478 
continental geologists under the name “ Oligocene,” which 
are scarcely represented in Great Britain. Possibly the 
fluvio-marine beds of the Isle of Wight are the nearest 
equivalent to be found in the Tertiaries of this country.* 
The exact geological position of the Septaria-clay is of 
less consequence to our present purpose than the general 
fact that it was deposited some time during that earlier or 
middle Tertiary period in which the Foraminifera, as a 
zoological group, had their most conspicuous development. 
It is not surprising that so promising a field should have 
been diligently worked by German rhizopodists, and it 
may be questioned whether any single bed, or group of 
beds, has received so large an amount of attention in 
respect to its microzoa. The particular locality to which 
Herr von Schlicht’s researches refer, is the estate or manor 
of Pietzpuhl, which lies at the highest point of a Tertiary 
ridge, commencing at the river Elbe, a little north of 
Magdeburg, and extending in an easterly direction above 
Mockern to Loburg,—a course of eighteen or twenty 
English miles. The clay-bed is worked at Pietzpuhl 
for bricks or some other economical purpose, and being 
open to-day, the investigation of its fossil fauna presents 
no preliminary difficulties. 
Attention was first directed to the microzoa of the 
Septaria-clay just twenty years ago, in two letters from 
Herr Reuss (then of Bilin) to Herr Beyrich, on “ Forami- 
nifera in Clay, from Hermsdorf,’f which appeared in the 
Journal of the German Geological Society. These com- 
munications contained little beyond a list of the genera 
represented ; but a year later, a third letter was published,+ 
containing a good deal of supplementary information, and 
in 1851 Professor Reuss published a more elaborate paper 
“On the Fossil Foraminifera and Entomostraca of the 
Septaria-clays of the neighbourhood of Berlin,” § contain- 
ing the results of the examination of the beds described 
by Prof. Beyrich, together with a tabular comparison of 
the species obtained at Hermsdorf and Freienwalde with 
those of other well-known Tertiary deposits, such as the 
Miocene of the Vienna Basin and the sub-Appenine 
Pliocene clays. The table presents a series of sixty-five 
species, and of these, fifty-three are described and figured 
as “new.” All except four of them were obtained from 
Hermsdorf. We will not enter into any analysis of the 
catalogue, else we might be tempted to exceed our bounds, 
in criticism on the new species. 
Another letter from Prof. Reuss|| gave similar par- 
ticulars respecting two fresh localities, viz :—Gorzig near 
Kéthen, and the excavations of Fort Leopold at Stettin. 
Shortly afterwards, appeared an elaborate paper by 
Dr. J. C. Bornemann of Leipsic on the “ Microscopical 
Fauna of the Septaria-clay of Hermsdorf, near Berlin ** 
containing much of novelty and interest, and adding forty- 
six more “ new species” of Foraminifera to an already ex- 
tensive list. The figures of many of these show curious 
modifications of the simpler types, those of the genus 
Polymorphina being especially instructive. In 1858 
Prof. Reuss contributed a further instalment to the 
literature of the subject in his paper ‘ On the Forami- 
nifera of Pietzpuhl,’ tt and this concerns our present 
* See a paper by Sir Charles Lyell, on the Belgian Tertiaries. 
Fourn Geol. Soc . vol. viii. p. 299. 
t Zeitschrift d. deutsch. geol. Gesellsch., vol. i. p. 259. 
t 78. vol. ii. p. 49. 76. vol. iii. p. 309. Il Zé. vol. iv, p. 16. 
** Tb. vol. vii. p. 307. +t Zé. vol. x. 
Quart. 
NATURE 
[March 10, 1870 
purpose more directly, as it is stated to be the first result 
of the author’s examination of the specimens in Herr von 
Schlicht’s collection. It is, however, little more than a 
catalogue, and introduces by name seventy-two more 
“new species,” without either figures or descriptions. 
Six years later Prof. Reuss published in the Reports of 
the Vienna Academy his researches “ On the Foraminifera 
of the Septaria-clay of Offenbach”* near Frankfort, 
figuring therein forty-four more new species ; and finally, 
in 1866, amongst the memoirs presented to the same 
scientific body appears an elaborate monograph by Prof. 
Reuss, entitled “ The Foraminifera, Anthozoa, and Bryozoa 
of the German Septaria-beds,” | one of the most instructive, 
as well as one of the most beautifully illustrated of the 
authors many contributions to the history of the fossil 
Protozoa and Ccelenterata. This paper is not devoted, 
like its predecessors, to the description of new species, but 
is rather an epitome of the facts already known, with 
additionalinformation as to distribution. It is supplemented 
by a comparative table of the geological and geographical 
relations of 228 reputed species, which is a sort of 
concentrated essence of the whole. Without compromising 
our radical objection to the system of sub-dividing and re- 
naming, time after time, forms having the same essential 
characters, on account of minute and very variable 
peculiarities, or of regarding a slight difference in 
geological age as a reason for constituting a new species 
in cases where zoological characters fail to show ground 
of distinction, we may cheerfully yield to Prof. Reuss 
our tribute of admiration for his final summary of what 
was known of the microzoa of the Septaria-clay. 
These bibliographical details have appeared necessary 
because the field of research to which they refer is one 
with which British paleontologists have little opportunity 
of becoming practically acquainted; and our object in 
respect to Herr von Schlicht’s work is half accomplished 
now that we have indicated the amount of labour pre- 
viously expended on the same subject. 
Herr von Schlicht introduces his monograph by a preface 
of seven pages, comprising the readable matter of the 
volume. This introductory essay deals in generalities 
rather than new truths, and the apology of the author 
constitutes its chief novelty. After a few preliminary 
paragraphs he mourns the shortcomings of the work 
in respect to classification, nomenclature, and other 
important matters. Of the systems of classification, 
Prof. Reuss’s, as last amended, is alone spoken of with 
much commendation; that of Prof. Max Schultze re- 
ceives bare mention, as do also the views of British 
thizopodists. “After all,” asks the author, “do we 
know enough yet about the Foraminifera to invent any 
classification of them? Some people think not; and so, 
on the whole, although the early D’Orbignyan arrangement 
is the worst, it is pretty well known, and it will be the 
least trouble.” 
It may be that the systematic scheme laid down by 
Prof. Reuss is faulty: in this we should agree with Herr 
von Schlicht, though on different grounds ; but it has a 
basis of natural relationship in its larger groups, wholly 
wanting in that of D’Orbigny. That a general harmony 
should exist between its sub-divisions and those indicated 
* Sitzungsberichte der kk. Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. x\viii. 
u Denkschrift der math.-naturwissen. Cl. der k.k. Akad. Wissensch. 
vol. xxv. 
