216 Mr. H. J. Carter on Foraminifera 



tilus [Calcarina) Sjiou/Ieri^^ (which I sliall show it to be 

 hereafter), is to mc inexplicable, seeiii"- that the affinities of 

 Tinoj>orus resicularis are more with Poh/trema mim'aceuniy 

 from which, again, it is markedly ditferent, as just stated, by 

 possessing nothing even analogous to the pseudopodial canal- 

 system of the latter. 



There is as much difference between Tinoporus haculafus 

 and T. vesicularis as there is between Orhitoides and Orhl- 

 tolites. As Orhitoides dispansa, Sowerby, has a central 

 plane of nunimulitiform chambers arranged spirally with a 

 convex, vertical, radiating development on each side of other 

 chambers, of a compressed cellular form, intermixed with 

 columns of solid shell-substance ending respectively in 

 prominent tubercles on the surface and extending to the very 

 margin of the disk, so has Tinoporus haculafus all this arranged 

 around a trochoid spire. On the other hand, as Orhitolites 

 Mantellij Carter, has a central plane of orbitolititorm chambers 

 (see Carpenter, Introd. pi. ix. fig. 8, c' c c' c', and compare 

 with my figure, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 1861, vol. viii. 

 pi. xvi. fig. 2, h and fj) with a convex vertical radiating deve- 

 lopment on each side of other chambers of a compressed cellu- 

 lar form icithout the said columns of solid shell-substance, so 

 does the structure of Tinoporus vesicularis extend in a radiating 

 structure from an indistinct centre to the circumference (fig. 

 20, h] also see Carpenter, op. cit. pi. xv. fig. ?>). The only 

 means that T. vesicularis has of communicating with the ex- 

 terior is, as before stated, through the foraminated plates of its 

 chambers successively ; while T. haculatus has a distinct sys- 

 tem of interseptal canals for this purpose (Carpenter, op. cit. 

 pi. XV. fig. 12). 



All this the reader may find contrasted in two opposite eo- ' 

 lumns of representations, side by side, in the Ann. & Mag. 

 Nat. Hist, of 1861 (vol. viii. pi. xvi.), which, so far as Orhi- 

 toides dispansa and Orhitolites Mantelli are concerned, was 

 all worked out by myself at Bombay in 1861, and pub- 

 lished in the Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist, before Dr. Carpenter's 

 ' Introduction' of 1862. But Dr. Carpenter (Introd. p. 298, 

 &c.) has thought proper to dift'er from me ; and therefore I iJ 



must leave the student of Foraminifera to decide which is right, 

 merely observing that it is not satisfactoiy to be criticized by 

 one whose observations show that he is not so well acquainted 

 Avith the subject as yourself. 



Tinoporus haculatus of De Montfort is, as before stated, a 

 variety of Calcarina Spengleri. Out of the specimen of Tuhi- 

 pora musica have been obtained three species of Calcarina, viz. 

 C. Spienglerij C. hispida, and C. cahar, together with Tinop)orus 



