RMS Home

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 34, part 4, February 1978

Rotalia menardii Parker, Jones & Brady, 1865 (Foraminiferida): proposed suppression of lectotype and designation of neotype Z.N.(S.) 2145

By R. M. Stainforth (2910 Cook St., Victoria. B. C., Canada), J. L. Lamb, and R. M. Jeffords (Exxon Production Research Company, Houston, Texas).

1. The purpose of this request is to obtain stability in a situation where a legal subsequent designation of a lectotype radically alters the long-held concept of a stratigraphically significant foraminiferal species. We propose that this lectotype be .suppressed and a neotype be designated by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature under their plenary powers so as to re-establish the commonly accepted name for a presently nameless taxon.

2. The name Rotalia (Rotalie) menardii was given by d’Orbigny (1826: 273) to specimens obtained from beach sands (assumed to be modern or Holocene ) at Rimini, Italy, with merely a reference to a model (no. 10) that had been issued previously to private subscribers. As no description, illustration, or other indication was provided, the name was not made available then. Parker, Jones & Brady (1865: 20, pl. 3, fig. 81) subsequently applied the name “Rotalia menardii d’Orbigny” to described specimens dredged from off the Isle of Man and illustrated the taxon with a drawing of d’Orbigny’s model, thereby making the name available. This taxon was recognized as Pulvinulina menardii (d’Orbigny) by Owen (1868: 148), Brady (1884: 690), and three other publications between 1899 and 1921 (Ellis & Messina, 1940).

3. Following Cushman (1931: 91), the taxon was recorded, mainly by palaeontologists, as Globorotalia menardii (d’Orbigny) in more than 35 publications prior to 1960 (Ellis & Messina, 1940).

4. Banner & Blow (1960) recognized that Parker, Jones & Brady were the first to make available the name commonly credited to d’Orbigny. As no specimens from Rimini were found in the d’Orbigny collection, they designated a lectotype from among Holocene specimens in the Brady collection. Additionally they designated a neotype for Rotalina cultrata d’Orbigny (1839: 75, pl. 5, figs. 7-9), which was described originally from modern marine sands but syntypes were not preserved. Based on the type material thus defined, Banner & Blow (1960) subjectively regarded Rotalina cultrata as a senior synonym of Rotalia menardii. Todd (1961), however, proposed repudiation of this synonymy [i.e., retention of the well-known name “Globorotalia menardii (d’Orbigny)”] because several of the actions taken by Banner & Blow were regarded as not in conformity with Code concepts and as the neotype of R. cultrata “…does not reasonably conform to what it was obviously the author’s intention to describe, and that it is not needed in the interests of stability.”

5. Specimens eligible for designation as lectotype (ICZN Art. 72b) are “all the specimens on which an author bases the species…” Although uncertainty exists in some cases as to exactly the limitation on which specimens an author “based” a species (Melville, 1970: 195), the Isle of Man specimens seem clearly to constitute available syntypic material for Rotalia menardii Parker, Jones & Brady (1865) and to have been designated validly by Banner & Blow (1960). Similarly Rotalina cultrata d’Orbigny (1839) was reported originally from modern marine sands of Cuba, Martinique, Guadeloupe, and Jamaica. The neotype designated from topotypic material (i.e., modern sand off Cape Cruz, Cuba) was regarded by Banner & Blow as “clearly conspecific with d’Orbigny’s form”. Objections of Todd (1961) seem resolved by Banner & Blow (1962). The procedure followed by Banner & Blow (1960) in determining type material, therefore, ostensibly is correct and efficient in providing an objective basis for evaluating these nominal species and, furthermore, accords with methods used commonly by other foraminiferal workers with respect to many taxa treated inadequately by pioneer authors.

