Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia volume 117 no. 1 2 pls. pp. 29-37 April 2011 TWO SPECIES OF PROFUSULINELLA (P. ALJUTOVICA AND P. OVATA), EARLY MOSCOVIAN (PENNSYLVANIAN) FUSULINES FROM SOUTHERN TURKEY AND SUBDIVISION OF PRIMITIVE GROUPS OF THE FAMILY FUSULINIDAE FUMIO KOBAYASHI Received: December 6, 2010; accepted: January 10, 2011 Institute of Natural and Environmental Sciences, University of Hyogo, Sanda, Hyogo 669-1546, Japan. E-mail: kobayasi@hitohaku.jp Key words: Profusulinella, Early Moscovian, Taurides, Turkey. Abstract. Early Moscovian (Pennsylvanian) fusulines, Profu- sulinella aljutovica and Profusulinella ovata, from the Hadim area, southern Turkey are described systematically. They are contained in the bedded limestone (algal fusuline grainstone) of the Yaricak For- mation of the Aladag Unit in the Tauride Block. Morphologic analysis of these and similar species suggests: (1) Aljutovella should be syn- onymous with Profusulinella; (2) Ovatella, Depratina, Staffellae- formes, Aljutovella (Elongatella), Tikhonovichiella, Skelnevatella, and Priscoidella proposed in 1980’s and 1990’s are also synonymous with Profusulinella; and (3) the families Profusulinellidae and Aljutovelli- dae are not necessary and Profusulinella is included in the subfamily Fusulinellinae placed under the family Fusulinidae. Riassunto. Viene descritta la sistematica di due fusulinidi dal Moscoviano inferiore (Pennsylvaniano) Profusulinella aljutovica e Profusulinella ovata, provenienti dall’area di Hadim, nella Turchia meridionale. Le specie provengono da un calcare stratificato (grainsto- ne algale con fusuline) della Formazione Yaricak nell’unità struttura- le Aladag nei Tauridi. L’analisi morfologica di queste forme e di altre specie similari suggerisce che: 1) il genere Aljutovella dovrebbe essere sinonimo con Profusulinella; 2) Ovatella, Depratina, Staffellaeformes, Aljutovella (Elongatella), Tikhonovichiella, Skelnevatella e Priscoidel- la, generi proposti negli anni 1980 e 1990 sono ugualmente sinonimi con Profusulinella; e 3) le famiglie Profusulinellidae e Aljutovellidae non sono necessarie, con Profusulinella inclusa nella sottofamiglia Fu- sulinellinae, posta entro la famiglia Fusulinidae. Introduction Fusuline faunas of the Tauride Block in the Hadim area, southern Turkey (Fig. 1) have particular implications in relation to the paleogeographic loca- tion of the block on the Gondwana margin facing the Paleotethys Sea (Kobayashi & Altiner 2008). Devonian to Triassic interbedded carbonate rocks and siliciclastic rocks referable to the Aladag Unit are widely distrib- uted in the Hadim area (Altiner & Özgül 2001). The Serpukhovian, Bashkirian, and Moscovian limestones of the Carboniferous Yaricak Formation of the Ala- dag Unit in the area are biostratigraphically subdivided into nine zones based on primitive fusulines such as Eostaffella, Pseudostaffella, Profusulinella, and Fu- sulinella (Altiner & Özgül 2001). Profusulinella is di- versified in the Yaricak Formation, with four species in the upper Bashkirian and eight species in the lower Moscovian reported by Altiner & Özgül (2001). In ad- dition to them, four species of Aljutovella were report- ed from the lower Moscovian. These fusulines from the Yaricak Formation, however, have not been systemati- cally described or illustrated. Profusulinella and related genera are important in the early evolution of the family Fusulinidae (e.g., Thompson 1948; Rauzer-Chernousova et al. 1951). These forms also present serious taxonomic problems (Ross 1999; Villa et al. 2001; Groves et al. 2007) mainly because Solovieva in Rauzer-Chernousova et al. (1996) erected many new genera and subgenera that were placed under two new families (Profusulinellidae and Aljutovellidae). Taxonomic opinions regarding these primitive fusulines vary widely among specialists. This paper systematically describes two species of Profusulinella, P. aljutovica and P. ovata from lower 30 Kobayashi F. Moscovian (Vereian) limestones of the Yaricak Forma- tion in the Hadim area, southern Turkey. The taxono- my of Profusulinella and similar taxa are discussed in conjunction with systematic description of these two species. The limestone sample used in this paper was collected from the Hadim area on the occasion of the field excursion immediately after the conference on Paleozoic Benthic Foraminifera (PaleoForam 2001) held in Ankara 20-24 August 2001. All the specimens herein described are registered with prefix D2- and stored in the Museum of Nature and Human Activities, Hyogo, Japan (Fumio Koba- yashi Collection, MNHAM). Fig. 1 - Map showing the