Loeblich and Tappan (1957, U. S. Nat. Mus., Bull., no. 215, pl. 59, figs. 5a-e and pl. 63, figs. 3a-c) figured two specimens referred by them to Globorotalia imitata which are considered here as, most likely, referable to Globorotalia (Turborotalia) pseudoimitata Blow, 1979. Whilst there is little doubt that the specimen figured on their pl. 63 is referable to pseudoimitata, the specimen on their pl. 59 is a little more doubtfully included in pseudoimitata since it shows a somewhat wider umbilicus than typically seen in the writer's own specimens. However, this later specimen may be, possibly, a little more phylogenetically and morphologically primitive than the more typical forms discussed in this work.
The paratypic specimens figured on pl. 106, figs. 2-9, illustrate the general morphology and range of variation which the writer associated with his new taxon. The specimen figured in dorsal aspect in fig. 8 shows a form which, like the holotype, has a small reduced final chamber. The two paratypes figured in figs. 7 and 8, show the typical axial-apertural and dorsal aspects of the morphotypes included in the taxon. The paratype figured in fig. 5, shows a form with a more normal final chamber and also shows the strongly developed apertural flap-like lip with the aperture extending around the umbilical margin of the final chamber to about half-way towards the peripheral margin. In many specimens referable to pseudoimitata Blow, 1979, the final chamber shows a strong lobe-like extension partially obscuring the small umbilicus; the shape of the final chamber also appears to approach the morphology of an ampulla (sensu Blow, 1979, op. cit., p. 469-471) which is characteristic of the Neogene genus Turborotalita Blow and Banner, 1962, however, true ampullae are not developed in pseudoimitata Blow, 1979.

The paratypes figured on pl. 101, figs. 1-3, show the variation of size in mural-pores between the dorsal and ventral surfaces of the test. These specimens also have quite large pore-pits but the inter-pore ridges are still (as usually seen) rather poorly defined. The paratypes illustrated on pl. 108, figs. 1-3, show converse features to the characters of the wall noted for the specimens figured on pl. 101. In the paratypic specimens figured on pl. 108, figs. 1-3, the mural-pores are consistently small for both the dorsal and ventral surfaces of the tests. It would seem that in the later stages of calcification further test material may either be laid down in sheet-like masses (cf. pl. 108, fig. 1) which partially obscure the mural-pores or, alternatively, be laid down in such a way to emphasize the cancellate nature of the test surface (cf. p1. 101, figs. 1 and 2 especially). The irregularly disposed, discontinuously sheet-like nature of later calcified test material can also be seen in the holotype (fig. 10) where this later calcification is developed over the ventral surface of the test.

Globorotalia (T.) pseudoimitata Blow, 1979, differs from G. (T) imitata Subbotina by having more closely appressed and embracing chambers, a tighter coiling-mode and a smaller, almost closed umbilicus. In dorsal aspect, the chambers of pseudoimitata are longer (tangentially) than those of imitata and the equatorial profile is less markedly lobulate in the writer's new taxon as compared to the morphotypes included in Subbotina's taxon. Notwithstanding a very broad general morphological similarity between the two forms, the writer has not seen any morphotypes which would connect the forms phylogenetically and pseudoimitata is, at present, thought to be homeomorphic rather than closely genetically related to imitata Subbotina.

References: