STUDIES IN FORAMINIFERA 



29 



specific name cited, even if two species were erroneously- 

 included, as no other named species was available. 



The only possibility of a new type being later desig- 

 nated would arise in a case where the type species had 

 been definitely cited in the original publication as not con- 

 specific with Cushman's species. This possible re- 

 course was stated in the above-cited Copenhagen 

 decisions (p. 68) to be limited to cases ". . . where an 

 author . . . designates as the type species a nominal 

 species previously established by some author, and in 

 doing so, makes it clear that he is applying that specific 

 name, not to the species to which that name was applied 

 by its original author, but to some species to which 

 that name had been applied by some later author." 

 This was the case in the erection of the name Cribro- 

 hantkenina by Thalmann, who definitely stated that 

 Bermudez's specimens were the type for the proposed 

 new generic and specific names, and that these were 

 not conspecific with Cushman's original types. It was 

 not the case in the original publication of Bermudez, as 

 there was no question, stated or implied, as to the belief 

 of the author in the validity of the specific determina- 

 tion. On the contrary, the references to the many 

 specimens of true H. brevispina available to him 

 substantiate the assumption that he considered the 

 Cuban specimens correctly identified, and the type 

 species to be Cushman's species. Thus, Hantkenina 

 brevispina Cushman is the type species of Sporohant- 

 kenina by original designation and monotypy, and 

 Thalmann was correct in suppressing the generic name 

 as a synonym of Hantkenina, s. s. 



Although originally described as a subgenus of 

 Hantkenina, Cribrohantkenina was later elevated to 

 generic rank (Cushman, 1948, p. 328). Barnard (1954, 

 p. 384) showed the ontogenetic development of the 

 apertm-e in Cribrohantkenina, although he considered 

 it gradational with Hantkenina. It seems probable 

 that he was dealing with more than one species, how- 

 ever, as in the many large suites of specimens we have 

 studied, there seems to be a sharp boundary between 

 the two. We consider both as distinct genera. 



Types and occurrence: Figured hypo types 

 (USNM P4784a-c) and unfigui-ed hypotypes (USNM 

 P4785) of Cribrohantkenina bermudezi Thalmann from 

 the Jackson Eocene, Pachuta formation, Cushman's 

 "Cocoa sand," 2.2 miles south of Melvin, Choctaw 

 County, Aabama. 



Range : Upper Eocene. 



Hastigerininae BolU, Loeblich, and Tappan, new 

 subfamily 



Type genus: Hastigerina Thomson, 1876. 



Coiling of test planispiral; chambers spherical to 

 clavate; primary aperture equatorial, no secondary 

 apertures present. 



Range: Eocene to Recent. 



Genus Hastigerina Thomson, 1876 



Plate 3, Figures l-4b 



Hastigerina Thomson, Proc. Roy. See. London, vol. 24, p. 534, 

 1876. 



Globigerinella Cushman, Contr. Cushman Lab. Foram. Res., 

 vol. 3, p. 87, 1927. (Type species: Globigerina aequilateralis 

 Brady, 1879. Fixed by original designation and monotypy.) 



Type species: Hastigerina murrayi Thomson, 1876. 

 Fixed by monotypy. 



Test free, early stage may be slightly trochospiral, 

 the adult planisphal, ranging from involute to loosely 

 coiled, biumbilicate, periphery broadly rounded; cham- 

 bers spherical to ovate ; sutures deeply depressed, radial; 

 wall finely to coarsely perforate, radial in structure, sur- 

 face smooth, hispid, or spinose; aperture interiomar- 

 ginal, a broad equatorial arch. 



Remarks: Brady described the type species of the 

 genus as Hastigerina pelagica (d'Orbigny) [=Nonionina 

 pelagica d'Orbigny, 1839], placing Hastigerina murrayi 

 Thomson in synonymy. D'Orbignj'^'s original illustra- 

 tions are similar, but no mention is made of an aperture, 

 nor is one shown on the drawing. Furthermore, 

 d'Orbigny's figures are of a specimen about one-third 

 the size of H. murrayi. As the aperture is so large and 

 characteristic in H. murrayi, we consider the two to be 

 distinct and the valid name for the type species to be 

 Hastigerina murrayi Thomson, 1876. 



The great similarity of Hastigerina and Globigerinella 

 Cushman is evident, and was in fact noted by Brady 

 (1884, p. 614), who stated that the only species with 

 which Hastigerina pelagica {=H. murrayi) "is likely to 

 be confounded is Globigerina aequilateralis," and it 

 later became the type species of Globigerinella. He 

 added that the latter was evolute. In the original de- 

 scription of Globigerinella, no comparisons were given 

 by Cushman as to how the two genera could be differ- 

 entiated. In later texts a discussion was given of the 

 relative coarseness of spines but no statement as to how 

 the two genera could otherwise be separated. The type 

 of ornamentation is variable in planktonic genera, and 

 the type species of both Hastigerina and Globigerinella 

 range from nearly involute to somewhat evolute. This 

 is therefore not regarded as a sufiicient basis for generic 

 separation and Globigerinella is considered a junior 

 synonym of Hastigerina. 



Mesozoic species referred to Globigerinella upon close 

 examination will be seen to belong either to Planomalina 

 Loeblich and Tappan, Biglobigerinella Lalicker, or to 

 Globigerinelloides Cushman and ten Dam. 



Types and occurrence: Figured hypotypes of 

 Hastigerina murrayi Thomson are the specimens figui'ed 

 and described by Brady as Hastigerina pelagica (d'Or- 

 bigny). The dead shell here figured (BMNH ZF 1563) 

 from dredging at 1,990 fathoms. Challenger Station 338, 

 m the South Atlantic, lat. 21° 15' S., long. 14° 02' W. 

 Hypotypes (BMNH ZF 1562) mounted in balsam, were 

 living specimens taken by tow net of the Challenger, 

 but the exact locality is not given. The side view of 



