Taxonomic remarks: Dr. A. R. Loeblich, during his visit to Europe in the years 1953/1954, selected and isolated a specimen from a slide registered in the British Museum (Natural History) as number 94.4.3.1045 which contained specimens of Foraminifera obtained from the Abrohlos Bank (latitude 22 54' S., long. 40 37" W.) at depth 260 fathoms, South Atlantic. This specimen, now contained in a slide registered number B.M. (N.H.) ZF.3583, was designated by Bolli, Loeblich and Tappan (1957, p. 33) as lectotype of Pulleniatina obliquiloculata. They neither figured nor described the actual lectotype, but published illustrations of a syntypic (paratypic-sic) specimen (now deposited in the U. S. National Museum number P. 4228) together with a general description of the monotypic genus Pulleniatina Cushman 1927 for which P. obliquiloculata is the type species. The description of the genus fits the lectotype, here figured for the first time (pI. 7, figs. 4a-c) , but it will be noticed that the lectotype has a polychaete worm-tube attached to its dorsal peripheral surface and is apparently less well preserved than the syntype which is now in the United States. No further description of the lectotype is given here. [Banner & Blow 1960]

Remarks: The typical form of this species appears only to range from Pliocene to Recent, but some primitive forms have been observed in sediments of Fiji and Papua which may be of Uppermost Miocene age. These primitive forms show a relationship with Globigerina inflata d'Orbigny auct. and it may be that the latter form is ancestral to P. obliquiloculata (Parker and Jones). The form figured by Stainforth (1948, p. 125, pl. 26, figs. 21-23) from the supposed Upper Miocene of Ecuador appears similar to the forms seen by us from Papua and Fiji. These early forms are not so strongly streptospiral in late ontogeny as are the typical forms of the species. The form recorded by Germeraad in 1946 as Pulleniatina? semi-involuta is of unknown taxonomic position and needs further study. [Banner & Blow 1960]

From Brummer & Kucera 2022
A neotype was selected by Bolli et al. (1957) from material in slide 94.4.3.1045 and figured and described by Banner and Blow (1960a, 1967). The material was initially considered syntypic, but Hodgkinson (1992) pointed out that the material is not from the original syntype series and the type specimens must be considered to represent a neotype.

References: