54 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. I49 



become ". . . black silty or sandy shales containing abundant pyrite 

 or marcasite." 



If the sediments of L.I.S. and the fauna contained therein were 

 preserved, the Foraminifera could be used to reconstruct the general 

 aspects of the environment. I have shown that the distribution of 

 the living and total populations closely approximate one another. 

 Therefore, a study of the total population would in general give an 

 accurate account of foraminiferal distribution in L.I.S. The low num- 

 ber of species per sample and the dominance by a single species 

 would indicate a restricted marine environment. The lack of plank- 

 tonic forms would substantiate this. If the species living in L.I.S. 

 today were still living when the hypothetical fossil fauna was studied, 

 a knowledge of the distribution of such forms as Reophax dentalini- 

 formis and R. nana would also indicate a restricted or bay environ- 

 ment. The increase in numbers of species to the east would indicate 

 the approach of more oceanic conditions in that direction. The 

 distribution of the abundant species would allow the future paleon- 

 tologist to distinguish between offshore and near-shore environments 

 and he could, thereby, reconstruct the former geographic configura- 

 tion of the Sound. Even if the relatively fragile tests of Eggerella 

 advena were destroyed, offshore and near-shore environments could 

 still be distinguished by the relative abundances of Elphidium clava- 

 tum and Buccella frigida. 



In short, providing the sediments could be correlated and the 

 future paleontologist knew as much about the Foraminifera as we do 

 now, the general environmental features of the fossilized sediments of 

 L.I.S. could be worked out. 



SYSTEMATIC CATALOG OF SPECIES 



Most of the foraminiferal species found in L.I.S. have been ade- 

 quately described by Cushman (1944) and Parker (1952a, 1952b). 

 No detailed descriptions or synonomies are given because the tax- 

 onomy of the species involved is fairly straightforward. The Elphid- 

 ium group is an exception and some notes on the author's views are 

 offered. A brief account of the distribution of each species is included. 



Family REOPHACIDAE 



Genus REOPHAX Montfort, 1808 



REOPHAX DENTALINIFORMIS Brady 



Plate 1, figure 1 



Reophax dentaliniformis Brady, Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci., vol. 21, p. 49, 1881. — 

 Parker, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., vol. 106, No. 10, p. 457, pi. 1, fig. 19, 1952. 



