240 



GENEE,AL KISTORT OF THE INFUSORIA. 



is only fair, however, to state that D'Orbigny is not alone guilty of unduly 

 manufacturing species, but that Ehrenberg, Reuss, and others are equally 

 involved in the fault, which, by the way, is one almost inseparable, and 

 therefore very excusable, in the case of the first observers and systematists of 

 any newly-discovered group of organic beings. 



Mr. Jeffreys {Proc. Roy. Soc. 1855) deplores the multiplication of species 

 and genera in the present day, and observes that " the Foraminifera exhibit a 

 great tendency to variation of form, some of the combinations (especially in 

 the case oi Margiyiulina) being as comphcated and various as a Chinese puzzle. 

 It is, I beheve, undeniable, that the variability of form is in an inverse ratio 



to the development of animals in the scale of Nature I am induced to 



suggest the following arrangement : — 



"1. Lagena and Entosolenia. 



" 2. Nodosaria and Marginulina, &c. 



" 3. Vorticialis, JRotcdia, Lobatida, and GlohigeriTia, &c. 



" 4. Teoctularia, Uvigerina, &c. 



" 5. Miliola, Bdocidina, &c. 



*' This division must, however, be modified by a more extended and cosmo- 

 pohtan view of the subject, as I only profess to treat of British species. To 

 illustrate McLeay's theory of a quinary and cii'cular arrangement, the case 

 may be put thus : — 



" The first family is connected by the typical genus Lagena mth the second, 

 and by the Entosolenia Avith the fifth ; the second is united with the third 

 through Marginulina ; the third with the foiu'th through Glohigerina ; and 

 the fourth with the last through Uvigerina J' 



"VYe append a tabular view of the groupings into families and genera, as 

 proposed by Prof. Schultze, since it presents the most complete system yet pro- 

 duced, and advances much nearer a true arrangement of the Foraminifera 

 than that made by M. D'Orbigny. 



