NO. 5 FORAMINIFERAL GENERA — LOEBLICH AND TAPPAN 5 



on species at hand, and if not a new species, it would be advisable to 

 have or see authentic types of the species used. 



Often misinterpretations of figures may cause difficulties — an in- 

 ternal tube may be shown in a figure but be thought to represent 

 merely a highlight, or because the figures do not show certain impor- 

 tant characters, such as apertures, septa, or other features, later 

 workers may erroneously assume these to be like those of specimens 

 at hand. For example, arenaceous genera have been described, and 

 calcareous forms unknowingly selected as type species. Brady's Chal- 

 lenger monograph of Recent Foraminifera was one of the most inclu- 

 sive foraminiferal works available, and many authors have selected 

 species of Brady as types for new genera. Fortunately, his figures and 

 descriptions are in general remarkably accurate and his types well 

 labeled and preserved. This work covered only Recent species, how- 

 ever, and many fossil genera are not included in Brady's work. Other 

 workers have used works of d'Orbigny, Terquem, Reuss, Quenstedt, 

 and others as a basis for their taxonomic revisions, and with resultant 

 confusion, as the original illustrations were often not accurate, nor the 

 diagnoses thorough. In the last decade the Ellis and Messina Cata- 

 logue of Foraminifera has tended to supplant other works as a basis 

 for taxonomic "revisions." Although an invaluable tool for research 

 in supplying original descriptions and figures, this compilation can 

 also be misused by modern students of Foraminifera who "discover" 

 new genera by turning its pages. Too many of the "original figures" 

 which it reproduces are not as reliable as those of Brady, and many 

 errors arise v/hen revisions are made on the sole basis of these illustra- 

 tions and descriptions, without consideration of the reliability of their 

 authors. As students of Foraminifera are to be found in almost every 

 area of the globe, it would seem better to increase the frequency of 

 exchanges of specimens, so that those wishing to make generic revi- 

 sions can see at first hand the species or genera they are studying, and 

 not depend solely on the literature. 



Lack of responsibility for preservation of types. — It would seem that 

 anyone describing new species or genera would have sufficient interest 

 in their own work to desire its validation and preservation. Unfor- 

 tunately, many writers seem to feel that their responsibility ends when 

 their manuscript reaches an editor. Type specimens are not labeled, 

 locality data are insufficiently given in publications and on the slides, 

 the depository of the types is not always cited, and sometimes types 

 are even kept in private collections. Naturally, it is convenient to have 

 one's types at hand in case one wishes to consult them again at a future 