distribution of the Tauride Block and the Hadim area, southern Turkey. Material and foraminiferal fauna In the Hadim area, the Serpukhovian is subdivided into three fusuline zones, the Bashkirian into four, and the Moscovian into two based on the first occurrences of zonal species (Altiner & Özgül 2001). Profusulinella first appears in the fourth zone of the Bashkirian (Profusulinella Zone) and ranges into the lower zone of the Mosco- vian (Eostaffella mutabilis - Profusulinella prisca - Eofusulina (Paraeo- fusulina) Zone). Pseudostaffella antiqua, P. antiqua grandis, P. com- pressa, P. proozawai, Profusulinella bona, P. parva, P. staffellaeformis, and P. rhomboides are reported from the Bashkirian Profusulinella Zone. In addition to three zonal indicators, Pseudostaffella praegorski, two species of Neostaffella, eight species of Profusulinella including P. primitiva and P. subovata, four species of Aljutovella, and Eofusulina triangula are characteristic of the lower part of the Moscovian (Al- tiner & Özgül 2001). Profusulinella and Aljutovella were not reported from the upper part of the Moscovian (Fusulinella ex gr. bocki - Beed- eina Zone) according to Altiner & Özgül (2001). Sample treated herein was collected from Moscovian lime- stone of the Yaricak Formation exposed at the point (36º 54’ 44’’ N and 32º 23’ 24’’E), about 10 km SW of the town of Hadim, southern Turkey (Fig. 1). It is highly fossiliferous and consists of algal fusuline grainstone with dominant foraminifers, subordinate red algae (Un- gdarella and Komia) and problematic algae, and accessory brachio- pods and crinoids. Fusulines are mostly assignable to Profusulinella aljutovica and Profusulinella ovata. Other genera are Staffella, Nan- kinella, Eostaffella, and Eoschubertella. The Moscovian, consisting of the Vereian, Kashirian, Podolskian, and Myachkovian substages in ascending order, is biostratigraphically subdivided into 11 fusuline zones in the stratotype sections of the Moscow Syneclise (Isakova 2002). Eofusulina and evolved forms of Neostaffella that first ap- peared in the Kashirian in the type sections (Isakova 2002) are not contained in the present material. Non-fusuline foraminifers are as- signed to Bradyina, Endothyra, Planoendothyra, Globivalvulina, Biseriella, Palaeotextularia, and Spireitlina. Based on the foraminif- eral assemblage, the present sample is thought to be early Moscovian (Vereian) assignable to the lower part of the Eostaffella mutabilis - Profusulinella prisca - Eofusulina (Paraeofusulina) Zone of Altiner & Özgül (2001). Subdivision of primitive groups of the Family Fusulinidae Rauzer-Chernousova in Rauzer-Chernousova et al. (1951) proposed the genus Aljutovella and assigned to it seven species and varieties formerly assigned to Profusulinella, Fusulinella, or Fusulina, as well as 25 new species. Aljutovella was distinguished from Pro- fusulinella by having characteristic “ячейки” referable to cells, meshes, alveoli, or other meanings in tangen- tial sections that resemble the structure of the septa of the genus Fusulina and the partial “поры” referable to pores in the wall of the outermost whorl. The former probably corresponds not to alveolar wall but to small cells or chamberlets formed by septal folding. The lat- ter is found in Kashirian forms (Rauzer-Chernosova et al., 1951, p. 21, Fig. 8B). A porous wall under the tec- tum is also recognized in some species of Profusulinel- la. Thus, Aljutovella in the original description is not clearly distinguished from Profusulinella based both on slight differences of their wall structure and of an intensity and mode of septal folding in axial and polar regions in generic rank, though it might be possible in species rank. Aljutovella has been widely accepted by Russian workers (e.g., Rauser-Chernousova et al. 1951; Bensh 1969; Rozovskaya 1975; Leven & Davydov in Leven et al. 2005) and by others outside Russia (e.g., Sheng 1958; van Ginkel 1965; Villa 1995). In contrast, it has been questioned by some workers (e.g., Thompson 1964; Loeblich & Tappan 1988). Ross (1999) showed that the porous wall of Aljutovella is diagenetic feature commonly found in other poorly preserved fusulines in weathered zones. Disagreement concerning the ge- neric composition and classification of the family Fu- sulinidae increased pursuant to the creation of many new genera and subgenera under the new families Pro- fusulinellidae and Aljutovellidae by Solovieva in Rau- zer-Chernousova et al. (1996). The family Profusulinellidae was erected to ac- commodate six genera, Profusulinella, Taitzehoella Sheng, 1951, Ovatella Solovieva in Rauzer-Chernous- ova et al., 