Praetaberina bingistani
Creators: name: SIMMONS, MICHAEL
name: BIDGOOD, MICHAEL
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2023
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Chromista
Foraminifera
Tubothalamea
Miliolida
Soritidae
Praetaberina
Praetaberina bingistani

description: Praetaberina bingistani (Henson, 1948)
Reference Illustration & Description
Consorti et al. (2015), Figs. 5-7, p. 382.
The taxonomic status, history, description, and illustration of Praetaberina Consorti et al. and its two species – P. bingistani (Henson) and P. apula (Consorti et al.) is comprehensively reviewed by Consorti et al. (2015). These authors re-examined material from Iran including the type material of Taberina bingistani illustrated by Henson (1948) from Kuh-i-Bingistani in the Iranian Zagros, as well as new material from Italy.
Essentially, Praetaberina is very similar to Pseudorhapydionina (bingistani was assigned to Pseudorhapydionina by Whittaker et al., 1998) but possesses pillars between consecutive septa in the central part of the chamber. Pseudorhipidionina is also very similar (Borghi & Pignatti, 2006) but also lacks pillars and also tends to have a more compressed uncoiled portion whereas Praetaberina tends to be more cylindrical. Species of Pseudorhipidionina are often confused with Praetaberina (and vice versa) in the literature – see comments on that genus). P. bingistani has a more complex internal structure than its original assigned genus – Taberina – which is now restricted to the Paleogene (see Vicedo et al., 2013 for a comprehensive review of this genus).
Another similar genus is the Paleogene Neotaberina Hottinger, 2007, which has apertures that extend almost to the periphery of the chamber and the pillared zone overlaps with the distal ends of the septula. The initial subglobular, planispiral stage is poorly developed in Neotaberina.
P. bingistani has numerous chambers in the coiled portion – over 50 within two and a half to three whorls before uncoiling sub-cylindrically to between 10-15 chambers and which stage can be up to 2.1mm in length. Septula alternate relatively short-long but only extend inwards about a quarter of the diameter of the chamber. The pillars in the central part are inverted cone-shaped (Consorti et al., 2015). See the Species Key Chart (Appendix) for diagnostic and other characteristics.
P. apula is smaller overall and has a maximum of only two initially coiled whorls. The septula are fewer, but they extend further inwards within the chamber than P. bingistani, thus reducing the central chamber space available for the foramina and pillars.
Pseudorhipidionina tubaensis, a new species described from the Mishrif Formation of the Tuba-1 well in southern Iraq (Mohammed, 2007), was found to contain pillars by Consorti & Schlagintweit (2021b) thus precluding it from Pseudorhipidionina. Those authors consider it as a partial junior synonym of P. bingistani.
Stratigraphic Distribution
Middle – late (but not latest) Cenomanian.
The various published ages attributed to P. bingistani are fully reviewed by Consorti et al. (2015) and, essentially, restrict its range to the late (but not latest) Cenomanian (but without excluding a middle Cenomanian age). However, they indicate that the FAD of P. bingistani is associated with the MCE I and II Carbon-isotope peaks of Jarvis et al. (2006) as observed in sections from the Iranian Zagros. They suggest therefore that the FAD of P. bingistani as “very early late Cenomanian”. Our studies elsewhere (Bidgood & Simmons 2022) calibrate both these peaks to within the middle Cenomanian based on Jarvis et al. (2006) and Joo & Sageman (2014). See also data presented in poster form by Vicedo et al. (2013) that suggests a middle Cenomanian age for carbon isotope calibrated occurrences from Iran.
Smith et al. (1990) and Kennedy & Simmons (1991) recorded P. bingistani (unillustrated) from strata from Oman (Natih C – Natih E) around the early/middle Cenomanian boundary (age based on carbon isotope data and ammonites – see Bromhead et al., 2022).
Saint-Marc (1974 a, 1981) records it as old as late early Cenomanian in Lebanon (although the illustrated material is late Cenomanian). The less well calibrated records from Israel of Hamaoui (1966) and Arkin & Hamaoui (1967) are also suggestive of middle – late Cenomanian range.
Consorti et al. (2015 fide Frijia et al., 2015) position the LAD of P. bingistani to the “middle part of the upper Cenomanian”.
