Description of lectotype: The lectotype could only be viewed in its ventral aspect, owing to its extreme fragility. It appears to be coiled in a low trochospire and about 4½ chambers were visible in the last whorl. The test appears to be dorso-ventrally compressed, with the ventral side of the chambers being little inflated. The periphery is sub-circular, and is initially weakly lobulate, but becoming increasingly so during ontogeny. The periphery is fairly acute but does not possess either a carina or pseudocarina. The ventral intercameral sutures are initially indistinct but they become increasingly, although still weakly, depressed towards the terminal chamber. These sutures are slightly curved to nearly radial. The umbilicus is very small, and is virtually closed. The aperture is not clearly visible, but appears to be a low, slit-like, interiomarginal, umbilical-extraumbilical opening. The surface of the test is smooth, being roughened, as far as can be seen, only on the earlier part of the ventral surface. The test appears to be finely perforate. [Banner & Blow 1960]

FROM BANNER & BLOW 1960

General remarks.-In 1839, d'Orbigny described this species from recent beach sands of Teneriffe Island, Canary Islands. A tube extant in the A. d'Orbigny collections in Paris bears the inscription "Rotalina canariensis, lies Canaries"" and d'Orbigny's original label, which is pasted on the reverse side of the mount reads: ""Can. Rotalina canariensis 1 34 36"" The two specimens which this tube contains must comprise the only available syntypic series. One of these specimens is broken and completely unrecognisable, and the other specimen is also damaged and is very fragile. Accordingly, neither specimen was removed from its mount. Unfortunately, the species Rotalina canariensis must be based upon these specimens since no neotype can be proposed whilst this original syntypic material exists. Hence, the less badly preserved of the two specimens is here illustrated and is designated lectotype. [Banner & Blow 1960]

In view of the facts that this fragile specimen is broken, that the last chambers are almost certainly missing, and that it is not possible to examine the dorsal surface, it is impossible to form an opinion as to the complete morphological identity of the species. Whilst the ventral and peripheral characters suggest an affinity to the form described by Brady (1882) (see also this work, p. 27, pl. 5, fig. 5) as Pulvinulina scitula, it is not possible to be sure of this. Indeed, the lectotype of R. canariensis, showing only the ventral characters, could be referable to forms such as that described by d'Orbigny himself, in 1839, as Rotalina hirsuta (see also, for example, Cushman and Henbest, 1940, pl. 8, figs. 6a-c). However, the lectotype shows no trace of a carina and it seems unlikely that the form described by Brady (1884, pl. 103, figs. 8-10) as Pulvinulina canariensis (d'Orbigny) is correctly identified.

We consider, in view of the above writing, that Rotalina canariensis d'Orbigny 1839 is an unrecognisable species, that the name should be considered nomen dubium and should not be used when describing other material. [Banner & Blow 1960]

References: