Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-31T19:11:44.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The foraminiferal genera Pararotalia, Neorotalia, and Calcarina: taxonomic revision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Lukas Hottinger ,
Elwira Halicz  and
Zeev Reiss
Lukas Hottinger
Affiliation:
1Geologisch-Palaeontologisches Institut der Universitaet Basel, Bernoullistrasse 32, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland
Elwira Halicz
Affiliation:
2Department of Geology, Institute of Earth-Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 91904 Giv'at Ram, Jerusalem, Israel
Zeev Reiss
Affiliation:
2Department of Geology, Institute of Earth-Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 91904 Giv'at Ram, Jerusalem, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scanning electron microscopy of the architecture of Rotalina inermis Terquem, 1882, the type-species of the genus Pararotalia Le Calvez, 1949, and of Rotalia mexicana Nuttall, 1928, the type-species of the genus Neorotalia Bermudez, 1952, reveals that both taxa have in common: 1) an umbilical bowl closed by either a single or a compound umbilical plug; 2) an interiomarginal extraumbilical aperture, restricted by a toothplate that protrudes with a free edge into the aperture and forms an umbilical spiral canal; and 3) a septal flap and intraseptal interlocular spaces. Rotalia mexicana, however, also possesses an enveloping canal-system, similar to that found in the Calcarinidae. For this reason Neorotalia must be regarded as a valid distinct genus, not synonymous with Pararotalia, as proposed by some authors. Calcarina calcar d'Orbigny, 1839, variously placed by authors in Rotalia Lamarck, 1804, in Pararotalia Le Calvez, 1949, and lately again in Calcarina d'Orbigny, 1826, is shown to possess the same basic architecture as Neorotalia and is placed, consequently, into this latter genus. Irregular supplementary apertures occurring in N. calcar are not considered of generic value and neither are they regarded as indicating a relationship with Nautilus spengleri Gmelin, 1788, the type-species of Calcarina. The latter, although characterized by a complex enveloping canal-system, possesses primary multiple interioareal main apertures, surrounded by thick rims, as well as a small umbilical plate, but lacks a toothplate with a free edge. For comparison, Pararotalia spinigera (Le Calvez, 1949) and Neorotalia viennoti (Greig, 1935) were also studied. The subfamily Pararotaliinae Reiss, 1963, is emended to include the canal-system as a characteristic feature. A glossary of selected terms is appended.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 65 , Issue 1 , January 1991 , pp. 18 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © The Journal of Paleontology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bermudez, P. J. 1952. Estudio sistematico de los foraminiferos ro-taliformes. Boletin de Geologia, Venezuela, 2(4):1–230.Google Scholar
Brady, H. B. 1884. Report on the foraminifera dredged by H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873–1876. Reports of the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger (Zoology), 9, 814 p.Google Scholar
Brünnich, M. T. 1772. Brünnich Zoologiae Fundamenta. Hafniae et Lipsiae, Grunde i Dyeloeren, 253 p.Google Scholar
Cushman, J. A. 1927. An outline of a reclassification of the foraminifera. Contributions from the Cushman Laboratory for Foraminiferal Research, 3:1–105.Google Scholar
DeBourle, A. 1955. Cuvillierina eocenica, nouveau genre et nouvelle espèce de foraminifère de l'Ypresien d'Aquitaine. Compte Rendu des Séances de la Société Géologique de France, 1955:19.Google Scholar
DeLage, Y. and Hérouard, E. 1896. Traité de Zoologie Concrete. 1. La Cellule et les Protozoaires. Schleicher Fréres, Paris, 584 p.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, C. G. 1839. Über die Bildung der Kreidefelsen und des Kreidemergels durch unsichtbare Organismen. Physikalische Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1838 [1840: separate 1839]:59–147.Google Scholar
Gmelin, J. F. 1788–1793. Systema naturae Linnaei, 1(6):3021–3909, Vermes (13th ed.). G. E. Beer, Lipsiae, Germania.Google Scholar
Greig, D. A. 1935. Rotalia viennoti, an important foraminiferal species from Asia Minor and western Asia. Journal of Paleontology, 9:524.Google Scholar
Hansen, H. J. 1981. On Lorentz Spengler and a neotype for the foraminifer Calcarina spengleri . Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark, 29:191–201.Google Scholar
Hansen, H. J., and Reiss, Z. 1971. Electron microscopy of rotaliacean wall structures. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark, 10:329–346.Google Scholar
Hofker, J. 1927. The foraminifera of the Siboga Expedition, Pt. 1, Tinoporidae, Rotaliidae, Nummulitidae, Amphisteginidae. E. J. Brill, Leiden, 74 p.Google Scholar
Hofker, J., 1951. The toothplate Foraminifera. Archives Néerlandaises de Zoologie, 8:353–372.Google Scholar
Hofker, J. 1957. Foraminifera from the Cretaceous of Southern Limburg, Netherlands, XXIV. The development of Pararotalia tuberculifera (Reuss). Natuurhistorisch Maandblad, 46(3–4):31–39.Google Scholar
