ART. 6 FORAMINIFERA: POLYMORPHINIDAE — CUSHMAN AND OZAWA 21 



line arrangement of chambers. Brady, Parker, and Jones give a 

 figure drawn from d'Orbigny's model No. 61 (pi. 39, fig. 71a), but so 

 far as our model shows, the figure is not well drawn and does not 

 represent the species correctly. The trouble is that d'Orbigny's 

 Guttulina problema, figured from the Vienna Basin, so far as his 

 original specimen examined by Ozawa is concerned, is different from 

 his original represented by the model. Moreover the model, judging 

 from ours, seems not to be made well. 



That is, the arrangement of chambers shown by the model appears 

 at first to be in a very roughly clockwise quinqueloculine series, and 

 the third chamber is added abnormally. D'Orbigny's original speci- 

 men is lost; therefore the model is the only reference having any 

 authority. It may be supposed that d'Orbigny's original of Guttulina 

 frohlema was an abnormal specimen. 



We have examined some Pliocene material from Castel Arquato, 

 which is the original locality of d'Orbigny's Guttulina problema, and 

 obtained some specimens which are very close to d'Orbigny's model, 

 but there is no abnormal specimen just like the model. One of our 

 specimens is figured. The figured specimen, as well as the others 

 from the same locality, more or less resemble Guttulina communis 

 figured by d'Orbigny in 1826, the differences are that Guttulina 

 problema has one more chamber than the latter, and its later chambers 

 are slightly more slender. Such differences are, of course, of very 

 little importance for specific separation in this group, as thej^ are not 

 constant. 



Brady, Parker, and Jones recognized the close relationship between 

 Guttulina problema and Guttulina communis, but they preferred to 

 accept the models No. 61 and No. 62 as a basis of subdivision, while 

 later Brady proposed to unite them in the Challenger report, although 

 he gave separate names to the figures. 



Reuss, when he described Polymorphina problema var. deltoidea in 

 1866,^ placed together Guttulina communis, Guttulina problema, and 

 Guttulina austriaca; this conclusion might have been guided by the 

 figures in the Vienna Basin monograph. However, d'Orbigny's Gut- 

 tulina communis figured in the Vienna Basin monograph is the same 

 as Reuss's Guttulina dilatata described in 1851, and d'Orbigny's Gut- 

 tulina problema in the same paper is nothing but a specimen having 

 one more chamber than Guttulina communis {Guttulina dilatata). 

 Guttulina austriaca is, as discussed later, quite different from the 

 other two. The above discussion was confirmed by the study of 

 both the holotypes and paratypes. 



At first, we endeavored to separate Guttulina problema and Guttulina 

 communis, but a study of the large accumulation of both fossil and 



* Deutsch. d. Matem.-Natur. Classed, k. Akad. Wissens, vol. 25, p. 164. 