1996, Depratina Solovieva in Rauzer- Chernousova et al., 1996, Staffellaeformes Solovieva, 1986, and Moellerites Solovieva, 1986. As indicated by Early Moscovian fusulines from southern Turkey 31 Villa et al. (2001) and Groves et al. (2007), three spe- cies groups within Profusulinella were reorganized by Solovieva in Rauzer-Chernousova (1996) into Ovatel- la, Depratina, and Staffellaeformes. Groves et al. (2007) thought that Moellerites was erected for the transition- al forms from Profusulinella to Fusulinella. The family Aljutovellidae consists of Aljutovella (Aljutovella), Aljutovella (Elongatella), Tikhonovi- chiella, Skelnevatella, and Priscoidella according to Solovieva in Rauzer-Chernousova et al (1996). These genera and subgenera were proposed by the reorgani- zation of known species groups of Aljutovella. Pro- fusulinella aljutovica elongata Rauzer-Chernousova, 1938 Aljutovella tikhonovichi Rauzer-Chernousova in Rauzer-Chernousova et al., 1951 Profusulinella skel- nevatica Putrya in Putrya & Leontovich, 1948 and Profusulinella priscoidea Rauzer-Chernousova, 1938 were designated as the type species of Aljutovella (Elongatella), Tikhonovichiella, Skelnevatella, and Pri- scoidella, respectively. Three-layered wall structure (tectum and lower and upper tectoria) is clearly ex- pressed in the original description of these type species. A diaphanotheca is partly developed in the terminal whorl of Profusulinella priscoidea according to Rauzer- Chernousova (1938). Although shape and massiveness of chomata were added to the diagnostic features of the family Aljutovellidae in Rauser-Chernousova et al. (1996), Aljutovella and related forms are not easily distinguished from Profusulinella. In my opinion, dif- ferences in the development of chomata, shape of the test and intensity of septal folding are expressed within and among populations, and these differences are in- sufficient to warrant the recognition of multiple gen- era and subgenera. The recognized generic composi- tion of Aljutovellidae by recent workers (e.g., Isakova 2002; Leven 2009) follows that by Solovieva in Rauzer- Chernousova et al. (1996). Profusulinella aljutovica from the Hadim area, shown in Pl. 1, has a more elongate fusiform test and stronger septal folding than Profusulinella ovata. The wall consists of thin distinct tectum and lower thicker protheca comparable to the lower tectorium of previ- ous authors. A thin layer comparable to the upper tec- torium is not always present. Presence or absence, and thickness of the upper tectorium largely depend upon the state of preservation of specimens. Broad morpho- logic variations are recognized in every test character as well as in those of Profusulinella ovata illustrated in Pl. 2. For example, the specimens shown in Pl. 1, figs. 3 and 10 look like a form of “Skelnevatella” in their inflated fusiform tests with pointed poles and massive chomata. Furthermore, based on similar test characters, the specimens in Pl. 1, figs. 8 and 13 appear to be a form of “Tikhonovichiella”; and that in Pl. 1, fig. 7 appears to be a form of “Priscoidella”. Obvi- ously, these characters are highly variable and change continuously from specimen to specimen. Differences among the 28 specimens illustrated are considered to only represent the intraspecific variation of Profu- sulinella aljutovica. In conclusion, primitive fusulines in the present material are assigned to Profusulinella and recognized as two species, P. ovata and P. aljutovica. Aljutovella, Ovatella, Depratina, Staffellaeformes, Aljutovella (Elongatella), Tikhonovichiella, Skelnevatella, and Priscoidella are unnecessary names erected for what amount to species groups. All of them are thought to be junior synonyms of Profusulinella. Given this, the families Profusulinidae and Aljutovellidae are redun- dant, too. Systematic Paleontology Suborder Fusulinina Wedekind, 1937 Superfamily Fusulinoidea von Möller, 1878 Family Fusulinidae von Möller, 1878 Subfamily Fusulinellinae Staff and Wedekind, 1910 Fusulinellinae Staff and Wedekind, 1910, p. 112. Profusulinellidae Solovieva in Rauzer-Chernousova et al., 1996, p. 92. Aljutovellidae Solovieva in Rauzer-Chernousova et al., 1996, p. 95. Genus Profusulinella Rauzer-Chernousova and Belyaev, in Rauzer-Chernousova et al., 1936 Type species: Profusulinella pararhomboides Rauzer-Chernousova and Belyaev in Rauzer-Chernousova et al., 1936, p. 175. Ovatella Solovieva in Rauzer-Chernousova et al., 1996, p. 93 (type, Profusulinella ovata Rauzer-Chernousova, 1938). Depratina Solovieva in Rauzer-Chernousova et al., 1996, p. 93, 94 (type, Schwagerina prisca Deprat, 1912). Staffellaeformes