EXPLANATION OF PLATE 104 (CIV) 



Figs. 1, 2, 12-14, X 40; Figs. 3-11, X 25; Figs. 15, 16, X 80; Fig. 17, X 16; Figs. 18, 19, X 30. 

 Figures 1, 2. — Globor alalia truncatulinoides (d'Orbigny). 



Fig. 1. Challenger Sta. 335, South Atlantic. (1425 fathoms) 

 Referred by Brady to Pulvinulina micheliniana (d'Orbigny), originally from the Cretaceous of France. 

 Cushman (U.S.N.M. Bull. 104, Pt. 8, 1931, p. 97) to Globor otalia truncatulinoides (d'Orbigny) a Recent species 

 from the Canaries. 

 Figures 3-11. — Laticarinina halophora (Stache). 



Figs. 4, 6, 11. Challenger Sta. 120, off Pernambuco, Atlantic. (675 fathoms) 

 Figs. 5, 10. Challenger Sta. 335, South Atlantic. (1425 fathoms) 

 Figs. 7-9. Challenger Sta. 146, Southern Ocean. (1375 fathoms) 

 Referred by Brady to Pulvinulina pauperata Parker and Jones which was designated the genotype of Lati- 

 carinina Galloway and Wissler 1928. Finlay (Trans. Roy. Soc. New Zealand, Vol. 69, 1940, pp. 467-468) studied 

 topotype material from Stache's Whaingaroa beds and found abundant " L. pauperata'' which matched Brady's 

 figures exactly and also Stache's figures of Robulina halophora Stache 1864. He therefore concluded that pau- 

 perata and also "Robulina corona-lunae Stache" are to be regarded as synonyms of Laticarinina halophora 

 (Stache). 

 Figures 12-16. — Favocassidulina favus (Brady). 



Figs. 12, 14, 15. Challenger Sta. 300, N. of Juan Fernandez, E. Pacific. (1375 fathoms) 

 Figs. 13, 16. Challenger Sta. 283, South Pacific. (2075 fathoms) 

 Referred by Brady to Pulvinulina and by Cushman (C.C.L.F.R., Vol. 2, 1926, p. 70) to Cassidulina. Loeblich 

 and Tappan have erected Favocassidulina w\th. favus as genotype (U.S.N.M., Bull. 215, 1957, p. 230). 

 Figure 17. — Eponides punctulatus (d'Orbigny). 



Challenger Sta. 24, West Indies. (390 fathoms) 

 Referred by Brady to Pulvinulina and by Cushman (U.S.N.M. Bull. 104, Pt. 8, 1931, p. 48) to Eponides. 

 Figure 18. — "Eponides repandus (Fichtel and Moll)". 



Challenger Sta. 354A, Vigo Bay, Spain, Atlantic. (11 fathoms) 

 Referred by Brady to Pulvinulina and by Montfort (Conch. Syst., Vol. 1, 1808, p. 127) to Eponides as 

 type. There is doubt as to what the genus Eponides really is as Montfort and Fichtel and Moll's figures repre- 

 sent a totally different form from that now regarded as Eponides repandus (Fichtel and Moll). It seems prob- 

 able that new generic and specific names are required for the present form. The question has been discussed 

 recently by Redmond (The Micropal., N.Y., Vol. 3, No. 4, 1949, pp. 19-21) and Hofker (The Micropal., N.Y., 

 Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 15-16). Redmond (Jour. Pal., Vol. 27, No. 5, 1953, p. 726) refers to this species as "Eponides 

 repandus" (Brady, not Fichtel and Moll). Asano and Uchio (in Stach, Illus. Cat. Jap. Tert. Smaller Foram., 

 Tokyo, Pt. 14, 1951, p. 18) placed forms with large, scattered, rounded openings in the apertural face, but other- 

 wise identical with "E. repandus" auct., in Poroeponides cribrorepandus. Cushman (U.S.N.M., Bull. 104, 

 Pt. 8, 1931, p. 50) mentioned the frequent occurrence of such openings in "E. repandus," and the writer has 

 observed them in many specimens from diverse localities. It is therefore probable that repandus auct. non Fichtel 

 and Moll, should be placed in Poroeponides. It is also probable, however, that the species is that described 

 as Rotalina caribaea by d'Orbigny (Hist. Phys., Pol. et Nat. de I'lle de Cuba, Foram., 1839, p. 74, pi. 5, figs. 

 1-3), from the West Indies. Specimens of cribrorepandus should be compared with d'Orbigny 's type if it is 

 available to determine if these two are identical. 

 Figure 19. — "Eponides repandus (F. & M.)" var. concamerata (Williamson). 



Porcupine Sta. AA, off Loch Scavaig, Scotland, Atlantic. (45-60 fathoms) 

 Referred by Brady to Pulvinulina repanda var. concamerata (Montagu). Cushman (U.S.N.M. Bull. 104, 

 Pt. 8, 1931, p. 51) implies doubt regarding Montagu's species and refers the variety to Williamson 1858. Mon- 

 tagu did not figure his Serpula concamerata and its identity is problematical. 



[214] 



