis .

Peneroplis proteus d’Orbigny = Peneroplis protea d’Orbigny 1839b, p. 60 , pl. 7, figs. 7–11. Cushman (1930b), p. 37, pl. 13, figs. 1–17. Bock (1971), p. 34, pl. 13, fig. 11. Jones (1994), p. 29, pl. 14, figs. 3, 4.