36 HENRY B. BRADY. 
with the larger number of types to be accommodated and 
the greater diversity in their characters; but even in this 
the two classifications have very much in common. 
Their general relationship will be readily understood by 
the following comparative table : 
Von REwss. CARPENTER, PARKER, AND JONES. 
A. Foraminifera with non- Sub-order—Imperforata. 
porous tests. 
Family—Gromipa. 
A, WITH. ARENACEOUS TESTS. Family—Litvoiipa. 
1. Lituolidea. 
2. Uvellidea. 
B. Wit coMPaAct, PORCELLANOUS, Family—MI.IoLipa. 
CALCAREOUS SHELLS. 
1. Squamulinidea. 
2. Miliolidea. 
3. Peneroplidea. 
4. Orbitulitidea. 
B. Foraminifera with porous Sub-order—Perforata. 
shells. 
A, WiTH GLASSY, FINELY POROUS, Family—LaceEnipA. 
CALCAREOUS SHELLS. 
. Spirillinidea. 
. Ovulitidea. 
. Rhabdoidea. 
. Cristellaridea. 
. Polymorphinidea. 
. Cryptostegia. 
. Textilaridea. 
. Cassidulinidea. 
00 SI.O? OT HE 09 29 
B, WitH EXCEEDINGLY POROUS, Family—GLoBIGERINIDA. 
CALCAREOUS SHELLS. 
1. Rotalidea. 
C. WITH CALCAREOUS SHELLS, TRA- Family—NoumMovLinipA. 
VERSED BY A RAMIFIED CANAL- 
SYSTEM. 
1. Polystomellidea. 
2. Nummulitidea. 
Professor von Reuss’s classification, above quoted, is taken 
from the “‘ Postscript” to the memoir referred to, in which 
the primary division into “ Foraminifera Monomera” and 
«« Foraminifera Polymera,” adopted in the body of the 
paper, is abandoned. His family Gromidea also, which 
corresponded with the Gromipa of the English observers, is 
