410 
Mr. H. J. Carter on Foraminifera. 
ing, like the inside of a shell). But if a similar form can be 
found with pores, or one whose test is formed of foreign 
objects (that is, arenaceous, like the arenaceous Miliola ), it 
seems to me that it is equally entitled to the name of “ Squa- 
mulina ,” and therefore that my Squamulina varians (Ann. 
1870, vol. v. p. 321, pi. v. figs. 1, 2) must belong to the genus, 
inasmuch as change of material in a garment does not alter 
the generic character. 
“ A man’s a man for a’ that.” 
Of course there is no development of the canal-system here ; 
but the moment a second chamber is formed, as in the nauti- 
loid tests, the canal commences in the marginal cord, where it 
may be seen by grinding down an Operculina horizontally— 
and still more strikingly in a split infiltrated nummulite, 
where the shell-substance, remaining white while the canal- 
system (which forms a double spire &c., viz. one on each side 
of the cord) is filled with red oxide of iron, thus distinctly 
appears in each half of the cord. (I do not know any one 
who possesses specimens of this kind but myself, which came 
from the Eocene of the Rajpipla range in Western India.) 
But although Squamuiina would at first appear to be the 
simplest of Foraminiferal forms, yet Gypsina ( Tinoporus , 
Carpenter) vesicularis , Carp., ap. Carter, is still more simple; 
for here the chambers have no u aperture ” nor is there any 
“ canal-system,” indeed no other means of communicating 
with the exterior than through the successive u pore-tubula- 
tion ” of the horizontal and the intercameral holes of the 
vertical walls. Be Montfort’s genus Tinoporus possesses all 
three. 
I wish particularly to direct attention to the absence of these 
parts in Gypsina , because when we find a form of the latter 
spreading like a Melobesia , as in G. melobesioides (Ann. 1877, 
vol. xx. p. 172, &c.), i. e. extending itself horizontally over 
several square inches and ten to twenty layers deep, we seem, 
but for the direct communication with the exterior through 
the pores (which enables the animal to nourish itself with 
crude food), to have a true vegetative structure. Hence, too, 
the necessity of making Gypsina , with its different forms, a 
distinct division of the Foraminifera. 
Here I would observe that, in an excellent paper on “ The 
recent Foraminifera of Down and Antrim ” (Ireland), by Mr. 
Joseph Wright, F.G.S., of Belfast, a copy of which the author 
had the kindness to send me, with type specimens of Tinoporus 
Icevis and T. lucidus , Brady, MS., the latter, which is repre¬ 
sented in Mr. Wright’s plate iv. figs. 4, a , b, and 5, is not a 