Solovieva, 1986, p. 20 (type, Profusulinella staffellaeformis Kireeva in Rauzer-Chernousova et al., 1951). Aljutovella Rauzer-Chernousova in Rauzer-Chernousova et al., 1951, p. 182 (type, Profusulinella aljutovica Rauzer-Chernousova, 1938). Aljutovella (Aljutovella) Rauzer-Chernousova; Solovieva in Rauzer-Chernousova et al., 1996, p. 96. Aljutovella (Elongatella) Solovieva in Rauzer-Chernousova et al., 1996, p. 96 (type, Profusulinella aljutovica elongata Rauzer- Chernousova, 1938). Tikhonovichiella Solovieva in Rauzer-Chernousova, 1996, p. 96 (type, Aljutovella tikhonovichi Rauzer-Chernousova in Rauzer- Chernousova et al., 1951). Skelnevatella Solovieva in Rauzer-Chernousova et al., 1996, p. 96 (type, Profusulinella skelnevatica Putrya in Putrya and Leontovich, 1948). Priscoidella Solovieva in Rauzer-Chernousova et al., 1996, p. 97 (type, Profusulinella priscoidea Rauzer-Chernousova, 1938). 32 Kobayashi F. Discussion. All genera and subgenera listed above except for Staffellaeformes were proposed for the typical forms of species groups of Profusulinella or Aljutovella in the systematic classification in Rauzer- Chernousova et al. (1951). Profusulinella staffellaefor- mis, type species of Staffellaeformes was proposed, was included in the Profusulinella parva group in Rauzer- Chernousova et al. (1951). In my opinion none of these listed nominal taxa differs significantly from Profusu- linella so that all can be regarded as junior synonyms of Profusulinella, as discussed above. The family Alju- tovellidae is accordingly unnecessary. Moellerites pro- posed by Solovieva (1986) with M. lopasniensis Solo- vieva, 1986 as the type species might be synonymous with either Profusulinella or Fusulinella. The genus Taitzehoella Sheng, 1951 is distinct from Profusulinella and is placed with Profusulinella in the subfamily Fu- sulinellinae of the family Fusulinidae. Therefore, the family Profusulinellidae erected by Solovieva in Rau- zer-Chernousova et al. (1996) is also unnecessary. Profusulinella aljutovica Rauzer-Chernousova, 1938 Pl. 1, figs 1-28 1938 Profusulinella aljutovica Rauzer-Chernousova, p. 97, 98, pl. 1, figs 10-12. 1951 Aljutovella aljutovica (Rauzer-Chernousova); Safonova and Rauzer-Chernousova in Rauzer-Chernousova et al., p. 193, 194, pl. 22, figs 1, 2. 1951 Aljutovella conspecta Leontovich in Rauzer-Chernouso- va et al., p. 195, 196, pl. 23, fig. 1. 1951 Aljutovella arrisionis Leontovich in Rauzer-Chernouso- va et al., p.196, 197, pl. 23, fig. 2. 1996 Aljutovella (Aljutovella) aljutovica (Rauzer-Chernouso- va); Solovieva in Rauzer-Chernousova et al., p. 96, pl. 24, fig. 1. Material: Fifteen axial and thirteen sagittal sections illustrated, and others. Description. Test fusiform to inflated fusi- form with arched to broadly arched periphery, almost straight lateral slopes, rounded to bluntly pointed poles. Axis of coiling straight in general, but crossing at a large angle between inner lenticular and outer fusi- form whorls in specimens. Mature specimens with 4.5 Tab. 1 - Measurement of Profusulinella aljutovica Rauzer-Chernousova. PLATE 1 Figs 1-28 - Profusulinella aljutovica Rauzer-Chernousova, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 17: ×50, others: × 25. 1: D2-025575, 2: D2-025601, 3: D2-025591, 4: D2- 025609, 5: D2-025623, 6: D2-025620, 7: D2-025553, 8: D2-025566, 9: D2-025620, 10: D2-025562, 11: D2- 025617, 12: D2-025607, 13: D2-025611, 14: D2-025562, 15: D2-025578, 16: D2-025545, 17: D2-025544, 18: D2- 025523, 19: D2-025537, 20: D2-025557, 21: D2-025574, 22: D2-025616, 23: D2-025584; 24: D2-025538, 25: D2- 025524, 26: D2-025584, 27: D2-025528, 28: D2-025530. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Pl. 1, fig. 1 5.5 2.24 1.08 2.07 0.11 0.23 0.49 0.93 1.47 1.99 0.14 0.26 0.43 0.64 0.93 - - - - - Pl. 1, fig. 3 5 2.08 1.16 1.79 0.11 0.28 0.56 0.94 1.66 2.08 0.22 0.34 0.54 0.81 1.16 - - - - - Pl. 1, fig. 5 5.5 2.13 1.04 2.05 0.06 0.07 0.25 0.56 1.24 1.69 0.12 0.18 0.31 0.51 0.81 - - - - - Pl. 1, fig. 7 5.5 1.88 1.08 1.74 0.08 0.13 0.34 0.69 1.19 1.72 0.14 0.24 0.38 0.6 0.9 - - - - - Pl. 1, fig. 8 4.5 1.25 0.67 1.87 0.06 0.11 0.36 0.77 1.09 - 0.13 0.2 0.34 0.55 - - - - - - Pl. 1, fig. 10 5 1.58 0.93 1.7 0.1 0.14 0.37 0.68 1.06 1.58 0.14 0.24 0.4 0.62 0.92 - - - - - Pl. 1, fig. 11 4.5 1.7 1.13 1.5 0.13 0.35 0.72 1.32 1.55 - 0.22 0.39 0.64 0.94 - - - - - - Pl. 1, fig. 12 4.5 1.98 1.02 1.94 0.12 0.3 0.67 1.12 1.65 - 0.18 0.34 0.58 0.86 - - - - - - Pl. 1, fig. 13 4 1.58 0.77 2.05 0.13 0.26 0.54 1.01 1.58 - 0.2 0.32 0.53 0.77 - - - - - - Pl. 1, fig. 14 5.5 2.19 1.08 2.03 0.06 0.14 0.29 0.68 1.28 1.86 0.12 0.22 0.34 0.57 0.9 - - - - - Pl. 1, fig. 