Buccicrenata subgoodlandensis Loeblich & Tappan 1949
Creators: name: SIMMONS, MICHAEL
name: BIDGOOD, MICHAEL
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2023
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Chromista
Foraminifera
Globothalamea
Loftusiida
Cyclamminidae
Buccicrenata

description: Buccicrenata ex. gr. subgoodlandensis (Vanderpool, 1933)
Reference Illustration & Description
Loeblich and Tappan (1985) p. 100, pl. 2, figs. 4-10.
Filkorn & Scott (2011) provide a recent review of Buccicrenata subgoodlandensis whilst reporting on its occurrence in the Albian of Mexico. The genus Buccicrenata was introduced by Loeblich & Tappan (1949) with the type species being Ammobaculites subgoodlandensis Vanderpool. The possible alveolar nature of the wall of this species was doubted by Maync (1952, 1955), but mentioned and illustrated by Gohrbandt (1966) for his new species Buccicrenata libyca, and eventually proven for B. subgoodlandensis by Loeblich & Tappan (1985). However, these authors (see also Loeblich & Tappan, 1988) suggested that the septa were not alveolar, an observation that has been contested by Banner & Highton (1990), BouDagher-Fadel (2001) and BouDagher-Fadel et al. (2017). The presence of alveolar septa distinguishes Buccicrenata from Everticyclammina Redmond. Note that if the septa of Buccicrenata are proved to be non-alveolar, it would be the senior synonym of Everticyclammina, unless other differences can be identified. Similar to Pseudocyclammina, the alveoles in the wall of Buccicrenata are broad, can bifurcate, and are widely spaced compared to, for example, Choffatella Schlumberger. See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.
If both the wall and septa are alveolar as seems likely, then the key difference between Buccicrenata and Pseudocyclammina is the nature of the aperture, which is cribrate in Pseudocyclammina, but a single sinuous slit with projections in Buccicrenata (Loeblich & Tappan, 1949). However, this feature is not always clear in thin-sections and BouDagher-Fadel (2001) noted that the sinuous nature of the slit aperture of Buccicrenata means that oblique cuts in thin-section can give the impression of multiple apertures being present. This illustrates a general challenge to LBF biostratigraphy in that access to good-quality material in thin section is desirable, but not always possible. Arnaud-Vanneau (1980) suggested that for Everticyclammina hedbergi (Maync) (= Buccicrenata hedbergi) the aperture varies with generation: a terminal slit in microspheric forms, and occasionally multiple in macrospheric forms. Her illustrations (hand drawn, external views of disaggregated specimens; fig. 178 on page 491) do not confirm this unequivocally but examination of more/better material may help with clarification. However, this somewhat controversial opinion has not been followed-up by subsequent workers. A practical distinction between Buccicrenata and Pseudocyclammina is the distinctive reniform shape of the chambers in Buccicrenata caused by the septa being continuous, smooth outgrowths of the chamber wall. All mid-Cretaceous species of Buccicrenata show a distinctive lobate, almost notched profile in equatorial view and can (as can Pseudocyclammina) have an uncoiled, rectilinear terminal stage. In Buccicrenata, the chambers are rapidly enlarging, whilst in Pseudocyclammina the chambers enlarge more slowly. Three species of Buccicrenata have been described from the mid-Cretaceous (see BouDagher-Fadel, 2001 for discussion of older species). These are B. hedbergi, B. subgoodlandensis, and B. libyca. B. hedbergi was first described as Pseudocyclammina hedbergi by Maync (1953a) from the Aptian-Albian of Venezuela; B. subgoodlandensis was first described from Albian strata in Oklahoma, USA (Vanderpool, 1933) with topotypes illustrated and described by Loeblich & Tappan (1949, 1985) (note that in the 1949 publication it is arguable that alongside juvenile forms, more than one adult species is shown given the variations in chamber morphology); and B. libyca was first described from Cenomanian strata in Libya (Gohrbandt, 1966). All three species are remarkably similar (Table 2) in dimensions, shape, number of chambers, tendency to uncoil, and nature of the alveolar wall, such that pending detailed taxonomic studies, these species can be considered under the single name “ Buccicrenata ex. gr. subgoodlandensis ” when identifying random thin-section material. Indeed, Banner & Highton (1990) suggested that B. libyca was a junior synonym of B. hedbergi. BouDagher-Fadel (2001) maintained three separate species but noted there were great similarities between them. Of the three species that fall within this grouping, it is B. hedbergi that is the most widely reported. Although the nature of the aperture of this species was not reported in its type description (Maync, 1953a), the illustrations presented suggest that it is a single slit and that it should be regarded as a species of Buccicrenata as noted by Loeblich & Tappan (1985). There are also records of Everticyclammina virguliana (Koechlin) that are in fact B. ex. gr. subgoodlandensis (e.g., Gušić, 1975).
