“ Larger ” Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms Author SIMMONS, MICHAEL Author BIDGOOD, MICHAEL text Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 2023 2023-08-02 19 2 39 169 http://dx.doi.org/10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06 journal article 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06 1842-371x 10834181 Neodubrovnikella turonica ( Said & Kenawy, 1957 ) Reference Illustration & Description Schlagintweit & Yazdi-Moghadam (2022a) , Figs. 4 (A- F), 5 & 6, p. 4-8. The recent review by Schlagintweit & Yazdi-Moghadam (2022a) has clarified the taxonomic status of this species which had for many years been assigned to the porcellaneous genus Peneroplis based on its clearly ‘peneropliform’ shape. However, the true nature of its wall as finely agglutinated and pseudokeriothecal (which is not always discernible) excludes it from the porcellaneous Miliolida and it was transferred to the agglutinated biokovinids within the genus Neodubrovnikella . Interestingly, as long ago as 1967 Peneroplis turonicus (= Neodubrovkinella turonica ) was considered as possibly belonging to the agglutinated foraminifera (genus Stomatostoecha ) ( Banner et al., 1967 ). This notion was largely ignored until the revision of Schlagintweit & Yazdi-Moghadam (2022a) . See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics. Dimorphism is distinct in this species (see Fig. 19a & 19c herein). Peneroplis parvus De Castro is very similar except N. turonica has a large proloculus in megalospheric forms, tends to uncoil rapidly with chambers also enlarging rapidly and with septa not ‘obviously’ perforated. Peneroplis is also always planispirally coiled whereas N. turonica is frequently not perfectly planispiral (see drawings of holotype in Schlagintweit & Yazdi-Moghadam, 2022a : fig. 4(B, D)). Notwithstanding these differences N. turonica can be regarded as an agglutinated isomorphic form of Peneroplis . Schlagintweit & Yazdi-Moghadam (2022a) note the following: “In the literature, N. turonica has been confused several times with Pseudolituonella reicheli . This Cenomanian species also displays a pseudo-keriothecal wall, but the morphology is different, with a reduced coiled part and continuously widening and uncompressed chambers in the prominent uncoiled part. The septa and the marginal chamber walls are equal in thickness, the foramina larger, cribrate over the apertural face (not in a row) and surrounded by apertural lips that might protrude widely into the chamber lumen”. Stratigraphic Distribution (Late early?) middle – late Cenomanian. Originally suggested as a Turonian species and therefore named accordingly, Schlagintweit & Yazdi-Moghadam (2022a) regard N. turonica as a Cenomanian-restricted species based on a reassessment of the age of the types from Egypt , their studies of the Sarvak Formation in the Iranian Zagros, together with a review of the literature from numerous other areas (see below) and a biostratigraphic assessment of their associated microfaunas. The vast majority of records are from the middle and late Cenomanian, with extension into the upper part of the early Cenomanian only indicated by data from Greece ( Decrouez, 1975 ; Charvet et al., 1976 ) and the Iranian Zagros. According to Schlagintweit & Yazdi-Moghadam (2022a) Turonian records can be revaluated as Cenomanian based on updated stratigraphic information and/or reassessment of associated microfauna. Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution Neotethys. Schlagintweit & Yazdi-Moghadam (2022a) have recently reviewed the literature on the distribution of N. turonica (commonly recorded by others as “ Peneroplis turonicus ” but sometimes recorded as P . cf. turonicus and mistakenly as Pseudolituonella reicheli or Peneroplis parvus ). This species is confirmed from Italy , Slovenia , Croatia , Kosovo , Serbia , Greece , Lebanon , Syria , Morocco , Egypt , Turkey , Iraq , and Iran .