4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 128 



the muds are not consolidated, it has been thought unnecessary to boil 

 them. Strangely enough we have found that many Recent genera are 

 very incompletely known, owing entirely to lack of sufficient prepara- 

 tion. Examples discussed later in this paper include one genus de- 

 scribed as having a trematophore when actually the aperture was filled 

 only by a shell fragment. Another genus was described as having an 

 amorphous material between and around the chambers, which was in 

 fact only the lime muds that had settled on the specimen and had not 

 been removed by washing. In other forms, both Recent and fossil, the 

 apertural characters or umbilical areas have been obscured by extra- 

 neous material which a little care in preparation could have removed. 

 Another reason for the necessity of thoroughly washing samples is the 

 fact that in Recent samples there is apparently sometimes a chemical 

 action of the sea salts on the calcareous Foraminif era after a few years 

 exposure to the air. We have seen specimen after specimen in museums 

 that seem to have "exploded," and for no apparent reason other than 

 this chemical reaction. 



With the increased detail of foraminiferal studies it can be seen that 

 many genera require additional techniques. In earlier years it was 

 thought necessary to make thin sections only of the so-called "larger 

 Foraminifera." Later workers have shown that extremely important 

 features can be seen only by means of very careful dissection, and it 

 has now become necessary to make dissections or thin sections of many 

 genera of smaller Foraminifera in order to determine correctly their 

 development. For example, one genus was described with a supposed 

 early planispiral coil, but a thin section now shows the form to have 

 a much more complex early chamber arrangement; others are found 

 to have hitherto unsuspected internal tubes, chamberlets, or distinctive 

 wall structures. Thus it becomes necessary to prepare material very 

 thoroughly before describing new species and genera. 



Too much dependence on literature. — It is of course imperative to 

 have available as much literature as possible in order to do taxonomic 

 work. It is equally important not to be too dependent on literature. 

 In the final analysis, it is necessary to compare actual specimens. This 

 is extremely important in describing new forms. Although it may 

 seem certain that a specimen at hand is identical with that of Brady, 

 Parker and Jones, or others, it is dangerous to assume this without 

 recourse to the types. Thus various authors have cited so-called 

 "classic species" as types for new genera, firmly believing their speci- 

 mens to be identical with the original types, only to find later that the 

 specimens were not even congeneric. It is always best to base genera 