6. Banner & Blow (1962) again discussed the status of Rotalina cultrata and Rotalia menardii with respect to the comments given by Todd (1961). Although most of the earlier actions and interpretations were supported strongly, they expanded on earlier remarks (1960: 33, 35) with the following comment (: 99) “Both Todd and ourselves consider that Globorotalia menardii (Parker, Jones & Brady) and G. cultrata are conspecific, but we do not believe them to be fully synonymous [i.e., menardii differs in stratigraphic and ecologic occurrence]… Consequently, we have good reason to believe that G. cultrata cultrata (d ‘Orbigny) is a distinguishable genetic entity, of stratigraphical and ecological significance, and should be taxonomically distinguished from its ancestor, G. cultrata menardii (Parker, Jones & Brady).”

7. From these comments and later usages (e.g., Blow, 1969: 358-360) one can interpret objectively that Blow regarded menardii (as based on the lectotype from modem sediments off the Isle of Man) to be conspecific with (but distinct at the subspecies level from) cuItrata (as based on the modern neotype). Our observations of Rimini specimens, interpretation of evolutionary development of menardiform Globorotalias in the Neogene (Stainforth et al., 1975: p. 368, 370, 375), and understanding of recently obtained data on age and ecologic occurrences of menardiform species, however, suggest the subjective interpretation that Blow well may have recognized menardii as a subspecies, on the basis of characters evident in specimens from Miocene rocks of the Mediterranean region and in reworked Rimini specimens (e.g., concept of d’Orbigny) rather than on the basis of characters evident in the lectotype from modern deep-sea deposits.

8. We regard R. menardii and R. cultrata (based on the type material designated by Banner & Blow, 1960) as synonymous. The two specimens selected as types for these nominal species are the same size and have the same compressed lenticular shape. Their tests have the same number of whorls and chambers per whorl, comparable slightly lobulate and keeled peripheries, similar limbate and evenly hemicircular intercameral sutures on the spiral sides, and similar umbilical-extraumbilical apertures. Slight differences observable in the type figures fall within the range of intraspecific variability normally accepted in authors’ treatment of menardiform globorotalias.

9. No justification seemingly is evident for the interpretation that these nominal taxa are synonymous at the species level but distinct at the subspecies level. On the other hand, the morphologic criteria cited by Blow (1969) as distinguishing G. cultrata cultrata from G. cultrata menardii are evidently those that distinguish the type material of both G. menardii and G. cultrata from G. menardii of d’Orbigny and of authors. As described in the appendix, menardii of d’Orbigny (as here interpreted on the basis of specimens from Miocene rocks in the Mediterranean area and from Rimini beach assemblages) is distinguished from cultrata (including menardii of Parker, Jones & Brady) by the rounded periphery, highly vaulted chambers on the umbilical side, and “hockey-stick” shape of intercameral sutures on the spiral side. More lobulate and generally larger and flattened biconvex forms of the menardiform group predominate in the Miocene to Holocene interval within tropical regions and are differentiated readily on a morphologic basis as representing the cultrata lineage.

10. After publication by Banner & Blow in 1960, it was recognized that beach sands on the Adriatic coast of northern Italy (including those at Rimini) contain a foraminiferal assemblage comprising both modern forms and (locally predominating) older forms reworked from nearby Tertiary exposures (e.g., Hay & Marszalek, 1963; Todd, 1964: 1092; Lamb & Beard, 1972: 54; Stainforth, et al., 1975: 374). Many foraminiferal species described from the Rimini sands as “Recent” (Holocene) have not been encountered in faunas living in this general area (e.g., Chierici, Busi & Cita, 1962: 136; Cita, Premoli Silva & Rossi, 1965: 231). Moreover the form designated by d’Orbigny as Rotalia menardii has come to be recognized as a typical Miocene form in the Mediterranean area. Cita & D’Onofrio (1967: 173), for example, stated “…Globorotalia menardii has never been recorded from recent or Pleistocene deposits in the Adriatic area. This species is, however, present in Tertiary sediments especially of Tortonian age outcropping the hills surrounding the Rimini coast. We believe that the species, often recorded from the Rimini beach, is in fact fossil.” Others (e.g., Bizon & Bizon, 1971: 85; Todd, 1964: 1092) reached a similar conclusion. Very rare specimens representing the cultrata lineage only recently have been recorded by Cifelli (1974) from plankton tows taken in the Mediterranean.

