Alcide cVOrligny. 27 



'•' Tableau " (" between six and seven hundred") was a careless one. 

 There are 552 species named therein. Of these 193 were identifiable 

 in 1825-6, 67 bearing references to figures from earlier authors 

 (leaving out Soldani), 26 were figured by d'Orbigny in the eight 

 plates published in the Atlas to the Ann. Sci. Nat., and forming 

 part of the reprint as issued with the Models, whilst 100 were 

 represented by the Models themselves. But in addition to tliese 

 there are 158 references to figures in Soldani's Testaceographia,^ 

 which leave 245 species to be described as nomina nitda, whose 

 names according to the strict rules of Nomenclature were liable 

 to lapse, and were open to adoption by later authors. Between 

 the years 1863 and 1871 Messrs. Parker and Jones, in their 

 monumental series of papers on the Nomenclature of the Forami- 

 nifera, made a most painstaking and laborious study of the 

 " Tableau Methodique," '-^ in which they analysed, and to some 

 measure identified, 302 species, leaving 250 undescribed.^ As we 

 shall see, when dealing with the " Planches inedites," Dr. Carlo 

 Fornasini of Bologna, between the years 1898 and 1908, pub- 

 lished a series of tracings, supplied to him by Gr. Berthelin, from 

 d'Orbigny's original sketches for these " Planches," accompanied 

 by diagnostic observations following upon the lines of Parker and 

 Jones, and thus gave substance to the shadows of 246 further 

 species, besides giving further figures of 83 which had been 

 already described by Parker and Jones. I have appended a list 

 of the species ignored by Parker and Jones and by Fornasini in 

 Appendix G. Of these, one was shortly described in the Pro- 

 drome (Bibl. XV.), one has been subsequently figured, and one, 

 Alveolina quoyii, was figured in one of the plates to the " Tableau," 

 and was subsequently figured and diagnosed with some com- 

 pleteness by Carpenter in 1862. Thus the Ehizopodist of to-day 

 is in a position to form an opinion as to the identity of all the 



1 It may be remarked that d'Orbigny was often lamentably careless in transcrib- 

 ing his synonymical references, and never is this crime more apparent than in his 

 references to Soldani. Messrs. Parker and Jones (Bibl. XX.) undertook a laborious 

 correction of these errors in the case of the 158 species which they analyse as 

 having been taken from the " Testaceographia." They rightly observe (p. 152) that 

 d'Orbigny might have drawn much more largely than he did on these stores with 

 advantage to science. He appears to have selected from Soldani only such figured 

 species as he recognized as having been found in the material at his command, 

 and, whilst appending the localities of his own species, he entirely ignored the 

 habitats affixed by Soldani to his species. This omission has been rectified with 

 great care by Parker and Jones in this section of their work. De F6russac says 

 that d'Orbigny had re-observed almost the whole of the species in Soldani's work, 

 and studied them with the aid of much improved scientific appliances, with 

 the result that he had more than doubled the number of species hitherto described 

 (I., p. 103). 



2 Bibl. XVIII. to XX. 



^ At the conclusion of their labours they stated that 253 undescribed species 

 must lapse ; but they made the total number of the species in the " Tableau " 

 " about 550," which accounts for the other two. 



