28 



UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 215 



Lectotype of Hantkenina dumblei Weinzierl and 

 Applin (Cushman Coll. No. 12204) and figiu-ed paratype 

 (USNM P4790) from the Eocene Yegua formation, 

 Rio Bravo Oil Co., Deussen B 1, 4010 feet, South 

 Liberty Dome, Liberty Coimty, Texas. 



Lectotype of Hantkenina mexicana var. aragonesis 

 Nuttall (Cushman CoU. 59476) from the Eocene Aragon 

 formation, 2600 meters N. 73° E. of El Tule, Mexico, 

 and figured paratype (Cushman Coll. No. 59477) from 

 the Aragon formation, 1200 meters N. 48° W. of La 

 Antigua Crossing, Mexico. 



Eange: Eocene. 



Genus Cribrohantkenina Thalmann, 1942 



Plate 2, Figures 9a-llb 



Cribrohantkenina Thalmann, Amer. Journ. Sci., vol. 240, pp 

 812, 815, 819, 1942. 



Type species: Hantkenina (Cribrohantkenina) ber- 

 mudezi Thalmann, 1942. Fixed by original designa- 

 tion. 



Test free, planispiral, biumbUicate; chambers subglob- 

 ular, with the prominent peripheral spine at the for- 

 ward margin of each chamber, succeeding chambers are 

 attached near the base of the spines and may partially or 

 completely envelop the spine of the preceding chamber; 

 sutures distinct, depressed, radial; wall calcareous, per- 

 forate, surface smooth, finely punctate, or finely spinose; 

 primary aperture interiomarginal, equatorial, secondary 

 multiple areal apertmre consisting of small rounded or 

 elongate openings above the primary interiomarginal 

 apertiu-e, in well developed specimens the terminal por- 

 tion of the chamber may form a protruding "pore- 

 plate," which lacks fine perforations in the area be- 

 tween the apertural pores, and may cover the primary 

 interiomarginal aperture and attach to the peripheral 

 margin of the previous whorl, the primary interiomar- 

 ginal apertm-e and secondary areal apertures conomonly 

 bordered by distinct and protruding lips, and the mul- 

 tiple secondary openings may rarely be filled with a 

 later-formed shell growth. 



Remarks: Cribrohantkenina differs from Hantkenina 

 Cushman in having the secondary multiple areal aper- 

 ture in the region between the final spine and the pri- 

 mary interiomarginal aperture. 



Sporohantkenina was defined by Bermudez (1937, p. 

 151) as a subgenus of Hantkenina, with Hantkenina brevi- 

 spina Cushman, 1925, cited as type species. Thalmann 

 in 1942 stated that the type species was a true Hant- 

 kenina, making Sporohantkenina a synonym of Hant- 

 kenina, s. s. He therefore proposed the name Cribro- 

 hantkenina for the species with a multiple apertm'e, and 

 cited as type species Cribrohantkenina bermudezi Thal- 

 mann, new name for Hantkenina brevispina Bermudez, 

 1937, not Hantkenina brevispina Cushman, 1925. Later 

 authors followed Thalmann (Cushman, 1948, p. 329; 

 Glaessner, 1948, p. 149; Sigal, 1952a, p. 236, although 

 he incorrectly indicated the illustrated species as Cribro- 

 hantkenina brevispina (Cushman); Le Calvez, 1953, p. 

 251; and Barnard 1954, p. 384) in recognizing the valid- 



ity of Cribrohantkenina. However, Bermudez (1952, 

 p. 109) again used the name Sporohantkenina, this time 

 citing as type species " 'Hantkenina (Sporohantkenina) 

 brevispina Cushman,' Bermudez (not Hantkenina brevi- 

 spina Cushman 1925), 1937," and added that the spe- 

 cies was renamed by Thalmann as Hantkenina (Cribro- 

 hantkenina) bermudezi Thalmann, but probably was 

 conspecific with Hantkenina danvUlensis Howe and 

 Wallace, 1934. 



Bermudez cited certain Rules of Nomenclature to 

 substantiate the validity of his generic name, namely 

 Art. 30,1, and Opinion 65. These state in part (Art. 

 30,Ia): "When in the original publication of a genus, 

 one of the species is definitely designated as type, this 

 species shall be accepted as type regardless of any other 

 consideration" ; and (Art. 30,Ic) "A genus proposed with 

 a single original species takes that species as its type." 

 Opinion 65 states: "If an author designates a certain 

 species as genotype, it is to be assumed that his deter- 

 mination of the species is correct ; if a case presents itself 

 in which it appears that an author has based his genus 

 upon certain definite specimens, rather than upon a 

 species, it would be well to submit the case, with full 

 details, to the Commission." 



Bermudez then quoted a personal communication 

 from Doctor de Rivero, of Venezuela, who stated that 

 she believed the original publication to indicate the 

 Cuban specimens as the type, and therefore would 

 uphold Sporohantkenina. However, in the original pub- 

 lication Bermudez stated that he had been given speci- 

 mens of H. brevispina by Cushman, from the Mexican 

 Eocene, and that he had a "good collection of specimens 

 of Hantkenina brevispina Cushman" from Mexico, from 

 the R. Wright Barker collection, given to him by Mrs. 

 Dorothy K. Palmer. He then stated that in a collection 

 of Cuban Eocene material, also obtained from Mrs. 

 Palmer, were "abundantes ejemplares de Hantkenina 

 brevispina Cushman." His description was therefore 

 not based solely on the Cuban specimens. His discus- 

 sion of the aperture was followed by the statement 

 (translation), "The apertural character described above 

 is very constant and of use in determining the species, as 

 it has been observed only in Han^AreTimairems^jma . . ."; 

 he therefore proposed the new subgenus. Bermudez 

 thus definitely cited Hantkenina brevispina Cushman as 

 type in the original publication with no question as to the 

 identification of the Cuban specimens, and according 

 to Art. 30, Ic, that was not only original designation, 

 but also designation by monotypy. 



The Copenhagen decisions on Zoological Nomen- 

 clature clarify some of the earlier rules, and a pertinent 

 quotation is here given concerning Art. 30(c). In these 

 decisions (1953, p. 70) it was stated that a genus would 

 be considered as published "with only one included 

 species . . . where more than one nominal species is 

 so cited by the author of the generic name, but only one 

 of these nominal species possesses a specific name 

 vahdly pubhshed with an indication . . ." Thus, 

 Hantkenina brevispina Cushman would be considered 

 as designated by monotypy as it was the only vahd 



