• ?Globigerina yeguaensis (Weinzierl and Applin).—Postuma, 1971:162, pl. on p. 163 [Sample E 227, Alabama]. [Not Weinzierl and Applin, 1929.]
• ?Globigerina galavisi Bermúdez.—Raju, 1971:24, pl. 5, figs. 2a-3 [G. mexicana zone, borehole NGT-1, Cauvery Basin, south-east India]. [Not Bermúdez, 1961.]
• Subbotina yeguaensis (Weinzierl and Applin).—Olsson and others, 2006:162-163 (partim), pl. 6.18, figs. 12, 16 [upper Eocene Zone E15/16, Shubuta Clay, Wayne County, Mississippi]. [Not Weinzierl and Applin, 1929.]
• Subbotina tecta Pearson and Wade, 2015:15, figs. 12.1a-f (holotype), 12.2, 12.3, 13.3, 13.4, 13.6 (paratypes) [upper Eocene Zone E15/16, TDP Site 12, Stakishari, Tanzania], figs. 13.1, 13.2, 13.5, 13.7 (paratypes) [upper Eocene Zone E15/16, TDP Site 17, Stakishari, Tanzania].

“A specimen of S. tecta was illustrated by Olsson and others (2006, plate 6.18, fig. 12) as S. yeguaensis. In the past, other specimens may have been assigned to either D. galavisi or S. yeguaensis (possibly including the specimen illustrated as Globigerina yeguaensis by Postuma, 1971); however, S. tecta is a very distinctive morphotype which may be confined to the uppermost Eocene and lowermost Oligocene” (Pearson and Wade, 2015:15). In addition to the holotypes and paratypes illustrated from Tanzania (Pearson and Wade, 2015, figs. 12.1-12.3, 13.1-13.7), we have found comparable specimens from DSDP Site 242 (Indian Ocean), ODP Site 647 (North Atlantic Ocean), IODP Site U1334 (equatorial Pacific Ocean) and the US Gulf Coast. Referred to as Subbotina sp. 1 in Wade and Pearson (2008). [Wade et al. 2018]

“Subbotina tecta is closely related to S. eocaena (Gümbel) from which it probably evolved in the uppermost Eocene. It is distinguished from S. eocaena ... by its more spherical chambers (although note that the neotype drawing of S. eocaena has very spherical chambers) and by possessing a large and prominent tooth, which is evidently a modification of the slightly pustulose lip of S. eocaena. When well developed, the tooth is positioned high over the umbilicus and forms a distinct platform above the primary aperture... . The two species are linked by intermediate forms ... and their distinction may be subjective; however, a distinct tooth rather than an irregular lip is critical for our diagnosis of S. tecta and ... the chambers are almost always more spherical. The distinctive apertural system and tooth in S. tecta may have been related to feeding, for example for securing prey in the umbilical region, and if this is correct it could indicate that S. tecta was a separate biospecies with a particular dietary specialization. It is distinguished from S. yeguaensis by having a lower trochospire and less embracing, more spherical chambers. It is distinguished from Subbotina sp. 1 [= S. projecta n. sp. in this study] by having a lower trochospiral and narrower umbilicus, and generally, a less slender, blunter tooth” (Pearson and Wade, 2015:14-15). It is highly homeomorphic with Globigerina pseudoeocaena Subbotina (now considered a junior synonym of Subbotina yeguaensis, see Olsson and others, 2006) described from the lower middle Eocene. However S. tecta is differentiated from G. pseudoeocaena by its very spherical chambers and projecting lip. It is distinguished from Dentoglobigerina galavisi (Bermúdez) by its more globular chambers, lobate periphery and protrusive tooth. [Wade et al. 2018]

References: