42 Transactions of the Society. 



animals could no longer be classed with the Cephalopoda, but 

 that owing to the press of work following upon his return he could 

 not publish everything at once, and he was consequently antici- 

 pated by Dujardin, to whose scientific attainments he pays a well- 

 merited tribute, recapitulating the facts recorded in his first 

 note (Bibl. II.). D'Orbigny calls attention to the fact that he 

 informed de Ferussac of his change of opinion immediately upon 

 his return (in February 1834), but that nevertheless de Ferussac 

 in his " Aperpu historique sur les Cephalopodes " (Paris, 1834, 

 p. 81) republished the original error " without communicating 

 with me," and cited the Foraminifera as the third Order of the 

 (Jephalopoda.^ Both de Ferussac - and de Blainville ^ expressed in 

 Eeviews the erroneous opinion that Dujardin was in too great a 

 hurry to establish a new class of animals, the former adhering to 

 the belief that the pseudopodia were probably Cephalopodan 

 tentacles. D'Orbigny reviews the article in question (Bibl. III.) 

 and calls attention to the discrepancy alluded to in note 1, p. 39, 

 ante, but seems to have overlooked Dujardin's third note (Bibl. IV.). 

 In reviewing Dujardin's fourth note (Bibl. V.) he suggests that the 

 Foraminifer whose pseudopodia prctruded from pores on the edge 

 of the final chamber was a Peneroplis and not a Cristellaria, which 

 may have been the case, though the aperture of Cristellaria might 

 by looseness of diction (to which, however, Dujardin was not prone) 

 be made to answer Dujardin's description. D'Orbigny, however, 

 says most properly, " nevertheless these errors do not detract at 

 all from the intrinsic merits of his observations, which are merely 

 applicable to other genera." 



We have seen {ante) that Dujardin exhibited his living Fora- 

 minifera to d'Orbigny ; it is curious that the latter never saw or 

 recognized the anastomosis of the pseudopodia. He records 



' lu his " Histoire Naturelle G^nerale et Parfciculiere des Cephalopodes 

 Ac6tabuliferes vivants et fossiles " (Paris, 1834-48, i., p. 50). The omission is the 

 more remarkable as de Ferussac was cognizant of the work of Dujardin, to 

 whom he refers, saving himself to a certain extent, however, by suggesting 

 certain doubts as to whether the Foraminifera should form a single series, and that 

 some have au internal, and others an external shell. De F6russac's work, how- 

 ever, shows other signs of carelessness ; for instance, he says that Linne quoted in 

 his synonymies Gronovius, Martini, Murray, Favauue, Schroeter, and Walker and 

 Boys, none of whom published their works till long after the apjpearance of the 

 twelfth edition of Linne'. De Ferussac had died in the year 1836, and d'Orbigny 

 completed the work from notes confided to him by Mme. de Ferussac in 1837. He 

 points out in his substituted Introducuion that de F6russac was always too ready to 

 accept as new species any drawings submitted to him without comparing them 

 with the originals, and that consequently many useless and misleading plates for 

 his work were published in 1835, before d'Orbigny began his revision of the material. 

 De F6russac published eleven "livraisons " of his work before his death (96 pp.), 

 with the plates. The whole of these were suppressed by d'Orbigny, who wrote a 

 new Introduction and Part I, dated 1839. From the twelfth " livraison " onwards 

 the work was entirely d'Orbigny's. 



2 Magazin de Zoologie (Bulletin Zoologique), 1835, p. 104. 



2 Le Reformateur, No. 292, July 28, 1835. 