15 4.5 1.45 0.75 1.93 0.06 0.14 0.39 0.86 1.27 - 0.12 0.22 0.37 0.58 - - - - - - Pl. 1, fig. 25 4.5 - 0.99 - 0.14 0.31 0.63 1.15 1.59 - 0.21 0.34 0.56 0.84 - - - - - - Pl. 1, fig. 26 4.5 - 0.85 - 0.1 0.27 0.56 1.15 1.65 - 0.16 0.26 0.44 0.7 - - - - - - Pl. 1, fig. 27 5.5 - - - 0.07 0.1 0.31 0.73 - - 0.12 0.2 0.45 0.71 - - - - - - Pl. 1, fig. 28 5 1.74 0.94 1.85 0.08 0.11 0.38 0.74 1.31 1.74 0.15 0.24 0.41 0.66 0.94 - - - - - Pl. 1, fig. 2 4.8 - 1.07 - 0.06 - - - - - 0.20 0.33 0.52 0.79 - 6 9 12 14 17> Pl. 1, fig. 4 4.5 - 0.9 - 0.08 - - - - - 0.19 0.34 0.56 0.78 - 5 11 13 17 11> Pl. 1, fig. 6 4.8 - 0.85 - 0.05 0.09 - - - - 0.12 0.15 0.39 0.61 - - 8 11 15 16> Pl. 1, fig. 9 4.7 - 1.33 - 0.11 - - - - - 0.22 0.39 0.62 0.97 - 8 10 14 20 20> Pl. 1, fig. 16 3.7 - 0.92 - 0.14 - - - - - 0.26 0.43 0.68 - - 7 10 14 13> - Pl. 1, fig. 17 5.2 - 1.1 - 0.07 - - - - - 0.12 0.24 0.4 0.7 1.04 6 8 10 15 21 Pl. 1. fig. 18 4.4 - 1.03 - 0.11 - - - - - 0.24 0.38 0.58 0.85 - 8 12 16 23 13> Pl. 1, fig. 19 4.6 - 1 - 0.1 - - - - - 0.2 0.34 0.56 0.81 - 5 11 13 18 14> Pl. 1, fig. 20 3.9 - 0.9 - 0.12 - - - - - 0.26 0.45 0.68 - - 7 12 16 17> - Pl. 1, fig. 21 4.7 - 0.98 - 0.1 - - - - - 0.19 0.33 0.5 0.79 - 5 8 11 15 14> Pl. 1, fig. 22 4.8 - 0.74 - 0.04 0.05 - - - - 0.1 0.15 0.28 0.48 - - 6 8 10 13> Pl. 1, fig. 23 4 - 0.93 - 0.11 - - - - - 0.21 0.39 0.61 0.93 - 6 12 14 17 - Pl. 1, fig. 24 4.9 - 1.27 - 0.14 - - - - - 0.26 0.42 0.63 0.93 - 7 12 16 22 20> Width of whorl Number of septaLength of whorlFig. in Pl. No. whorl Length Width Form ratio Prolo- culus Early Moscovian fusulines from southern Turkey 33 34 Kobayashi F. to 5.5 whorls, about 1.5 to 2.2 mm in length, about 0.9 to 1.2 mm in width, with approximate length/width ra- tio from 1.5 to 2.1 (Tab. 1). Proloculus spherical to subspherical and 0.04 to 0.14 mm in its outside diameter. Inner one or two whorls fusiform to eostaffelloid, and their length and width vary depending on the size of proloculus and an orientation of thin sections. Beyond the second, whorls become fusiform with variable rate of expansion and form ratio, and shape of poles. Length and width in corresponding whorls largely variable depended upon the size of a proloculus. Length from the first to fifth whorls 0.05 to 0.35, 0.25 to 0.72, 0.56 to 1.32, 1.06 to 1.66, and 1.58 to 2.08 mm in 17 specimens. Width from the first to fifth whorls 0.10 to 0.26, 0.15 to 0.45, 0.28 to 0.68, 0.48 to 0.97, and 0.90 to 1.16 mm in 28 specimens (Tab. 1). Wall thin, less than 0.05 mm in the thickest part of outer whorls, consisting of almost single layer in the eostaffelloid whorl, and distinct tectum, and lower thicker and upper thinner layers. Upper thin layer cor- responding to upper tectorium not continuous in most specimens. Septa closely spaced and weakly fluted in polar regions of outer whorls. Septal counts from the first to fifth whorls 5 to 8, 6 to 12, 8 to 16, 10 to 23, and 21 in 13 specimens (Tab. 1). They attain 26 to 28 in their maximum in the fifth whorl. Chomata present in almost all whorls and also on the proloculus in specimens with a large prolocu- lus. Their shape, size, and degree of symmetry through tunnel is variable. Axial fillings absent. Tunnel high and in general one-thirds to one-half as high as chambers. Its path wider in outer test than in inner test in general. Discussion. Differences in size, shape, and ex- pansion of the test, proloculus size, the number of septa, and development of chomata vary from speci- men to specimen. Therefore, they are thought to repre- sent the intraspecific variation of this species originally described from the wells in Samara Bend by Rauzer- Chernousova (1938). 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pl. 2, fig. 1 4 1.57 1.04 1.51 0.17 0.42 0.77 1.24 1.57 - - 0.26 0.48 0.72 1.04 - - - - - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 2 4.5 1.06 0.78 1.36 0.12 0.15 0.35 0,61 0.88 - - 0.18 0.26 0.43 0.67 - - - - - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 3 5 1.55 1.1 1.41 0.09 0.18 0.41 0.77 1.18 1.55 - 0.18 0.29 0.49 0.77 1.1 - - - - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 5 6 1.53 1.18 1.3 0.05 0.08 - 0.44 0.78 1.13 1.53 0.14 0.2 0.32 0.48 0.75 1.18 - 8 - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 7 5.5 1.3 1 1.3 0.09 0.1 0.25 0.5 0.81 1.19 - 0.14 0.24 0.36 0.56 0.83 - - - - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 8 5 1.31 0.89 1.47 0.08 - 0.26 0.62 0.94 1.31 - 0.15 0.24 0.37 0.61 0.89 - 7 - - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 12 4.5 1.44 1.03 1.4 0.12 0.28 0.58 1.02 1.31 - - 0.23 0.37 0.6 0.86 - - - - - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 13 