“ 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 Halliburton, 97 Milton Park, Abingdon, OX 14 4 RW, UK & The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW 7 5 BD, UK mike.simmons@halliburton.com Author BIDGOOD, MICHAEL GSS Geoscience Ltd., 2 Meadows Drive, Oldmeldrum, AB 51 0 GA, UK mike@gssgeoscience.co.uk 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 294391 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06 c30ba365-4b21-4101-b4fa-4ff44ae02327 1842-371x 10834181 Pseudorhipidionina ex gr. casertana-murgiana sensu De Castro, 1965 , 2006 Reference Illustration & Description Fig. 67 Cenomanian paleogeographic distribution of Pseudorhapydionina laurinensis . Fig. 68 Representative illustrations of Pseudorhipidionina ex gr. casertana-murgiana : a Equatorial section P. casertana s.s , De Castro in Schroeder & Neumann (1985 , pl. 44, fig. 10, Italy); b Equatorial section P. murgiana s.s. , De Castro (2006 , pl. 1, fig. 1, neotype, Italy); c Axial section, De Castro in Schroeder & Neumann (1985 , pl. 44, fig. 1, Italy); d Transverse section (uncoiled), Consorti et al. (2016b , fig. 4d, Spain). De Castro in Schroeder & Neumann (1985) , Pls. 44-45, p. 95-97; see also De Castro (2006) , Pls.2-4 and Consorti et al. (2016b) , Figs 4 d-4e, 4h, 5a-5j, p. 276. Pseudorhipidionina murgiana ( Crescenti, 1964 , emend. De Castro, 2006 ) and Pseudorhipidionina casertana ( De Castro, 1965 ) were both first described from southern Italy around the same time. P. murgiana was described from eastern southern Italy , whilst P. casertana was described from its western-central part. The history of their description, taxonomic assignment, and occurrence is documented by De Castro (2006) , who illustrated topotypes of P. murgiana alongside illustrations of P. casertana . The original illustrations of P. murgiana ( Crescenti, 1964 ) are rather poor and had led to the species being somewhat overlooked in the literature, whilst there are quite numerous records of P. casertana . Nonetheless the taxa are extremely similar ( De Castro, 2006 ; Consorti et al., 2016b ) although no firm conclusion on their possible synonymy has been made. Herein we use the formulation Pseudorhipidionina ex gr. casertana-murgiana . In 1981 De Castro stated “Mi sembra probabile che Pseudorhipidionina casertana , possa essere un sinonimo non valido di Praerhapydionina murgiana ” [It seems probable to me that Pseudorhipidionina casertana could be an invalid synonym of Praerhapydionina murgiana ]. Subsequently, De Castro (2006) – although providing a series of quantitative differences between the two taxa – appeared somewhat equivocal when committing firmly to their separation. P. casertana is indeed very similar to P. murgiana , having a slightly larger proloculus while other features such as test-size, length and breadth of the chambers, and pre-/postseptum-thickness are slightly larger in P. murgiana than in P. casertana ( De Castro, 2006 ) . They are also, more or less, contemporary in stratigraphic range. De Castro’s main criterion for separation relies on their reported geographically separate occurrences in Italy (on the Apula Platform for P. murgiana , and the Abruzzese-Campana Platform for P. casertana ) as justification. On the other hand, both “species” may be present in the Middle East (see below). Calonge-Garcia (1996) was also somewhat equivocal on the relationship between the two taxa, stating the difference between the two was that P. murgiana possessed a single opening, but admitted the lack of published material on that species could not rule out synonymy with P. casertana . More recently, Consorti et al. (2016b) studied the taxa and could not propose a solution although recommended further study. However, they suggested P. casertana and P. murgiana are synonymous. They first mention the presence of bifurcated septula in P. casertana , especially in the uncoiled portion, a feature not noted in De Castro’s description (in Schroeder & Neumann 1985 ). As an example of the difficulty in separating the taxa, Chiocchini et al. (2012) illustrated P. murgiana from the very latest Cenomanian of central Italy . However, their illustrations lack the supposedly characteristic broader uncoiled chambers as compared with P. casertana . The description of P. casertana by Consorti et al. (2016b) is succinct and useful: “ Porcelaneous flabelliform shell with an acute periphery. The early planispiral-involute stage of growth consists of elongated chambers arranged in one and a half to two whorls, reaching a diameter of 0.55 mm , approximately. The seriate stage is composed, at least, of 10 wide and short chambers averaging 0.04 mm in height. The septa are markedly convex and cribbed by numerous intercameral foramina. The external part of the chamber lumen is partially divided by radial septula. The septula, which has a thickness of around 15-18 μm, may bifurcate at their inner end. They occupy one-third of the chamber lumen ”. