Preface 



MiCROPALEONTOLOGiSTS TODAY, as perhaps in every 

 generation, are divided into two camps; those who 

 complain bitterly about the increased taxonomic spht- 

 ting of genera and species and those who are enthusi- 

 astically doing the splitting. The majority of micro- 

 paleontologists are relatively conservative in proposing 

 new generic or specific names, probably more so than 

 almost any other group of taxonomists. 



This conservatism may, however, restilt in setting for 

 the genera and species of Foraminifera boundaries that 

 are too wide to be useful for correlation, or for ecological 

 or distributional studies. A single species may be 

 recorded from the Arctic to the tropics, from the beach 

 or lagoon to a depth of over 2,000 fathoms, or from 

 Jurassic to Recent. An examination of such specimens 

 in any large collection will readily reveal many different 

 geologically and ecologically restricted species and 

 genera masquerading under a single name. For 

 example, specimens recorded in the literature as 

 Spiroplectamminu biformis (Parker and Jones), or as 

 " Globigerina" cretacea d'Orbigny can be seen to be 

 completely unlike the original types of those species, as 

 can many species of Discorbis, Rotalia, or Textularia; 

 they may even belong to quite different genera and 

 even to different families. 



With modem methods and the use of better optical 

 equipment, better lighting, X-ray, and new techniques 

 of sectioning or dissecting specimens to understand 

 interior structures, it seems quite out of order to main- 

 tain that micropaleontology should remain stable and 

 that only the genera known to Parker and Jones and 

 d'Orbigny (or even those in the classifications of Cush- 

 man or Galloway) should be recognized. On the 

 other hand, there are occasionally unavoidable conflicts, 

 where workers unknowingly propose new names for 

 forms already described elsewhere. Perhaps the origi- 

 nal description was incomplete or inaccurate, and only 

 later studies prove their co-identity; then the Rules of 

 Zoological Nomenclature apply, and one of the names 

 must be suppressed. Because of the present incomplete 

 status of our knowledge, changes in the taxonomy 

 must be expected. If progress is to be made in the 

 classification and study of the Foraminifera, some 

 genera and species previously recognized as valid must 

 fall by the wayside as synonyms, and many new names 

 must be proposed for the host of species masquerading 

 under certain "wastebasket" names. Only in this way 

 may we obtain a logical taxonomy, however difficult 

 the adjustment might temporarily seem to the individ- 

 xial student. 



Let no one assume, however, that the writer favor 



the immediate and indiscriminate erection of a multi- 

 tude of new names. As mentioned above, many 

 micropaleontologists believe that too many taxonomic 

 units already exist. Certainly many examples coidd 

 be cited where "splitting" has been carried to almost 

 ridiculous extremes, with nearly every specimen a 

 distinct species. 



Part of the difficulty Hes in the lack of sufficient 

 experimental data on living populations to allow a 

 determination of the truly important taxonomic 

 characters. As a result, one speciaUst may place the 

 greatest taxonomic emphasis on wall structure, another 

 will consider the apertural position of prime importance, 

 while others will use chamber arrangement, presence of 

 particular internal characters, or even surface orna- 

 mentation as generic or family characters. Yet any of 

 these proposed bases of classification might be con- 

 sidered useless by another equally sincere worker. 



Each individual is entitled to his own opinion, pro- 

 vided it is based on facts and logical assumptions from 

 these facts; but it is obvious that all workers, given the 

 same set of facts, will not always arrive at identical 

 conclusions; therefore, there is no insistence that all 

 the papers here included use the same terminology or 

 bases of taxonomic classification. We do feel it neces- 

 sary, however, to ask that reasons be given for placing 

 a genus or species in synonymy, or for subdividing a 

 previously known genus or species, and to ask that 

 means be presented for distinguishing the new form 

 from other similar forms. In addition, it seems advis- 

 able that a general taxonomic philosophy be accepted — 

 that certain characters be considered of higher taxo- 

 nomic value than others and be used similarly through- 

 out the classification. Where new taxonomic units are 

 proposed in the included papers, this is done. 



One other point must be mentioned because perhaps 

 unfortimately, most micropaleontologists are primarily 

 stratigraphers and only secondarily taxonomists or 

 zoologists. Specimens placed in each species must be 

 like the original type specimens, and if this necessitates 

 a new name for a form widely but erroneously known 

 by an old and classic name, sentiment cannot intervene. 

 Likewise, if a "genus" is found to contain widely 

 dissimilar species, the group like the type species must 

 retain that name. This apparently obvious rule is 

 repeatedly disregarded by some foraminiferal workers 

 who in stating that a certain species does not belong to 

 a genus, completely ignore the fact that it is the type 

 species, and therefore the taxonomic basis, of the 

 genus itself. In the generic studies which foUow, 

 particular emphasis is therefore placed on the type 