11. Relatively modern usage (since 1960) with respect to recognition of cultrata vs. menardii (ignoring here different genus-group assignments and citation of authorship for menardii) seems to fall into three distinct categories:

(1) synonymy of G. menardii and G. cultrata is accepted and forms (of what we deem representative of a cultrata lineage and commonly but not exclusively from extra-Mediterranean areas) are designated either as G. cultrata (e.g., Parker, 1962: 235; 1967: 177; 1973: 276; Poag 1972: 508) or as G. menardii (e.g., Jenkins, 1960: 362; 1971: 90; Todd, 1961; 1964: 1091; Akers & Dorman, 1964 :18; Bé, Mclntyre & Breger, 1966; Bolli, 1970: 581-582; Jenkins & Orr, 1972: 1100; Lamb & Beard 1972: 54; Scott, 1973).

(2) synonymy of G. menardii and G. cultrata is accepted at the species but not at the subspecies’ level (e.g., Banner & Blow, 1962:99; Blow, 1969: 359; Cita & Blow, 1969: 576; Akers, 1972: 96).

(3) synonymy of G. menardii arid G. cultrata is not accepted, and G. menardii is recognized, particularly in the Miocene (and questionably Pliocene) of the Mediterranean area, on the basis of the concept given by d’Orbigny (e.g., Cita, Premoli Silva & Rossi, 1965: 231; Cita & D’Onofrio, 1967: 173-174; Bizon & Bizon; 1971: 85; Postuma, 1971:334).

12. As has been noted here previously, we recognize that R. menardii and R. cultrata based on the type material designated by Banner and Blow are synonymous. Most other workers also seem to accept this synonymy although some dispute the desirability of replacing a well-known name (menardii) by a little-known name (cultrata). Differentiation of these taxa at the subspecies level is not based on comparison of their types. In short, we recognize that cultrata is the appropriate name for a distinct menardiform species (or lineage) that occurs commonly in modern (and Neogene) warm-water seas (Stainforth et al., 1975, figs. 177, 178. 1-5). The morphologically separable taxon (Stainforth et al., 1975: 371-377, figs 178, 6-10, 179) represented by the unavailable but well-known name Rotalia menardii d’Orbigny occurred in cooler seas, particularly in the middle Neogene.

13. The very considerable recent advances in understanding the biostratigraphic significance of Neogene menardiform taxa and the accompanying meticulous differentiation of species-group taxa on the basis of morphologic features largely unnoticed or ignored by earlier workers necessitate re-analysis of many prior biologic and taxonomic interpretations. A root cause of the present confusion is that Parker, Jones & Brady applied the single name menardii (ex d’Orbigny) to both the taxa reviewed above, now separated by modern workers on morphological and biostratigraphic grounds. The present application seeks to stabilize the meaning of the name in conformity with the concept initiated by d’Orbigny (by means of his model and indication of the source of specimens).

14. Resolution of the present nomenclatural confusion with respect to R. menardii so as to accord with some long-continued usage and with recently recognized morphologic and evolutionary distinctions requires plenary action of the Commission in setting aside a prior lectotype designation that inadvertently changed the taxon long assigned to a well-known name and to designate a neotype so as to re-instate the generally accepted concept of the taxon.