Hofker, J. 1970. Studies of foraminifera. Part II, Systematic problems. Publicaties van het Natuurhistorisch Genootschap in Limburg, 20:1–98.Google Scholar
Hottinger, L. 1978. Comparative anatomy of elementary shell structures in selected large foraminifera, p. 203–266. In Hedley, R. H. and Adams, C. G. (eds.), Foraminifera, Vol. 3. Academic Press, Inc., London.Google Scholar
Hottinger, L., and Dreher, D. 1974. Differentiation of protoplasm in Nummulitidae (Foraminifera) from Elat, Red Sea. Marine Biology, 25:41–61.Google Scholar
Hottinger, L., Halicz, E., and Reiss, Z. In press. Architecture of Eponides and Poroeponides reexamined. Micropaleontology.Google Scholar
Hottinger, L., and Leutenegger, S. 1980. The structure of calcarinid foraminifera. Schweizerische Paläontologische Abhandlungen, 101:115–151.Google Scholar
Hottinger, L., and Rosell, J. 1973. El Cretacico superior del Montsec. XIII. Coloquio europeo de micropaleontologia, p. 73–85. Empresa Nacional Adaro Investigaciones Mineras S.A., Madrid.Google Scholar
Lamarck, J. B. 1804. Suite des mémoires sur les fossiles des environs de Paris. Annales Museum National d'Historie Naturelle, 5:237–245.Google Scholar
Le Calvez, Y. 1949. Révision des foraminiféres Lutétiens du Bassin de Paris. II. Rotaliidae et families affines. Mémoires du Service de la Carte Géologique Detaillée de la France, p. 1–54.Google Scholar
Le Calvez, Y. 1952. Révision des Foraminifères Lutétiens du Bassin de Paris, IV. Valvulinidae, Peneroplidae, Ophthalmidiidae, Lagenidae. Mémoires du Service de la Carte Géologique Detaillée de la France, p. 1–64.Google Scholar
Le Calvez, Y. 1970. Contribution a l'étude des foraminifères Paleogènes du Bassin de Paris. Cahiers de Paléontologie, Paris, Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, p. 1–326.Google Scholar
Le Calvez, Y. 1977. Révision des foraminifères de la collection d'Orbigny. II—Foraminifères de l'ile de Cuba. Cahiers de Micropaléontologie, 1:1–127.Google Scholar
Levy, A., Mathieu, R., Poignant, A., Rosset-Moulinier, M., and Rouvillois, A. 1980. Révision de quelques genres de la famille Discorbidae (Foraminiferida) fondée sur l'observation de leur architecture interne. Révue de Micropaléontologie (1979), 22:66–88.Google Scholar
Loeblich, A. R. Jr., and Tappan, H. 1957. Morphology and taxonomy of the foraminiferal genus Pararotalia Le Calvez, 1949. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 135(2):1–24.Google Scholar
Loeblich, A. R. Jr., and Tappan, H. 1964. Sarcodina chiefly “thecamoebians” and Foraminiferida, p. C1–C900. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. C, Protista 2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Loeblich, A. R. Jr., and Tappan, H. 1987. Foraminiferal Genera and Their Classification. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, Vol. 1, 970 p., Vol. 2, 212 p.Google Scholar
Möbius, K. 1880. Foraminiferen von Mauritius, p. 65–112. In Möbius, K., Richter, F., and Martens, E. (eds), Beiträge zur Meeresfauna der Insel Mauritius und der Seychellen. Gutman, Berlin.Google Scholar
Müller-Merz, E. 1980. Strukturanalyse ausgewahlter rotaloider Foraminiferen [Structural analysis of selected rotaliid Foraminifera]. Schweizerische Paläontologische Abhandlungen, 101:5–70.Google Scholar
Nuttall, W. L. F. 1928. Notes on the Tertiary foraminifera of southern Mexico. Journal of Paleontology, 2:372–376.Google Scholar
Nuttall, W. L. F. 1932. Lower Oligocene foraminifera from Mexico. Journal of Paleontology, 6:32.Google Scholar
Orbigny, A. d'. 1826. Tableau metodique de la classe des Cephalopodes. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 7(1):245–314.Google Scholar
Orbigny, A. d'. 1839. Foraminifères, p. 1–224. In Bertrand, A. (ed.), Ramon de la Sagra, Histoire Physique et Naturelle de I'Ile de Cuba. Paris.Google Scholar
Poag, C. W. 1966. Paynes Hammock (Lower Miocene?) foraminifera of Alabama and Mississippi. Micropaleontology, 12:393–440.Google Scholar
Reiss, Z. 1963. Reclassification of perforate foraminifera. Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Israel, 35:1–111.Google Scholar
Reiss, Z., and Hottinger, L. 1984. The Gulf of Aqaba—Ecological Micropaleontology. Ecological Studies 50, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 354 p.Google Scholar
Reiss, Z., and Merling, P. 1958. Structure of some Rotaliidea. Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Israel, 21:1–19.Google Scholar
Saidova, K. H. 1981. O sovremennom sostoyanii sistemy nadvidovykh taksonov Kaynozoyskikh bentosnykh foraminifer [On an up-to-date system of supraspecific taxonomy of Cenozoic benthonic foraminifera]. Institut Okeanologii P. P. Shirshova, Akademyia Nauk SSSR, Moscow, 73 p.Google Scholar
Schwager, C. 1876. Saggio di una classificazione dei foraminiferi avuto riguardo alle loro famiglie naturali. Bolletino R. Comitato Geologico d'Italia, 7:475–485.Google Scholar
Terquem, O. 1882. Les foraminifères de l'Eocène des environs de Paris. Mémoires de la Societé Géologique de France, sér. 3, 2(3):1–193.Google Scholar
Veerhallen, P. J. 1986. Morphology and function of the internal structures of non-costate Bulimina . Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, 89:367–385.Google Scholar