72 Transactions of the Society. 



families, or orders, do not exist among Foraminifern." and he 

 applied this principle with rigour. Indeed, we find in his opening 

 pages an echo of d'Orbigny's life axiom (see ante, p. 12) when he 

 says : " I have endeavoured throughout my own scientific career to 

 keep in view the noble character given by Schiller of the true 

 philosopher, as distinguished from the trader in science, that ' he has 

 always loved truth better than his system, and will gladly exchange 

 her old and defective form for a new and fairer one.' " ^ No student 

 of the group can afford to ignore — indeed, I might say that every 

 student must commit to memory — the eight " general propositions " 

 with which Carpenter concludes the preface to his remarkable 

 work, though since 1862 the great advance which has been made 

 in the knowledge of the fossil forms tends to modify some of 

 his broader generalizations. His primary answer to d'Orbigny is 

 contained in his I'ifth Proposition : " The evidence in regard to 

 the genetic continuity between the Foraminifera of successive 

 geological periods, and between those of the later of those periods 

 and the existing inhabitants of our seas, is as complete as the 

 nature of the case admits," and he adds immediately, " there is no 

 evidence of any fundamental modification or advance in the 

 Foraminiferous type from the Palteozoic period to the present 

 time." 2 



The points of failure inseparable from the d'Orbignyan system 

 are clearly and concisely set out by Carpenter in his Historical 

 Summary (I have pointed them out in these pages, and they do 

 not require recapitulation now), and he concludes that notwith- 

 standing the immense value and extent of d'Orbigny's contribu- 

 tions to this branch of Zoology — and he sets out all that is 

 admirable in d'Orbigny's work — there is scarcely any part of his 

 work which will stand the test of time and further research.-^ 



The researches of Carpenter into the intimate structure of the 

 shells made it clear that the d'Orbignyan classification must be 

 entirely disregarded ; that the very same type may develop itself 

 either as a Stichostegue along a straight or slightly curved axis, 

 or as a Helicostegue along a spiral axis ; and that certain of the 

 Cyclostegue order are generically if not specifically identical 

 with certain Helicostegues. He deals shortly with the work of 

 Ehrenberg, the failings of which had been pointed out by d'Orbigny 

 {a7ite, p. 56), and which, he properly remarks, is based upon views 

 so erroneous that it is seldom or never referred to in the present 

 day, save as a matter of historical interest ; but at the same time 

 we must not lose sight of the fact that it is to Ehrenberg that we 

 owe practically the discovery of the great importance of the Forami- 



1 XVII., p. vii. 



^ XVII., p. xi. Compare Carpenter's earlier quoted dictum, ante, p. 63. See 

 also our paper referred to, ante, p. 64. 

 ^ XVII., p. 6. 



