338 Messrs. W. K. Parker and T. R. Jones on the 
from his own collection, and selected from the Monograph of 
Fichtel and Moll several of their so-called Nautili, and from 
Soldani’s ‘Testaceographia’ some of his figured microscopic 
shells ; he produced modified figures of these, and classified and 
named the whole according to his conchological system, arranging 
most of them (genres ii°—lxu*) as “ Coquilles univalves cloi- 
sonnées, contournées en spirale,” and others (genres Ixiiit — 
Ixxxiii®) as ‘‘ Coquilles univalves cloisonnées, droites.” De Mont- 
fort’s delineations of these Foraminifera and other Microzoa. 
were all drawn and engraved on wood by himself; and very 
proper remarks does he make in his ‘ Discours préliminaire’ 
(p. vill) on the advisability of naturalists being their own 
draughtsmen. In this case, however, we have but poor results ; 
and, to say nothing of the execution of the cuts, we look in 
vain for correct drawing as to the superficial sculpturing of 
these little shells ; whilst the attempt on the part of De Mont- 
fort to give in one figure, placed obliquely, the features both of 
surface and edge (shown in two views by Fichtel and Moll) 
adds greatly to the general incorrectness and obscurity of the 
figures. 
Putting aside our author’s notions as to the Cephalopodous 
nature of these little chambered shells, we may notice that he 
was much struck by the fact of their extensive development and 
distribution in the present seas, and their frequently enormous 
accumulation in the fossil state in some of the limestones of the 
Alps, Apennines, and other mountains (Disc. prélim. p. xxvii). 
The beauty of these little creatures, their symmetry and elegance, 
the neatness of their construction, their delicate colours, irides- 
cence, and pearliness, strongly impressed De Montfort with a 
love for these tiny biyoux of Nature’s workmanship, so lavishly 
scattered among the sea-sand of every clime. 
As results arising from De Montfort’s systematic handling of 
the Foraminifera we have not much to point out. His generic 
names are, for the most part, useless; since the several species, 
varieties, and figured individuals of a genus have respectively 
received a new binomial appellation at his hand. The specific 
names proposed by him are also mostly unnecessary, being ge- | 
nerally duplicate to some former name. Occasionally, however, 
his appellations are useful,—Peneroplis, for instance, having 
been preserved ; and some of the trivial names are good for sub- 
species and varieties. We may remark that, with regard to 
some of the fossil forms (such as Alveolina, &c.), De Montfort 
has collected many useful bibliographical references. 
Writing subsequently to Lamarck (de la Marck in those days), 
De Montfort refers to the early edition of the ‘ Syst. An. s, Vert.’; 