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics. Like Pseudorhapydionina , species of Pseudorhipidionina have also undergone a rather convoluted journey through various generic assignments, due seemingly in this case to a lack of adequate type material and new (or amended) diagnostic features being observed subsequently in better preserved/new specimens. There were, essentially two species of Cenomanian Pseudorhipidionina : P. casertana (De Castro) and P. murgiana (Crescenti) , the former originally assigned to Rhipidionina Stache , the latter originally to Praerhapydionina Van Wessem. For example, Praerhapydionina murgiana was originally believed to have had a single aperture (diagnostic of that genus) but later specimens were observed with multiple apertures (diagnostic of Pseudorhipidionina ). The reader is referred to the discussions in De Castro (in Schroeder & Neumann, 1985 ) and De Castro (2006) for an historical overview. In gross terms, Pseudorhipidionina has a more flattened, almost “peneropolid”-like uncoiled portion compared to Pseudorhapydionina whose uncoiled portion is subcylindrical to cylindrical. Pseudorhipidionina ex gr. casertana-murgiana is also very similar to the?agglutinated taxon Reissella ramonensis Hamaoui which has a more complex endoskeleton, and which includes beams and joists/rafters rather than just beams ( De Castro, 1981 ; De Castro in Schroeder & Neumann 1985 ; Mikhalevich 2004a & b). See also Hottinger 2006 : fig. 19 and Fig. 2 herein for diagrammatic explanation of these morphological features. Borghi and Pignatti (2006) remarked on the similarity between P. ex gr. casertana - murgiana and Praetaberina bingistani (Henson) in random thin-sections, although they note that Praetaberina is more “complex” and has a cylindrical uncoiled portion where such features can be observed. Praetaberina also possesses pillars which Pseudorhipidionina (and Pseudorhapydionina ) lack ( Consorti et al., 2015 ). It is the presence of pillars in Pseudorhipidionina tubaensis Mohammed (described from the Mishrif Formation of the Tuba-1 well in southern Iraq ; Mohammed, 2007 ), as illustrated, that precludes it from assignment to Pseudorhipidionina . In fact, the published illustrations by Mohammed (2007) comprise two different species; Praetaberina bingistani and Cycledomia iranica and P. tubaensis is therefore a junior synonym of both ( Consorti & Schlagintweit, 2021b ). In summary, unless material is well preserved and is oriented in ways in which critical taxonomic features are visible, Pseudorhipidionina , Praetaberina and Reissella may appear very similar in tangential-longitudinally oriented sections. Stratigraphic Distribution Upper middle? – late Cenomanian. The majority of illustrated records in the literature attribute a late Cenomanian age range to both P. murgiana and P. casertana (herein Pseudorhipidionina ex gr. casertana-murgiana ). There is some debate as to whether Pseudorhipidionina casertana ranges as far as the actual Cenomanian-Turonian boundary, above the boundary, or if it becomes extinct just below the boundary. De Castro in Schroeder & Neumann (1985) estimated the age of P. casertana to be late Cenomanian (?upper part) based on association with the extinction of Pseudorhapydionina laurinensis and the “acrozone” of Cisalveolina fraasi . He also suggested that previous records which alluded to an early Turonian age (e.g., Saint-Marc, 1974a , 1978 , 1981; Arnaud et al., 1981 ) should be treated with caution because of the uncertainty of the position of that boundary in those sections mentioned. Calonge-Garcia (1996) also follows this position. Nonetheless the range chart in Schroeder & Neumann (1985) shows a range from the late middle Cenomanian into the earliest Turonian. Subsequently, De Castro (2006) remarked that “ P. murgiana and P. casertana have the same age (late Cenomanian) and both are associated with … Cisalveolina fraasi and Coxites zubairensis .” As noted elsewhere herein, the supposed Turonian records from Lebanon ( Saint-Marc, 1974a , 1978 , 1981) are from beds that, based on associated ammonite data, appear to straddle the Cenomanian – Turonian boundary, but the precise stratigraphic position of P. casertana occurrences relative to these ammonite occurrences is uncertain. Given this, and the lack of any other substantiated Turonian records, Pseudorhipidionina ex gr. casertana-murgiana is excluded from the Turonian. Solak et al. (2020) defined the Pseudorhipidionina casertana Assemblage Zone in studies from Turkey based on the FAD of P. casertana and other taxa including Pseudorhapydionina dubia , P. laurinensis and Vidalina radoicicae . They imply that P. casertana is restricted to this zone to which they assign a late-but-not-latest Cenomanian age. Velić (2007) considered the species (both P. murgiana and P. casertana ) important late Cenomanian markers in the Dinarides. Berthou & Lauverjat (1979) and Berthou (1984a , b) restrict the species to the lower half of the late Cenomanian in Portugal (see illustration in Berthou, 1973 ). Charrière et