4.5 1.45 1.01 1.44 0.1 0.24 0.44 0.81 1.23 - - 0.19 0.32 0.55 0.85 - - - - - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 14 4.5 1.44 0.97 1.48 0.11 0.2 0.38 0.82 1.22 - - 0.19 0.31 0.51 0.8 - - - - - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 15 5 1.4 0.99 1.41 0.1 0.18 0.37 0.68 1.08 1.4 - 0.18 0.28 0.46 0.68 0.99 - - - - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 16 4 1.29 0.91 1.42 0.13 0.3 0.6 0.93 1.29 - - 0.21 0.38 0.6 0.91 - - - - - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 17 5 1.35 1.06 1.27 0.09 0.14 0.29 0.61 0.99 1.35 - 0.19 0.32 0.38 0.75 1.06 - - - - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 18 5 1.3 0.93 1.4 0.09 0.13 0.29 0.58 0.98 1.3 - 0.16 0.25 0.4 0.64 0.93 - - - - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 19 4 1.22 0.94 1.3 0.15 0.25 0.52 0.89 1.22 - - 0.24 0.39 0.61 0.94 - - - - - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 20 4 1.35 0.95 1.42 0.16 0.32 0.61 0.98 1.35 - - 0.24 0.39 0.64 0.95 - - - - - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 21 5 1.24 0.91 1.36 0.09 0.14 0.3 0.54 1 1.24 - 0.16 0.25 0.41 0.64 0.91 - - - - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 22 4 1.17 0.88 1.33 0.13 0.22 0.52 0.91 1.17 - - 0.22 0.36 0.6 0.88 - - - - - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 23 6 1.43 0.97 1.47 0.05 0.06 - 0.38 0.71 1.05 1.43 0.1 0.18 0.28 0.46 0.69 0.97 - 8 - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 24 4.5 1.15 0.8 1.44 0.07 - 0.3 0.61 0.96 - - 0.15 0.25 0.43 0.66 - - 7 - - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 31 5 1.5 1.06 1.42 0.08 0.15 0.35 0.79 1.19 1.5 - 0.16 0.27 0.48 0.74 1.06 - - - - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 32 5 - 0.99 - 0.08 - - 0.63 0.94 - - 0.16 0.27 0.44 0.67 0.99 - 6 5> - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 33 6 - 0.88 - 0.05 0.07 - 0.44 0.76 1.05 - 0.12 0.14 0.26 0.42 0.64 0.88 - - - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 34 5.5 1.29 0.89 1.45 - - - 0.36 0.69 1.01 - - - 0.29 0.47 0.72 - - - - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 35 5 1.31 0.84 1.56 0.06 - 0.31 0.58 0.92 1.3 - 0.15 0.23 0.36 0.57 0.84 - 6 - - - - - Pl. 2, fig. 4 4.1 - 0.9 - 0.09 - - - - - - 0.22 0.39 0.62 0.89 - - 7 11 12 18 3> - Pl. 2, fig. 6 4.4 - 0.76 - 0.07 - - - - - - 0.16 0.29 0.45 0.64 - - 5 8 10 14 6> - Pl. 2, fig. 9 4 - 1.07 - 0.14 - - - - - - 0.28 0.46 0.74 1.07 - - 6 12 16 21 - - Pl. 2, fig. 10 5.1 - 1.19 - 0.06 - - - - - - 0.16 0.29 0.48 0.77 1.19 - 4 7 12 18 23 3> Pl. 2, fig. 11 4.8 - 1.2 - 0.1 - - - - - - 0.2 0.33 0.55 0.87 - - 7 12 14 18 16> - Pl. 2, fig. 25 4.7 - 1.15 - 0.1 - - - - - - 0.22 0.38 0.6 0.89 - - 6 12 13 19 17> - Pl. 2, fig. 26 3.9 - 0.79 - 0.09 - - - - - - 0.18 0.32 0.56 - - - 7 11 13 18> - - Pl. 2, fig. 27 4.1 - 0.93 - 0.14 - - - - - - 0.22 0.4 0.6 0.88 - - 7 11 13 19 3> - Pl. 2, fig. 28 4.4 - 0.73 - 0.05 - - - - - - 0.12 0.22 0.38 0.6 - - 5 8 10 14 7> - Pl. 2, fig. 29 5.1 - 1.01 - 0.08 0.11 - - - - - 0.16 0.27 0.44 0.7 1 - - 8 12 14 17 3> Pl. 2, fig. 30 4.2 - 0.86 - 0.09 - - - - - - 0.19 0.33 0.55 0.84 - - 6 10 11 17 4> - Number of septaLength of whorl Width of whorlFig. in Pl. No. whorl Length Width Form ratio Prolo- culus Tab. 2 - Measurement of Profusulinella ovata Rauzer-Chernousova. PLATE 2 Figs 1- 35 - Profusulinella ovata Rauzer-Chernousova, 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11: ×50, others: × 25. 1: D2-025552, 2: D2-025614, 3: D2-025568,, 4: D2- 025584, 5: D2-025558, 6: D2-025619, 7: D2-025541, 8: D2-025615, 9: D2-025533, 10: D2-025599, 11: D2- 025604, 12: D2-025595, 13: D2-025560, 14: D2-025534, 15: D2-025555, 16: D2-025532, 17: D2-025619, 18: D2- 025600, 19: D2-025548, 20: D2-025549, 21: D2-025582, 22: D2-025535, 23: D2-025528, 24: D2-025557, 25: D2- 025566, 26: D2-025619, 27: D2-025621, 28: D2-025544, 29: D2-025592, 30: D2-025582, 31: D2-025603, 32: D2- 025572, 33: D2-025610, 34: D2-025539, 35: D2-025540. Early Moscovian fusulines from southern Turkey 35 36 Kobayashi F. Considering wide morphologic variation of the present material, at least the following two species are probably conspecific with this species: Aljutovella con- specta Leontovich in Rauzer-Chernousova et al., 1951 and A. arrisionis Leontovich in Rauzer-Chernousova et al., 1951 both of which were included in the Alju- tovella aljutovica group by Leontovich in Rauzer- Chernousova et al. (1951). Aljutovella skelnevatica (Putrya in Putrya and Leontovich, 1948), A. cybaea Leontovich in Rauzer-Chernousova et al., 1951, and A. artificialis Leontovich in Rauzer-Chernousova et al., 1951 were included in the Aljutovella skelnevatica group by Leontovich in Rauzer-Chernousova et al. (1951). They might or might not be conspecific with A. aljutovica. Profusulinella ovata Rauzer-Chernousova, 1938 Pl. 2, figs 1-35 1938 Profusulinella ovata Rauzer-Chernousova, p. 101, pl. 1, figs. 14-16. 