15. Banner & Blow (1960) failed to find syntypes of Rotalia menardii d’Orbigny (= Rotalia menardii Parker, Jones & Brady, in part) in the d’Orbigny collection at Paris, and Dr. Y. Le Calvez (letter to Lamb, Sept. 16, 1974) reported that no type specimen exists and no topotype was found in the original sample from Rimini, but that the original model is in the museum. Virtual topotypes of redeposited Miocene specimens from modern beach deposits at Lido Cervia, Ravenna, Italy, have been described and illustrated (Stainforth et al., 1975: 371-376, fig. 178. 6-10.) along with other typical representatives from the Late Miocene of the Mediterranean area (Stainforth et al., 1975, fig. 179). These specimens represent the taxon bearing the unavailable name R. menardii d’Orbigny and the d’Orbigny model bearing this name They are clearly distinguishable (Stainforth et al., 1975, figs. 177, 178. 1-5) from the lectotype and other specimens referred to R. menardii Parker, Jones & Brady (= Globorotalia cultrata).

16. Recently Bandy (1972: 297) inconspicuously proposed Menardella as a subgenus of Globorotalia Cushman (1927) and designated “Globorotalia (Menardella) menardii (d’Orbigny)” as the type species. This illustrates just one aspect of the presently existing nomenclatural confusion—subjectively one can postulate that Bandy recognized Menardella as based on forms like d’Orbigny’s Rimini specimen (e.g., Stainforth et al., 1975, figs. 178, 6-10; 179), like the lectotype of R. menardii of Parker, Jones & Brady and thus now properly Globorotalia cultrata (e.g. Stainforth et al., 1975, fig. 177. 1-4), or like G. menardii (of authors) from the Globorotalia menardii Zone (late Middle Miocene) (e.g., Stainforth et al., 1975, fig. 177. 5-6) objective interpretation also seems uncertain.

17. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked therefore:

(1) to use its plenary powers

(a) to suppress all original and subsequent designations of type specimen hitherto made for the nominal species Rotalia menardii Parker, Jones & Brady, 1865, and

(b) having done so, to designate the specimen described and figured herein (Appendix, pl. 1 fig. 1) as neotype of that species.

(2) to place the specific name menardii Parker, Jones & Brady, 1865, as published in the binomen Rotalia menardii and as defined by reference to the neotype designated above under the plenary powers, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

REFERENCES

AKERS, W. H. 1972. Planktonic Foraminifera and biostratigraphy of some Neogene formations, northern Florida and Atlantic coastal plain. Tulane Studies Geol. Paleont. vol. 91, 139 pp. 4 figs., 60 pls.

AKERS, W. H., & DORMAN, J. H. 1964. Pleistocene Foraminifera of the Gulf Coast. Tulane Studies Geol. Paleont. vol. 3: 1-93, 2 figs., 15 pls.

BANDY, O. L. 1972. Origin and development of Globorotalia (Turborotalia) pachyderma (Ehrenberg). Micropaleontology vol. 18: 294-318, 3 figs., 8 pls.

BANNER, F. T., & BLOW, W. H. 1960. Some primary types of species belonging to the super-family Globigerinaceae. Contr. Cushman Found. Foram. Res. vol. 11: 1-41, pls. 1-8.

— 1962. The type specimens of Globigerina quadrilobata d’Orbigny, Globigerina sacculifera Brady, Rotalina cultrata d’Orbigny and Rotalia menardii Parker, Jones and Brady. Contr. Cushman Found. Foram. Res. vol. 13: 98-99.

BÉ, A. W. H., MCINTYRE, A., & BREGER, D. L. 1966. Shell microstructure of a planktonic foraminifer, Globorotalia menardii (d’Orbigny). Eclogae Geol. Helv. vol. 59: 885-896, 2 figs., 17 pls.

BIZON, G. & BIZON, J. J. 1971. Observations sur l’évolution de Globorotalia “menardii” dans le miocène moyen et supérieur d’Espagne méridionale. 2nd Internatl. Conf. Planktonic Microfossils, Rome 1970, Proc. vol. 1: 85-93, 3 figs., 5 pls.

— 1972. Atlas de principaux foraminifères planctoniques du basin Méditerranean —Oligocène à quaternaire. Paris, Editions Technip, 316 p., illus.