al. (1998) places the LAD of P. casertana in Morocco below those beds containing the ammonite Vascoceras cauvini (Chudeau) which, they state, is also below the base of the W. archaeocretacea planktonic foraminiferal zone. Ettachfini (2006 - illustrated) also from Morocco , places the LAD no younger than the juddi ammonite zone (see also Ettachfini et al., 2005 ; Piuz & Meister, 2013 , unillustrated). Parente et al. (2007 , 2008) used integrated ammonite and Carbon-isotope data to suggest the LAD of P. casertana occurs around the middle part of the geslinianum ammonite zone. Simone et al. (2012) and Frijia et al. (2015) essentially agree, with the latter placing the LAD slightly higher near the top of the geslinianum zone. Frijia et al. (2015 : fig. 15) place the FAD of P. casertana at the base of the jukesbrownei ammonite zone (upper middle Cenomanian). See also Arnaud et al. (1981) who also positions the FAD at the base of the jukesbrownei zone, although the basis for this is unclear. Ghanem & Kuss (2013) illustrate the species from the late Cenomanian of Syria . Their range chart restricts the species to the late Cenomanian, but in the text they mention middle Cenomanian occurrences. On the other hand, Mouty et al. (2003) attribute an early Turonian extension to the range in Syria citing Turonian ammonites ( Thomasites rollandi (Thomas & Peron) , Choffaticeras ( Leoniceras ) sp., Hemitissotia morreni (Qoquand) and Coilopoceras sp. ) although no fossils are illustrated. As with other “Turonian” records (see above), this is discounted. Radoičić et al. (2010) mention P. casertana from lower Cenomanian limestones in Serbia , but there is no illustration and based on associated fauna could easily be younger within the Cenomanian. However, Radoičić (1974a) did illustrate the species from the same region. Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution Neotethys. References in De Castro in Schroeder & Neumann (1985) and De Castro (2006) indicate plausible records from eastern Algeria , Tunisia , Greece , Italy , Sardinia , Lebanon , Iberia , and the Balkans and Dinarides. In addition to these and records mentioned above, occurrences confirmed by definite or plausible illustration as mentioned above include Portugal ( Andrade, 2018 ) and from the late Cenomanian of Egypt ( Nagm, 2009 – although as cf.). P. ex gr. casertana-murgiana is known to occur in the upper Wasia Group of subsurface Saudi Arabia (Dr. Wyn Hughes, pers. comm., 2022) and has been illustrated from the Iberian Ranges, Spain by Consorti et al. (2016b) . Al-Rifaiy and Cherif (1987) illustrate this species as Taberina sp. from the Cenomanian Shueib Formation of Jordan (see also Schulze et al. 2004, unillustrated) P. ex gr. casertana-murgiana has been reported and illustrated from the upper Sarvak Formation from the Iranian Zagros. Afghah & Fadaei (2014) provide good illustrations, although there are errors in the labelling of the plates. Plate 8d “ Nezzazata simplex Omara ” is this species, as is plate 9f labelled as “ Neorbitolinopsis conulus Douville ”. Plate 8e labelled as “ Pseudorhipidionina casertana ” is an orbitolinid. There are other illustrations in this paper that may be this species or P. bingistani . A record of “ Pseudotextulariella cacertana ” by Assadi et al. (2016) is more likely P. bingistani , whilst a record of Daxia cenomana by Afghah et al. (2014) is most likely P. ex gr. casertana-murgiana . Esfandyari et al. (2023) provide more recent plausible illustrations. There are also unillustrated records from the Iranian Zagros: Rahimpour-Bonab et al. (2013) (as well as being mentioned, an illustration of “ Pseudorhipidionina bingistani ” may be P. casertana ); Jamalpour et al. (2017) ; Rikhtegarzadeh et al. (2017) ; Omidi et al. (2021) ; Mohajer et al. (2022a , 2022b ); and Ashgari et al. (2022); but also see Kiarostami et al. (2019) and Dehghanian & Afghah (2021) for illustrated records but where identification is at best uncertain. Mohammed (2005 as “ Pseudorhapydionina casertana ” and 2007) recorded and illustrated P. casertana from southern Iraq (alongside the invalidated P. tubaensis – see above) but Consorti & Schlagintweit (2021b) thought (though more equivocally) the illustration was more likely to be P. murgiana . Al Dulaimi et al. (2013) illustrate P. casertana from the Mishrif Formation (undifferentiated late Cenomanian – early Turonian) of the well Nasiriyah-2 from southern Iraq . However, another specimen referred to “ Pseudotextulariella casertana ” from West Qurna-215 is actually P. bingistani . An unillustrated record from southern Iraq is that of Al-Salihi & Ibrahim (2023) . Unconfirmed (by lack of illustration or uncertain illustration) occurrences are also recorded from Egypt ( Orabi, 1992 ; Orabi et al., 2012 ; Shahin & Elbaz, 2013 ; Orabi & Hamad, 2018 ); and offshore Dubai ( Menegatti, 2004 ). Dufaure et al. (1984) reported – unillustrated – “ Pseudorhipidionina (ex casertana ) murgiana ” from the middle – late Cenomanian of southeast Libya .