EXPLANATION OF PLATE 88 (LXXXVIII) 



Figs. 1-3, 5, 10, X 100; Fig. 4, X 90; Figs. 6, 9, X 50; Fig. 7, X 75; Fig. 8, X 60. 

 Figure 1. — Gavelinopsis lobatulus (Parr.) 



Challenger Sta. 279C, off Tahiti, Pacific. (620 fathoms) 

 Referred by Brady to Discorbina isabelleana (d'Orbigny), and by Parr (B.A.N.Z. Antarctic Res. Exped. 

 1929-1931, Ser. B, Vol. 5, No. 6, 1950, p. 354) to Discorbis lobatulus. It is regarded as a. Gavelinopsis. 

 Figure 2. — Rosalina sp. nov. 



Challenger Sta. 233B, Inland Sea, Japan. (15 fathoms) 

 Referred by Brady to Discorbina vilardeboana (d' Orbigny), a non-carinate species of Rosalina figured on 

 Plate LXXXVI, fig. 9. Cushman and Kellett (Proc. U.S.N. M., Vol. 75, Art. 25, 1929, p. 9) referred these figures 

 to Discorbis isabelleanus (d'Orbigny) but Heron-Allen and Earland (Discovery Repts., Vol. 4, 1932, p. 411-412) 

 have shown that this is clearly erroneous. From a study of the available literature this form appears to be new 

 and is regarded as belonging to d'Orbigny's genus Rosalina. 

 Figure 3. — Pileolina (?) patelliformis (Brady). 



Challenger Sta. 219A, Admiralty Islands, Pacific. (17 fathoms) 

 Referred by Brady to Discorbina and by Cushman and others to Discorbis. Brotzen (Sver. Geol. Unders. 

 Avh., Ser. C, Vol. 30, 1936, p. 141) referred it to Conorbina, and Hofker to Conorbella. Conorbella is a synonym 

 of Glabratella Dorreen (see note on fig. 10 below) and patelliformis is removed from that genus by Hornibrook 

 and Vella (The Micropal., N.Y., Vol. 8, No. 1, 1954, p. 25). It is possible that Pileolina may be available for 

 this and allied species (see Hornibrook and Vella, 1. c). 

 Figures 4-8. — Neoconorbina terquemi (Rzehak), et sp. 



Fig. 4. Challenger Sta. 172, Friendly Islands, Pacific. (18 fathoms) 

 Fig. 5. Challenger Sta. 33, off Bermuda, Atlantic. (435 fathoms) 

 Figs. 6, 7. Challenger Sta. 185, Torres Strait, Pacific. (155 fathoms) 

 Fig. 8. Challenger Sta. 163B, off Port Jackson, Australia. (2-10 fathoms) 

 Referred by Brady to Discorbina orbicularis (Terquem), which is a homonym of Rosalina orbicularis d'Or- 

 bigny 1850, and was renamed Discorbina terquemi by Rzehak (Verb. Geol. Reichsanst., Wien, 1888, p. 228). 

 It was placed in Rosalina by Bermudez (1952) and in Conorbina by Brotzen (1936). Hofker (Siboga Exped., 

 Foraminifera Pt. Ill, 1951, p. 435) placed it in Neoconorbina, and stated that at least three species had pre- 

 viously been confused under the heading Discorbina orbicularis (Terquem). It is thought that fig. 5 here is 

 probably N. terquemi, with figs. 6-8 as probable variants, and that fig. 4 is very close to N. pacifica Hofker 

 and A'', marginata Hofker. Comparative material should be studied to determine the identity of figure 4, and 

 whether figures 6-8 are conspecific with A^. terquemi.* 

 Figure 9. — Rosalina (?) eximia (Hantken). 



Challenger Sta. 185, Torres Strait, Pacific. (155 fathoms) 

 Referred by Brady to Discorbina and by Cushman and others to Discorbis. The generic position of this form 

 is uncertain but it seems probable that it should be placed in Rosalina. 

 Figure 10. — Glabratella pulvinata (Brady). 



Challenger Sta. 219A, Admiralty Islands, Pacific. (17 fathoms) 

 Referred by Brady to Discorbina and by Cushman and others to Discorbis. Dorreen (Jour. Pal., Vol. 22, 

 No. 3, 1948, p. 294) placed it in Glabratella, and Hofker (Siboga Exped., Foraminifera Pt. Ill, 1951, p. 470), 

 apparently in ignorance of the work of Dorreen, made it the genotype of Conorbella. Hornibrook and Vella (The 

 Micropal., N. Y., Vol. 8, No. 1, 1954) have shown that Conorbella is a synonym oi Glabratella Dorreen, al- 

 though Hofker included in that genus a number of species not congeneric with the type. 



*Fornasini (Mem. R. Ace. Sci. 1st. Bologna, Ser. V, Vol. 10, 1902, p. 56) referred these figures to Discorbina subrotunda (d'Orbigny). 

 This is a nomen nudum so Rzehak's name must stand. 



i 



[182] 