BLOW, W. H. 1969. Late middle Eocene to Recent planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy. 1st. Internatl. Conf. Planktonic Microfossils, Geneva 1967, Proc. vol. 1: 199-422, 43 figs., 54 pls.

BOLLI, H. M. 1970. The Foraminifera of sites 23-31, Leg 4; in Bader, R. G., et al., Initial Repts. Deep Sea Drilling Project. vol. 4: 577-643, 22 figs., 9 pls.

BORSETTI, A. M., et al., 1975. Paleogeografia del Messiniano nei bacini Periadriatici deIl’ltalia septentrionale e centrale. Gior. Geologia (2) vol. 40(1): 21-72, 3 figs.

BORSETTI, A. M. & CATI, F. 1975. La biostratigrafia del Messiniano nell’avanfossa Padano-adriatica. Gior. Geologia (2) vol. 40(1): 73-124, 1 fig., 9 pls.

BRADY, H. B. 1884. Report on the Foraminifera dredged by H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873-1876. Challenger Exped. 1873-1876, Rept. Zoology, vol. 9, pt. 22: 814 pp. 115 pls. (in Atlas).

CHIERICI, M. A., BUSI, M. T. & CITA, M. B. 1962. Contribution à une étude écologique des foraminifères dans la mer Adriatique. Rev. Micropaléontol. vol. 5: 123-142, 7 figs., 2 pls.

CIFELLI, R. 1974. Planktonic Foraminifera from the Mediterranean and adjacent Atlantic waters (cruise 49 of the Atlantis II, 1969). Jour. Foram. Res. vol. 4: 171-183, 4 figs.

CITA, M. B. & BLOW, W. H. 1969. The biostratigraphy of the Langhian, Serravallian and Tortonian stages in the type-sections in Italy. Riv. Ital. Paleontol. Strat. vol. 75: 549-603, 10 figs.

CITA, M. B., & PREMOLI SILVA, I. 1968. Evolution of the planktonic foraminiferal assemblages in the stratigraphic interval between the type-Langhian and type-Tortonian and biozonation of the Miocene of Piedmont. Gior. Geologia (2) vol. 35(3): 1-39, 4 figs., 2 pls.

CITA, M. B., PREMOLI SILVA, I., & ROSSI, R. C. 1965. Foraminiferi planctonici del Tortoniano-tipo. Riv. Ital. Paleont. Strat. Vol. 71: 217-308, 9 figs., pls. 18-31.

CUSHMAN, J. A. 1927. An outline of re-classification of the Foraminifera. Contr. Cushman Lab. Foram. Res. vol. 3: 1-105, pls. 1-21.

— 1931. The Foraminifera from the Atlantic Ocean, pt. 8—Rotaliidae, Amphisteginidae, Calcarinidae, Cymbaloporettidae, Globorotaliidae, Anomalinidae, Planorbulinidae, Rupertiidae and Homotremidae, Bull U. S. Natl. Mus. vol. 104 (8): 179 pp., 26 pls.

ELLIS, B. F., & MESSINA, A. 1940. Catalogue of Foraminifera. Am. Mus. Nat. History, New York, 45 vols. (looseleaf) [1940 et seq.]

HAY, W. W., & MARSZALEK, D. S. 1963. Fossil Foraminifera in Adriatic beach sands. Contr. Cushman Found. Foram. Res. vol. 14: 16.

JENKINS, D. G. 1960. Planktonic Foraminifera from the Lakes Entrance oil shaft, Victoria, Australia. Micropaleontology, vol. 6: 345-371, 10 figs., 5 pls.

— 1971. New Zealand Cenozoic Planktonic Foraminifera. New Zealand Geol. Survey Paleont. Bull. 42: 278 pp., 2 figs., 23 pls.

JENKINS, D. G., and ORR, W. N. 1972 Planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy of the east equatorial Pacific—DSDP Leg 9; in Hays, J. D., et al., Initial Repts. Deep Sea Drilling Project. vol. 9: 1059-1193, 9 figs., 41 pls.

