194 Mr. J.B.Macdonald on Foraminifera from the Feejee Islandg. 



marking also that the Foraminifera themselves closely resembled 

 some of the forms entombed in the chalk formations of England, 

 and there can be little doubt that these facts will prove of con- 

 siderable importance in a geological point of view. I generally 

 find it convenient to support the correctness of my own observa- 

 tion by submitting any particular object to the scrutiny of 

 others, and in this way 1 can vouch for the truth of figs. 31, 32, 

 and 33. Fig. 32 is a minute Nummulina, nearly sessile on the 

 frond of a sea- weed, gathered on the barrier reef at Ovalau ; but 

 in figs. 31 and 33 [Operculina) the pedicle is more distinctly 

 seen. In the latter, the little Foraminifer is attached to a sprig 

 of Serialaria. 



The pedicle in some instances very much resembles, both in 

 colour and general appearance, that of a young Lepas, but in 

 other cases it is short, ill-defined, and interspersed with calca- 

 reous granules. 



With these facts before us, the nature of the broken stems of 

 figs. 2, 4, 6, 21, 23 and 30, becomes at once apparent; and a 

 simple rule is thus established for our guidance in representing 

 these objects. 



It is not at all improbable that the tubular structure, often 

 so distinctly visible between the cells on the umbilicated side 

 (Faujasina, Operculina), is intimately connected with the deve- 

 lopment and growth of the pedicle, ofi^ering sorae analogy to the 

 cement-tubes of the Lepadidce. 



It is rather difficult to comprehend the nature of an animal 

 which is invested with an incompressible case, composed of cells, 

 which only communicate with one another by very small open- 

 ings, and with the exterior by still more minute perforations, 

 frequently amounting to a mere porosity. Moreover, each ad- 

 dition newly made is in a certain \ratio larger than that which 

 preceded it, and parts once formed suffer no farther increase 

 in size or change of form. In all these particulars the Fora- 

 minifera so differ from other forms of animal life, that, as might 

 be expected, diversity of opinion and misconceptions respect- 

 ing their true position in the scale of being, have existed from 

 the days of Linnaeus to the present time. That illustrious 

 naturalist referred them to the highest order of Mollusca, namely 

 the Cephalopods, and was supported in this fanciful idea by 

 succeeding anatomists of deserved celebrity; but no one appears 

 to have questioned its truth until Dujardin proved its fallacy in 

 a memoir published in the 'Annales des Sciences Naturelles,' 

 1835. Strange to say, however, the total absence of any affinity 

 existing between the Foraminifera and the Mollusca was not 

 generally admitted until the year 1846, when D^Orbigny, who 

 had laboured most in this field, abandoned his former views. 



