206 Knowlton — Problematic Organism from the Devonian. 



point of minute structure it shows no approximation to any 

 type of Foraminifera with which we are acquainted. Like 

 yourself, I should have set it down as the nucleus of a Chara, 

 or some closely allied organism, and if it be not that, I should 

 seek for affinities amongst the calcareous Algse. The so-called 

 Saccammina {Calcisphcera) M'iana, I have not much doubt, 

 belongs to the same or a closely allied group, but I have never 

 been able to accept it as a Foraminifer. 



It is a very rare, almost unknown thing, to find Foraminif- 

 era of any one species in any deposit, recent or fossil. There 

 are often two or three species, or a very limited number, but 

 where one exists in abundance my experience is, one always 

 meets with a few specimens among allied forms." 



In the hope that it might find a resting place among the cal- 

 careous Algas, the specimens and drawings were next sent to 

 Prof. W. G. Farlow, of Cambridge, who reports upon them as 

 follows :* "At first sight, the specimens you send certainly ap- 

 pear to be more like the spores of Chara than any other plant. 

 In saying that the bodies were not Chara spores I presume 

 Nordstedt was influenced by the fact that there appear to be 

 more than five spirals. 



Query. Would it be impossible that there are Charas with a 

 different number of spirals than in living species ? 



With regard to the question of the possibility of the bodies 

 being Algse, I presume that the suggestion arose in considera- 

 tion of Meunier-Chalmas's discovery that some supposed Fora- 

 minifera were really portions of AlgEe. The Algse in question 

 are all Siphonocladice of which Bornatella appears to be both- 

 recent and fossil. I do not think it possible that your fossil 

 could belong to this group. When whole they are columnar 

 or with stalks and they can only be mistaken for Foraminifera 

 when the radiating disks are broken off and separate. 



Your fossil is globular. The fragments of Siphonocladice 

 are disk-shaped and composed of numerous cells, and all are 

 much larger than what you send. Nor is it at all probable that 

 they are spores of this or any other group of Fungi. I know 

 none grooved in this way. Besides, the spores of Siphonocla- 

 dice are not calcareous, as a rule, but are soft. The sporangium 

 is calcareous but does not at all resemble your fossils. The 

 spores would hardly be likely to survive as fossils. 



In Siphonocladice the external cells may be decidedly calca- 

 reous, but if broken off from the rest, which is not apt to be 

 the case, the incrustation would not be grooved, but uniform 

 except at the ruptured spot. 



In short the fossil is very much less like any Algae than like 

 Chara spores, and they have already been excluded by com- 

 petent experts." 



*Iu Litt., Oct. 23, 1888. 