LAMB, J. L., and BEARD, J. H. 1972. Late Neogene planktonic foraminifers in the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and Italian stratotypes. Kansas Univ. Paleont. Contr. Art. 57: 67 pp., 25 figs., 36 pls.

MELVILLE, R. V. 1970. Types in the species-group. Bull. Zool. Nomen. vol. 27: 194-197.

ORBIGNY, A. d’ 1826. Tableau méthodique de Ia classe des céphalopodes. Ann. Sci. Nat. Paris. (1) vol. 7: 95-314, pls. 10-17.

— 1839. Foraminifères; in Ramón de la Sagra, Histoire physique, politique et naturelle de l’ile de Cuba (Paris, A. Bertrand): 224 pp., 12 pls. (Atlas).

OWEN, S. R. I., 1868. On the surface-fauna of midocean. J. Linn. Soc. London (Zoology). vol. 9: 147-157, pl. 5.

PARKER, F. L. 1962. Planktonic foraminiferal species in Pacific sediments. Micropaleontology vol. 8: 219-254, 10 pls.

— 1967. Late Tertiary biostratigraphy (planktonic Foraminifera) of tropical Indo-Pacific deep-sea cores. Bull. Am. Paleont. vol. 52 (235): 115-208, 5 figs., pls. 17-32.

— 1973. Late Cenozoic biostratigraphy (planktonic Foraminifera) of tropical Atlantic deep-sea sections. Rev. Española Micropaleont. vol. 5: 253-289, 4 figs., 3 pls.

PARKER, W. K., JONES, T. R., & BRADY, H. B. 1865. On the nomenclature of the Foraminifera; Pt. 10 (cont.) -The species enumerated by d’Orbigny in the “Annales des Sciences Naturelles”: Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (3) vol. 16 (no. 91): 15-41, pls. 1-3.

POAG, C. W. 1972. Neogene planktonic forammiferal biostratigraphy of the western north Atlantic, DSDP Leg 11; in Hollister, C. D., et al., Initial Repts. Deep Sea Drilling Project, vol. 11; 483-543, 8 figs., 11 pls.

POSTUMA, J. A. 1971. Manual of planktonic Foraminifera, Amsterdam, Elsevier Publishing Co., 420 p., illus.

SCOTT, G. H. 1973. Ontogeny and shape in Globorotalia menardii, Cushman Jour. Foram. Res. vol. 3: 142-146, 1 fig.

STAINFORTH, R. M., et al. 1975. Cenozoic planktonic foraminiferal zonation and characteristics of index forms. Kansas Univ. Paleont. Contr. Art. 62: 475 p., 213 figs.

TODD, R. 1961. On selection of lectotypes and neotypes. Contr. Cushman Found. Foram. Res. vol. 12: 121-122.

— 1964. Planktonic Foraminifera from deep-sea cores off Eniwetok Atoll. U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 260: 1067-1100, figs. 319-320 pls. 289-295.

APPENDIX

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED NEOTYPE

Globorotalia menardii (Parker, Jones & Brady, 1865) ex d’Orbigny
Plates 1, 2

Rotalia (Rotalie) menardii d’Orbigny, 1826: 273 [nomen nudum]

Rotalia menardii Parker, Jones and Brady, 1865: 20, pl. 3, fig. 81 [part]

Globorotalia menardii (d’Orbigny) [sic] in part of authors [e.g., Cita, Premoli Silva & Rossi, 1965: 231, pl. 20, fig. 1; pl. 31, fig. 12. —Cita & Premoli Silva, 1968: 4-20, pl. 2, fig. 1. —Bizon & Bizon, 1972: 86-87, fig. 1-9.]

Globorotalia menardii (Parker, Jones and Brady) [part] of authors.

Globorotalia menardii (Parker, Jones and Brady) ex d’Orbigny. — Stainforth et al., 1975: p. 371-376, fig. 178. 6-10, 179.

