Nezzazatinella (looks like mid-Cretaceous but needs other taxa for reconfirmation) and the other image most likely bryozoans.

Felix probably right

Thank you Dr. Felix Schlagintweit & Dr. Jean-Jacques Fleury for your help.

I suspect a Santonian or Campanian age because these levels are above Coniacian deposits.

You will find attached some other photos of the same sample.

Cordially

-23 contains a primitive orbitoidid....so most likely Campanian age...I recommend to ask directly someone familiar with this group...maybe Lorenzo Consorti or Ercan Özcan.

Thank you a lot Doctor

Felix's right, yes, for pic 23 it looks like Orbitoides sanctae-pelagiae, somewhere into the Campanian, but more material is needed anyway to confirm this id.

Image 21 may belong to peneroplids, the intercameral apertures look like the ones of peneroplid, plus evidence of peneroplid type of coiling. In Solak et al, 2020 article Fig6, image M: Peneroplis turonicus shows quite similar way of coiling but I do not hint that the image belongs to this species.

As Dear Dr Schlagintweit and the stratigraphic status as implied by you suggest, due to presence of Orbitoides in image 23, definitely the specimen must be looked for among Upper Santonian upwards species.

There is another interesting benthic foraminifera specimen in lower right of image 27, with thick hyaline outer wall and inner dark layer, which is worth identifying. It might belong to order Rotaliida, Dr. Consorti probably can suggest what this specimen is.

With my best regards

lower right of image 27 is indeed a rotaliid, it looks like an un described morphotype usually appearing into relatively deep facies of the upper cretaceous, but no chances to be sure on his id.

best

LC

Dear Hesam Hosseini thank you very much for these informations.

Thank you again Dr. Consorti for the reply.

In the same thin section I encountered several strange species for me (I did not encounter in the turonian coniacian deposits); your suggestions suit me perfectly.

Best regards,

Dear Dr. Salmouna

I must confess, I neglected very important criteria, which is wall structure in specimen of image 21, which looks like to be more of Luftusiid type, perforation when you zoom in is obvious in the wall structure and therefore it is not imperpeforate as of peneroplids' wall, although peneroplid type coiling still remains in act. In fact the peneroplid species which I mentioned earlier, Peneroplis turonicus, is now revised by Dr Schlagintweit and placed under the new genus Neodubrovinkella turonicus in his 2022 article "What’s in a name? Revision of Peneroplis turonicus Said and Kenawy, 1957 (benthic foraminifera), an inappropriately-named taxon from the Cenomanian of the southern Neotethys margin". There is another genus of this species also introduce by Dr Schlagintweit from Maastrichtian of Tarbur Fm. In Iran" Neodubrovnikella maastrichtiana n.gen., n.sp., a new larger agglutinated benthic Foraminifera from the Maastrichtian of Iran" which shows the stratigraphic range of this genus extends to Maastrichtian. However, whether the speciemen in image 21 belongs to this genus or within its family Biokovinidae, probably would be best answered by Dr Schlagintweit.

With my best regards

Hesam

Already answered two days ago (see above)....Nezzazatinella (in my opinion) with trochospiral coiling (not peneroplid type coiling!)...fig. 21 is different from the other images by means of facies (and maybe age?)

Dear Dr Schlagintweit

I have no objections against Nezzazatinella, in fact I do agree that the cuts have highly resemblance to this genus, exept its age that Dr Salmouna claims to be Santonian to Campanian.

As a learner I have one further question, the wall structure of specimen in image 21 looks like to me quite of Pseudo- Keriothecal type, do you agree? If yes, this type of wall reported by you and Dr Yazdimoghadam in Nezzazata species of Sarvak Fm., however, is such structure also observed in species of Nezzazatinella.

I do apologize if my opinions caused any inconveniences, this is just because I am still in a process of learning.

With many thanks

Best regards

Hesam

Dear Dhouha,

I think also that it is a Nezzazatinella which is frequent in the Cenomanian deposits in Tunisia . However I never find this genus in younger séquences.

Dear Pr. Turki,

For the genus Nezzazatinella, more particularly the species picardi, I encountered it in the Turonian and Coniacian deposits in many outcrop sections (Gafsa area) and wells (Gulf of Gabes). it is sometimes associated with Cuneolina pavonia (in the Turonian deposits). (Abdallah et al., 1995; Gräfe, 2004).

But a such section of Nezzazatinella I never see it.

The problem is, that in the same sample we identified with Dr. Schlagintweit & Dr. Consorti, a Campanian Orbitoides. So I considered that the corresponding deposit is Campanian in age, especially because in outcrops, the facies looks like that of the Berda Formation.

Thank you very much Professor for your help.

Pass my best regards to Pr. Moncef Turki.

Cordially,

El de la segunda foto es un briozoo, morfológicamente se presenta en cuadrículas. Podría ser Fenestella.

Querido Doctor,

Pensé lo mismo un briozoo.

Muchas gracias.

Atentamente,

I noted that the anwers not only focused on the generic identities but also the concluded ages! Nezzazatinella is at least known from the Albian-Cenomanian until the end of the Maastrichtian, so its undiagnostic from a biostratigraphic view point! I attach two examples from the middle-late Cenomanian and late Maastrichtian of Iran that also shows the problems associated with the differentiation of different species!

Dear Dr. Schlagintweit,

Thank you very much for the information.

Cordially

Nezzazata and Coral debries?

Dear Reza Hanifzadah,

Thank you for your response.

cordially