Alcide d'Orhifjny. 65 



national Congress Committee, save for the habit to which I have 

 referred of claiming the authorship of species which he had re- 

 moved to other genera. In the " Prodrome " he cites 668 species 

 of Foraminifera, besides twenty-six species not named, but noted 

 under their genera in his 19th fitage (Albien)/ Many of these 

 species have disappeared as completely as those of the " Tableau 

 Methodique," either from being never heard of again, or from 

 being swallowed up in the synonymies of other species. The 

 earliest recorded is Fusulina eyiindrica Fischer (see ante, p. 56) 

 from the Carboniferous {Carhonifcrien) ; the next — his own earliest 

 records — from the Lias {Liasien), eighteen species communicated to 

 him by Olry Terquem.- In the "Toarcien," with^he exception of 

 Phicopsilina scorpionis (= Webbina), the five species are from the 

 Vienna Memoir. His synonymies are often incomplete or mis- 

 leading. For instance, in the " Bajocien" he cites Cristellaria gibba 

 as new (1847), giving the first record as that of Eoemer (Robulina, 

 1839), ignoring his own records of 1826 and 1839 on the ground 

 that these were of recent specimens, a system of selection which, 

 regard being had to his admitted principles of differentiation of 

 species, is very confusing. In the " Bathonien " he claims the 

 Alga Conodictyura as a new Foraminifer, having removed it from 

 Conipora (d'Archiac) ; and Polytrema appears as a Zoophyte, though 

 Dujardin had pointed out its Foraminiferal nature in 1835 and 

 1841. In the " Corallien " he cites the fossil fruit Goniolina 

 ]ie,ri(gona; in the " Neocomien " he includes Cornuel's Planularia 

 as his own, in the genus Vaginulina. In the " Albien," as 

 we have seen {supra), he gives no specific names ; in the 

 " Cenomanien " there are a few new species cited, the rest being 

 from Vienna ; in the " Turonien " all the species are new ; in the 

 " Senonien " (Upper Chalk) the species are mostly from the Paris 

 IMemoir. In the " Parisien " we find Dactylopora removed from 

 Polytripa (Defrance) and claimed by d'Orbigny," and Nummulites 

 variolaria similarly removed and claimed from Lamarck. These 

 instances, among many others, give an idea of what is to be 

 found in the sections devoted to Foraminifera in the " Prodrome." 

 He had in addition a confusing habit of adding the prefixes sub- 



' There is no explanation of why these species were not named, and even the 

 numbers appended to them are ecceijtric. In vol. ii. of the " Cours E16meutaire " 

 he states that he cited 657 species characteristic of their respective zones. It must 

 he borne in miud that all the references in the " Prodrome" to the " Tableau 

 IMethodique " (which are dated 1825) appear to be wrongly paged, for the reason 

 that d'Orbigny did not give a reference to the original in the Ann. Sci. Nat., but to 

 one of the reprints issued with the Models, which were re-paginated. This is 

 perhaps one of the earliest examples of the pernicious practice of quoting pagina- 

 tion from a reprint instead of from the original article. 



- XV., vol. i., p. 241. Terquem did not himself begin to publish the results of 

 his studies of the Lias of the filoselle and elsewhere till 1858. 



^ Besides Dactylopora, we find here among the Foraminifera the false genera 

 Acicularia and Oviilites. (See XVII., pp. 127, 137, 179.) 



Feh. i31st. 1917 r 