1951 Profusulinella subovata Safonova in Rauzer-Chernouso- va et al., p. 164, pl. 14, figs 5, 6. 1996 Ovatella ovata (Rauzer-Chernousova); Solovieva in Rauzer-Chernousova et al., p. 93, pl. 23, fig. 3. Material: Twenty-three axial, eleven sagittal, and one tangen- tial sections illustrated, and others. Description. Test inflated fusiform to oval with arched to broadly arched periphery, rounded poles. Axis of coiling straight in general, but crossing at a large angle between inner lenticular and outer fusi- form whorls in specimens. Mature specimens with 4 to 5.5 whorls, rarely 6. Length about 1.1 to 1.6 mm and width about 0.8 to 1.2 mm in width giving approximate length/width ratio from 1.3 to 1.6 (Tab. 2). Proloculus spherical and 0.05 to 0.17 mm in its outside diameter. Inner one to two whorls vary from eostaffelloid to inflated fusiform, and their length and width vary depending on the size of proloculus. Outer whorls inflated fusiform to oval with variable rate of expansion and form ratio. Length and width in cor- responding whorls largely variable depending upon the size of proloculus. Length from the first to sixth whorls 0.06 to 0.42, 0.25 to 0.77, 0.36 to 1.24, 0.69 to 1.57, 1.01 to 1.55, and 1.43 to 1.53 mm in 24 specimens. Width from the first to sixth whorls 0.10 to 0.26, 0.14 to 0.48, 0.26 to 0.74, 0.42 to 1.07, 0.64 to 1.19, and 0.88 to 1.18 mm in 35 specimens (Tab. 2). Wall thin, less than 0.04 mm in the thickest part of outer whorls, appears to be thicker due to second- ary coating of dark layer. It is almost structureless in the eostaffelloid one or two whorls. In later whorls it exhibits a distinct tectum, and lower thicker and upper thinner layers. Upper thinner layer is discontinuous and indistinct in most specimens. Septa closely spaced and almost plane to very weakly fluted in polar regions of outer whorls. Septal counts from the first to fifth whorls 4 to 7, 7 to 12, 10 to 16, 14 to 21, and 17 to 23 in 17 specimens (Tab. 2). Chomata massive, roughly symmetrical through tunnel, and well developed in inner fusiform whorls. They are present on the proloculus and eostaffeloid whorls, but tend to be indistinct or absent in outer fusiform whorls. Their shape and size are variable. Ax- ial fillings absent. Tunnel high and probably one-thirds to one-half as high as chambers. Its path becomes wider outwards in general. Discussion. This species is discriminated from Profusulinella aljutovica by their smaller and more inflated fusiform test in general. Proloculus size, the number of whorl, height and width of inner whorls, and development of chomata vary from specimen to specimen, showing wide morphologic variation in the Hadim specimens. Specimens having relatively small proloculus resemble Rauzer-Chernousova’s (1938) original mate- rial from the upper part of the Vereian (lower Moscov- ian) of Samara Bend. Those with larger proloculi (e.g., Pl. 2, figs 1, 14, 15) are more similar to Profusulinella subovata Safonova in Rauzer-Chernousova et al., 1951. They are probably conspecific each other. Those having subspherical test and tightly coiled inner whorls (e.g., Pl. 2, figs. 5, 10) appear to be more like Profusulinella prisca sphaeroidea Rauser-Cherno- usova in Rauzer-Chernousova et al. (1951) and Profu- sulinella prisca timanica Kireeva in Rauzer-Chernouso- va et al. (1951) than to Profusulinella ovata. Although the range of morphologic variation in these two sub- species is unclear, they should be included into the Pro- fusulinella prisca group, as done by Rauzer-Chernoso- va et al. (1951). Acknowlegements. I am much indebted to Demir Altiner for his generous and efficient field guidance in the Hadim area during the post-conference field excursion of PaleoForams 2001, to Maurizio Gaetani for his careful editing the manuscript, and to Atsuko Ujimaru for her help drawing figures. Many thanks are due to two reviewers, Elisa Villa and John R. Groves for their helpful comments and sugges- tions, from which this paper is greatly improved. Early Moscovian fusulines from southern Turkey 37 Altiner D. & Özgül N. (2001) - Carboniferous and Permian of the allochthonous terranes of the central Tauride Belt. Paleoforam 2001: Intern. Confer. Paleozoic Ben- thic Foraminifera, Guide Book, 35 pp., Ankara. Bensh F. R. (1969) - Stratigraphy and foraminifers from the Carboniferous in the southern Gissar Mountains. Inst. Geol. Geofiz., Izd. FAN