Alcide cVOrhigny. 23 



had already been in progress for several months.^ He had received 

 the appointment, as we shall see later (p. 48), in November, 1825, 

 and, as I have already said, he was described in December as 

 " Naturaliste-voyageur du Museum d'Histoire Naturelle." De 

 Ferussac speaks, in introducing his " Corrections " to the " Tableau " 

 in 1827 (see p. 29), of " the precipitation with which he had to 

 publish his work at the moment when he was embarking for the 

 great voyage which he is at this moment engaged upon in South 

 America." 



The " Tableau Methodique " was presented to the Academie 

 des Sciences on November 7, 1825, and this is the date which 

 d'Orbigny always assigned to the species named therein.^ We 

 may usefully glance over de Ferussac's " Introduction " which 

 has aroused so much controversy. After referring to the uncertainty 

 which existed as to the nature of these organisms, and their 

 internal structure, he points out that d'Orbigny had made out 

 that in many instances the shell was internal, " entirely enclosed 

 in the body or ' sac ' of the cephalopod, or entirely covered by a 

 membrane or tunic, and that the animal was furnished with a 

 great number of arms like those of Nautilus ;pompilioides " (p. 100). 

 He records that some forms are of free habit, whilst others are 

 sessile, and argues from this that the sessile forms cannot possess 

 sexual organs, and that they reproduce themselves without conjuga- 

 tion, or even egg-fertilization.^ He points out that d'Orbigny 

 had reduced the sixty-nine genera already known to twenty- 

 two, but that he liad added thirty- one new genera which 

 he had himself discovered, and that before him only Lamarck 

 and Defrance had added a few new genera b}^ direct observation of 

 the animals (p. 104). He calls attention to the reorganization of 

 the classifications of de Blainville and Haan, and to the separa- 

 tion and retention of the Miliolidce as a genus of Foraminifera, 

 removing them from their place among the Siphoniferes. He 

 says that as the work progressed it became apparent that the 

 " Tableau " must include the whole of the Cephalopoda, and net 

 only the Foraminifera as had been the original intention, " in order 

 to direct the attention of naturalists to the families which are 

 most in need of study " (p. 115). He says rightly that the 

 work of d'Orbigny had resulted in the demolition of the whole 

 substructure which had been instituted before him with the 

 figures of de Montfort and the originals he had adopted. He 

 states that he has " carefully verified all d'Orbigny's observations, 

 and recognized by microscopical examination the differences 



1 XXIL, p. 5; XVI., p. 817. Fischer says that he started on June 21 (XXI., 

 p. 437). 



- XV., passim. See post pp. 61 and 65, note 1. 



^ Both de Ferussac and d'Orbigny seemed to regard attached and free Fora- 

 minifera as zoologically distinct (I., pp. 101 and 245). 