Stratigraphic Distribution
Early Cretaceous – latest (?) Cenomanian.
The inclusion of B. hedbergi forms within the taxonomic grouping here places its inception within the Early Cretaceous (e.g., Simmons & Hart, 1987 – see also for an illustration of B. ex. gr. subgoodlandensis from the late Albian of the Oman Mountains, and possibly from the Cenomanian as “ Buccicrenata? rugosa ”). For the purpose of this Cenomanian stratigraphic review, there are relatively few records under any plausible name, and even fewer with biostratigraphic calibration, meaning that its range within the Cenomanian is difficult to determine. Note that there are records of P. rugosa that are in fact B. ex. gr. subgoodlandensis, as noted herein.
Confirmed illustrated Cenomanian records of B. ex. gr. subgoodlandensis include the type description of B. libyca from Libya (association with Praealveolina tenuis Reichel suggests a middle – late Cenomanian age (Calonge et al., 2002); Pseudocyclammina cf. hedbergi from Libya (Banner, 1966, 1970); Pseudocyclammina aff. hedbergi from Abu Dhabi (Banner, 1966, 1970); P. hedbergi from Jordan (Weidich & Al Harithi, 1990, see also Basha, 1978 for an unillustrated record of B. subgoodlandensis); Buccicrenata aff. hedbergi and possibly P. rugosa from Portugal (Andrade, 2018); and B. hedbergi from the middle Cenomanian (and older) sediments of north Somalia (Luger, 2018). Also recorded and illustrated as Pseudocyclammina cf. rugosa from the Cenomanian of the Iranian Zagros (Kalantari, 1976) and Israel (Hamaoui, 1965; Arkin & Hamaoui, 1967); illustrated as Pseudocyclammina sp. from south-eastern Turkey (Özkan & Altiner, 2019); and as P. rugosa from Serbia (Radoičić, 1974a).
An illustrated record from the Coniacian of Egypt (Ismail & Soliman, 1997) cannot be confirmed as being of this species as the external view is non-diagnostic.
Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution
Neotethys.
In addition to the confirmed illustrated records noted above, B. subgoodlandensis is said to be abundant in the early Cenomanian of Sinai (Ayyad et al., 1997) but the illustrations are of disaggregated specimens only which precludes confident identification. Reports of B. libyca from Sinai and the Gulf of Suez are either not illustrated (El Baz & Khalil, 2019) or illustrated by disaggregated specimens (Shahin & El Baz, 2013, 2021) that are indeterminate. Illustrations of Pseudocyclammina lituus Yokoyama and Pseudocyclammina massiliensis Maync from the same Cenomanian strata are likely to be misidentifications (they are not typical Cenomanian taxa) and in any case cannot be confirmed from the disaggregated specimens presented. Records of B. subgoodlandensi s from the Cenomanian without illustration include from Spain (Ramirez del Pozo, 1972). B. hedbergi is reported but not illustrated from the early Cenomanian of Jordan (Schulze et al., 2004) and the Cenomanian of Kuwait (Youssef et al., 2019).
description: Published as part of SIMMONS, MICHAEL & BIDGOOD, MICHAEL, 2023, " Larger " Benthic Foraminifera Of The Cenomanian. A Review Of The Identity And The Stratigraphic And Palaeogeographic Distribution Of Non-Fusiform Planispiral (Or Near-Planispiral) Forms, pp. 39-169 in Acta Palaeontologica Romaniae 19 (2) on pages 79-81, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, http://zenodo.org/record/10834181