
AuGuUST 5, 1915| 
NATURE 
631 

may be washed out of any ordinary lump of Upper 
Chalk. In many localities on a smaller scale the 
Foraminifera may be seen occupied in this process of 
world-building. The shore of Dog’s Bay, in Conne- 
mara, is composed of sands in which no grain of sand 
has a place. As far as the eye can see, and as deep 
as man can dig, preserving any measure of self- 
respect, the littoral deposit consists of pure Foramini- 
fera extending far above high water-, and far below 
low water-marks. In a lesser degree the same thing 
may be seen a little to the north, just south of Emlagh 
Point, while anyone who has taken the trouble to 
examine the grit shed in disconcerting quantities by 
a new Mediterranean sponge must realise what masses 
of Foraminifera make up the bulk of the shallow water 
sands in those latitudes. 
Such, then, shortly is the occurrence of the Fora- 
minifera, which, leaving on one side the doubtful 
record of Strombus lapidus by Gesner in 1565,*® which 
Prof. Rupert Jones identified as a Vaginulina,’’? make 
their first appearance in the Micrographia of Hooke 
in 16651* as “Figures observed in small sand.’’ He 
figures one of them, which is clearly the common 
shore form Rotalia beccarii. In 1702 Prof. Plimmer’s 
‘Immortal Beadle,” *° Antony van Leeuwenhoek, in 
a letter to the Royal Society,?° figured the equally 
common and related form Polystomella striato-punc- 
tata ‘‘from out of the stomach of a shrimp,” in which 
happy hunting-ground Reade“recorded the presence 
of Foraminifera more than 150 years later.*!_ There 
can be no doubt that they play an important part in 
determining the movements of many of our most 
important food fishes.** 
Since the day of Leeuwenhoek the Foraminifera 
have continually engaged the attention of zoologists. 
Before Linnwus we have the works of Plancus,?* 
Ledermiuller,*4 and others, but between the time of 
Linnzus and the early years of the last century the 
era of monographs began; Walker and Boys in 
England,”° Fichtel and Moll in Germany,?® Lamarck 
in France,*’? Soldani in Italy,?° have left behind them 
specialist works upon the Foraminifera which still 
form (sometimes to our serious embarrassment). the 
foundations of our study. 
The recent period may be said to have commenced 
in 1819, when the father of Alcide. d’Orbigny wrote 
to the geologist Fleuriau de Bellevue that his son was 
studying ‘‘microscopic cephalopods”’ from the shore 
sands at Esnandes, near their native town, La 
Rochelle.*° After this, captains of ships and travel- 
ling naturalists supplied young d’Orbigny with a mass 
of material from all parts of the world, resulting in 
the publication of his Tableau Méthodique,*’ in which 
a vast number of species both recent and fossil were 
recorded. His records from Madagascar in particular 
are of supreme interest for us, for we have recently 
16 C. Gesner, ‘‘De omni rerum fossilium genere, gemmis,” etc. 
sect.. p. 165). Tiguri, 1565. 
17 T. Rupert Jones, Q. Journ. Geol. Soc., pl. xxxiv., fig. 5, Vaginulina 
laevigata. 1884. 
418 R. Hooke, ‘‘ Micrographia,” p. 80. pl. v., fig. x. London, 166s. 
19 H. G. Plimmer, Bedellus iitmortalis (Presidential Address), J. R. 
Micr. Soc., p. 1217. 1913. 
20 A. van Leeuwenhoek, ‘‘Sevende verfolg der Brieven,” p. 196, pl. opp., 
p. ror, fig. 7. Delft, 1702. 
21 J. B. Reade, Trans. Micr. Soc., vol.ii , pp. 20-24. London, 1849. 
22 F. Pearcey, ‘‘On the Movements and Food of the Herring,” Proc. Roy. 
Phvs. Soc., Kdinhurgh, vol. viii , p. 389. 1885. 
23 Janus P ancus, ‘‘ De conchis minus notis liber." Venice, 1739. 2nded., 
Rome. 1750. 
24M, &. Ledermiiller,‘‘ Mikroskopische Gemuths- und Augen-Ergétzung.” 
Bayreuth, 1760-61. 
25 Walker and Boys, ‘‘ Testacea minuta rariora.” London, 1784. 
26 Fichteland Moll, ‘‘ Testacea microscopica.” Vienna, 1798. 
27 J. B. de Lamarck, ‘Systeme des Animaux sans Vertébres."’ Paris, 
r8or. 
23 A. Soldani, ‘‘ Testaceographia.” Senis, 1789-08. 
23 C. d’Orbigny, Journal de Physique, vol. Ixxxvili., p. 187. Paris, 1819. 
30 A. d’Orbigny. ‘‘ Tableau Méthodique de la Classe des Rhizopodes,” 
Ann. Sci. Nat., vol. vii.. pp. 245-314. Paris, 1826. 
NO. 2388, VOL. 95] 
(Last 