Test a medium lenticular trochospire rimmed by a blunt keel. Chambers in last whorl (5 to 6) increase steadily in size and maintain constant shape as added; lunate to crescentic on spiral side, radial segments on umbilical side where posterior overlap makes final chamber more prominent than preceding. Equatorial profile subcircular to rounded-polygonal; not lobate; axial profile unequally biconvex, chambers of umbilical side more highly vaulted and inflated than those of spiral side. Sutures on spiral side recurved, limbate, more thickened where merging into keel to give “hockey-stick” appearance. Sutures, especially between early chambers, may be wholly or partly overlapped, (buried) by succeeding chamber. On umbilical side sutures lightly incised, sinuously radial. Umbilicus a narrow stellate pit between slightly swollen chamber tips. Aperture a low arched slit from umbilicus to near periphery, may have light lip. Surface mostly smooth, densely perforate; somewhat pustulose around umbilicus. Observed diameters 0.3 to 0.6 mm.

Discussion. — Differentiating characters and relationships of Globorotalia menardii, as proposed herein, have been published previously (Stainforth et al., 1975: 371, 374-376) with illustrations of virtual topotypes (reworked) from beach sands near Ravenna, Italy (Stainforth et al., fig. 178. 6-10) and of specimens from several Upper Miocene sections of the Mediterranean area (fig. 179). Although d’Orbigny originally named the species and prepared his model on the basis of specimens from the beach sands near Rimini, Italy (e.g., pl. 2, figs. 1, 2 herein), it seems undesirable to designate a neotype from that locality because of the objective uncertainty as to the stratigraphic position from which the specimens were derived. Thus, a specimen of the same form (pl. 1, fig. 1a-c) from the Upper Miocene (Tortonian) beds (sample 84 of Borsetti et al., 1975) in the Senigallia section (Borsetti & Catti, 1975) is proposed here as neotype. Abundant subjective interpretation demonstrates that the reworked specimens of this form occurring in the sands near Rimini and Ravenna, Italy, were derived from nearby Tortonian strata. The section from which the proposed neotype was obtained is accurately located and well described, and the stratigraphic level is known precisely.

The proposed neotype and other illustrated specimens are filed currently at Houston (Exxon Production Research Company); they will be deposited in the U. S. National Museum type collection of Foraminifera if the Commission acts favourably on the appeal.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE 1

Globorotalia menardii (Parker, Jones & Brady, 1865) ex d’Orbigny from a sample of Upper Miocene (Tortonian) strata at the Senigallia section, which is 70 km southeast of Rimini, Italy; contributed by Dr. Anna Maria Borsetti, Laboratorio di Geologia Marina, Bologna, Italy. Scanning electron micrographs, x120 except figure 2b which is x400.

Fig. 1 Proposed neotype. a-Umbilical view showing subcircular chamber margin; b-spiral view showing thickening of the intercameral suture prior to merging into marginal keel; c-side view showing high, vaulted chambers of umbilical side, well defined thickened marginal keel, and low apertural arch rimmed with a smooth lip.

Fig. 2 Another specimen. a-Spiral view; b-detail of last intercameral suture.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE 2

Globorotalia menardii (Parker, Jones & Brady, 1865) ex d’Orbigny from modern beach sands (reworked in part from nearby Tertiary sections) of the intertidal zone in front of the Kursaal at Lido Cervia, Ravenna, Italy. Scanning electron micrographs, x120.

Figs. 1, 2 Characteristic specimens. 1a-Umbilical view showing subcircular chamber margin; 1b-spiral view showing thickening of the intercameral suture prior to merging into marginal keel; 1c-side view showing high, vaulted chambers of umbilical side, well defined thickened marginal keel, and low apertural arch rimmed by a smooth lip; 1d-slightly oblique side view. 2a-Side view; 2b-umbilical view; 2c-spiral view.