A statement by Razin et al. (2010) that the presence of P. bingistani can be used to define a Turonian age in the Iranian Zagros is erroneous and not substantiated by the cited views of Wynd (1965). Wynd (1965) considered P. bingistani as an element of his Nezzazata - alveolinid assemblage zone (zone 25), to which he ascribed a Cenomanian -?Turonian age. More modern views (e.g., Omidvar et al., 2014a, b; Kazemzadeh & Lotfpoor, 2016) tend to restrict this zone to the Cenomanian.
Records published after Consorti et al. (2015) or not noted by them include Mahdi & Aqrawi (2014, unillustrated); Awadeesian et al. (2018, illustrated) and Al-Dulaimy et al. (2022 – unillustrated as “ Tabarian bingstani ”) from the late Cenomanian part of the Mishrif Formation of southern Iraq. Al Dulaimi et al. (2013) illustrate P. bingistani as “ Pseudotextulariella casertana ” (pl. 10, fig. 8) from the Mishrif Formation (undifferentiated late Cenomanian – early Turonian) of the well West Qurna-215 from southern Iraq. However, another specimen (pl. 9, fig. 6) actually referred to P. bingistani is indeterminate. The species is illustrated from southern Iraq by Al-Salihi & Ibrahim (2023).
From the Iranian Zagros, illustrations by Kalantari (1976) are indeterminate, whilst Assadi et al. (2016: fig. 6 a8) illustrate “ Pseudotextulariella cacertana ” which is probably P. bingistani, as is the specimen (fig. 6 a9) illustrated as “ Biconcava bentori ”. Additional records from the late Cenomanian of the Iranian Zagros include Rahimpour-Bonab et al. (2013, uncertain illustration); Omidvar et al. (2014b, uncertain illustration); Kazemzadeh & Lotfpoor (2016, illustrated); Jamalpour et al. (2017, illustrated); Navidtalab et al. (2020, unillustrated); Ezampanah et al. (2022, illustrated); Kiarostami et al. (2019, illustrated though assigned to Pseudorhipidionina) and Schlagintweit & Yazdi-Moghadam (2021, illustrated). However, several recent records from the Iranian Zagros are less reliable; including Haftlang et al. (2020) which attributes a middle Cenomanian age to the “ Taberina bingistani taxon range zone” based on associations with “other early to mid-Cenomanian taxa” (Cuneolina parva Henson and Praealveolina tenuis Reichel, but the latter is unlikely to be early Cenomanian). Moreover, Haftlang et al.’s. illustration of P. bingistani is inconclusive and they do not refer to Consorti et al. (2015) at all. On the other hand, Mohajer et al. (2021a, 2022a) attribute their “ Cisalveolina lehneri – Praetaberina bingistani assemblage zone ” to the late Cenomanian based on Consorti et al. (2015) and more recent literature and a somewhat better illustration. Finally, without illustration, and substantive explanation, Mohajer et al. (2021b, 2022c) refer to both middle and late Cenomanian records of P. bingistani (a “ Chrysalidina gradata — Praetaberina bingistani Interval Zone (Middle Cenomanian) ”, and a “ Cisalveolina fraasi (fallax) & Cisalveolina lehneri — Praetaberina bingistani Assemblage Zone (Late Cenomanian) ”, although it seems that the consensus view of these authors is that P. bingistani indicates a late Cenomanian age in the Iranian Zagros.
In summary, P. bingistani seems to range from the middle to late (but not latest) Cenomanian but the majority of plausible substantiated records are from the late Cenomanian.
Cenomanian Paleogeographic Distribution
Eastern Neotethys (Arabian Plate).
Consorti et al. (2015) note that P. bingistani has been confidently recorded from localities in the Iranian Zagros, Iraq (see also Hamaoui & Brun, 1974; Whittaker et al. 1998); Oman; Syria (see also illustrated by Ghanem & Kuss, 2013); Lebanon and Israel and “probably” from Egypt and Somalia (see their paper for sources). In addition to references above there is also an unconfirmed record from Abu Dhabi (Le Blanc, 2015).
In Europe the species has been reported from Greece (Fleury, 1980) and from Italy (Borghi & Pignatti, 2006). However, the specimens recorded in both these countries are considered by Consorti et al. (2015) to be referable to their new species, P. apula (see below).
P. bingistani therefore seems to be restricted to localities on or around the Arabian Plate.
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 125-127, DOI: 10.35463/j.apr.2023.02.06, http://zenodo.org/record/10834181