Uzbeskoi SSR, 1-174 (in Russian). Deprat J. (1912) - 1912: Étude géologique du Yun-nan Ori- ental. Étude des Fusulidés de Chine et d’Indochine et classification des calcaires à fusulines. Mém. Serv. Géol. l’Indo-Chine, 1: 1-76. Ginkel A. C. van (1965) - Carboniferous fusulinids from the Cantabrian Mountains (Spain). Leidse Geol. Med., 34: 1-225. Groves J. R., Kulagina E. I. & Villa E. (2007) - Diachronous appearances of the Pennsylvanian fusulinid Profu- sulinella in Eurasia and North America. J. Paleont., 81: 227-237. Isakova T. N. (2002) - Moscovian foraminiferal biostratigra- phy in the type region (Russia). In: Hills L. V., Hend- erson C. M. & Bamber E. W. (Eds) - Carboniferous and Permian of the World, Mem. Canadian Soc. Pet- rol. Geologists, 19: 448-460. Kobayashi F. & Altiner D. (2008) - Late Carboniferous and Early Permian Fusulinoideans in the central Taurides, Turkey: Biostratigraphy, faunal composition and comparison. J. Foram. Res., 38: 59-73. Leven E. Ja. (2009) - The Upper Carboniferous (Pennsylva- nian) and Permian of the Western Tethys: fusulinids, stratigraphy, biostratigraphy. Trudy Geol. Inst., 238 pp. (in Russian). Leven E. Ja., Davydov V. I. & Gorgij M. N. (2005) - Penn- sylvanian stratigraphy and fusulinids of central and eastern Iran. Paleont. Electronica, 9: 1-34, http://pal- aeo-electronica.org. Loeblich A. R. Jr. & Tappan H. (1988) - Foraminiferal genera and their classification. Van Nostrand, 2 vol., 970 pp. plus 212 pp. and 847 pls. New York. Möller V. von (1878) - Die spiral-gewunden Foraminiferen des russischen Kohlenkalkes. Mém. l’Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Pétersbourg, Sér. 7, 25: 1-147. Putrya F. S. & Leontovich G. E. (1948) - Toward the study of Middle Carboniferous fusulinids in the Volga re- gion of Saratov. Byull. Mosk. Obsh. Ispyt. Pri. Otd. Geol., 23: 11-45 (in Russian). Rauzer-Chernousova D. M. (1938) - Upper Paleozoic fo- raminifera of the Samara Bend and the Trans-Volga region. Trudy Geol. Inst., Akad. Nauk SSSR, 7: 69-160 (in Russian). Rauzer-Chernousova D. M., Belyaev G. M. & Reitlinger E. A. (1936) - Upper Paleozoic foraminifera from the Pechora territory. Trudy Polyarnoy Komissii, Akad. Nauk SSSR, 28: 159-232 (in Russian). Rauzer-Chernousova D. M., Kireeva G. D., Leontovich G. E., Gryzlova G. D., Safonova T. P. & Chernova E. I. (1951) - Middle Carboniferous fusulinids of the Rus- sian Platform and adjacent regions. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Inst. Geol. Nauk, 371 pp., Moskva (in Russian). Rauzer-Chernousova D. M., Bensh F. R., Vdovenko M. V., Gibshman N. B., Leven E. Ja., Lipina O. A., Reitlin- ger E. A., Solovieva M. N. & Cheduya I. O. (1996) - Reference-book on the systematics of Paleozoic Fo- raminifera (Endothyroidea, Fusulinoidea). Moskva Nauka, 207 pp., Moskva (in Russian). Ross C. A. (1999) - Classification of the Upper Paleozoic Superorders Endothyroida and Fusulinoida as part of the Class Foraminifera. J. Foram. Res., 29: 291-305. Rozovskaya S. E. (1975) - Composition, phylogeny and system of the Order Fusukinida. Trudy Paleont. Inst. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 149: 1-267 (in Russian). Sheng J. C. (1951) - Taitzehoella, a new genus of fusulinids. Bull. Geol. Soc. China, 31: 79-85 (in Chinese and Eng- lish). Sheng J. C. (1958) - Fusulinids from the Penchi Series of the Taitzeho Valley, Liaoning. Pal. Sinica, 143: 1-119 (in Chinese and English). Solovieva M. N. (1986) - Fusulinid zonal scale of the Mosco- vian Stage from the restudy of stratotype materials of intrastage subdivisions. Voprosy Mikropal., 28: 3-23, Izdatelustvo Nauka (in Russian). Staff H. von & Wedekind R. (1910) - Der Oberkarbon Fo- raminiferensapropelit Spitzbergens. Bull. Geol. Inst. Univ. Uppsala, 10: 81-123. Thompson M. L. (1948) - Studies of American fusulinids, Protozoa Article 1. Univ. Kansas Pal. Contr., 184 pp. Thompson M. L. (1964) - Fusulinacea. In: Moore, R. C. (Ed) - Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part C, Protista 2: C358–C436, Geol. Soc. Am., Boulder & Univ. Kansas Press, Lawrence. Villa E. (1995) - Fusulinaceos Carboniferos del Este de Astu- rias (N de Espana). Univ. Claude Bernard-Lyon, Bios- trat. Paléozoique, 13: 1-261. Villa E., Sánchez de Posada L. C., Fernández L. P., Martínez- Chacón M. L. & Stavros C (2001) - Foraminifera and biostratigraphy of the Valdeteja Formation stratotype (Carboniferous, Cantabrian Zone, NW Spain). Facies, 45: 59-86. Wedekind P. R. (1937) - Einführung in die Grundlagen der historischen Geologie. Band 2. Mikrobiostratigraphie die Korallen- und Foraminiferenzeit. Ferdinand Enke, 136 pp., Stuttgart. R E F E R E N C E S