examined a series of dredgings from Kerimba, on 
the adjacent African coast,*! in which we have redis- 
covered most, if not all, of his Madagascan species. 
He recorded in particular the species Pavonina flabelli- 
formis (Fig. 3), which after 1826 was entirely lost 
sight of for half a century, when it was rediscovered 
in Madagascan sand by Brady.** It is quite one of the 
most beautiful of the Foraminifera, whether viewed 
as an opaque object or by transmitted light. 
The true nature of the Foraminifera was not, how- 
ever, understood until Dujardin in 1835 %* separated 
them from the Cephalopods, among which they had 
been grouped on account of certain superficial charac- 
teristics, and their extensile bodies. From this time 
onward the literature of the Foraminifera has expanded 
into a vast body of memoirs and monographs in every 
European language.** 
The Foraminifera are to be found in all parts of the 
world and under all conditions, on the shore, in deep- 
sea soundings and dredgings, and floating at all 
depths of the ocean, whence they are taken in tow 
nets, and they divide roughly into two great classes, 
the Calcareous, which secrete from the surrounding 
waters a delicate and beautiful shell of carbonate of 
lime, and the Arenaceous, which build their shells out 
of sand-grains, sponge-spicules, and other fortuitous 
materials, often affording remarkable indications of 
phenomena of purpose and intelligence to which I 

Fic. 3.—Pavonina flabelliformis, d’Orbigny. 
shall presently refer. A single species, Carterina 
spiculotesta, builds its shell of fusiform calcareous 
spicules, secreted by the animal itself by a process 
which is at present entirely obscure. A remarkable 
feature of the organism is that whereas the resulting 
spicules on the upper surface follow the convolutions 
of the chambers, on the under side they are turned 
inwards so as to converge towards’ the central 
umbilicus. 
The distinction between the calcareous and arenace- 
ous shells is purely artificial, isomorphs existing between 
the three great classes, the hyaline (or perforate), the 
porcellanous (or imperforate), and the sandy (or aren- 
aceous). A typical isomorphism is represented by the 
three genera Cornuspira, which is porcellanous, Ammo- 
discus, which is arenaceous, and Spirillina, which is 
hyaline. 
One of the most beautiful and delicate of the 
arenacea is Reophax scottii, which is built entirely of 
minute flakes of mica cemented together at the edges. 
Polymorphina regina is a very handsome representa- 
31 FE. Heron-Allen and A. Eerland, ‘‘ The Foraminifera of the Kerimba 
Archipelago,” Trans. Zool. Soc. (Lond.), pt. i., vol. xx. (1914), Pp. 363 3 Pt. il. 
(1915). (In the press.) e oe 4 
32H. B. Brady, Challenger Reports, vol. ix., “ Foraminifera,” p. 375, 
pl. xlv., figs. 17-21. 1884. _ 
33 F. Dujardin, “‘ Observations nouvelles sur les pretendus Céphalopodes 
Microscopiques,"’ Bull. Soc. Sci. Nat. France, No. 3, p. 36. 1335. 
34 C. D. Sherborn, ‘‘ A Bibliography of the Foraminifera.” London, 
1888. 
