DISTRIBUTION OF PALEOZOIC OSTRA CODES 



765 



400 r *<xx> r •oo 



300 - 3000 



eoo 



700 



- 



1 



/- 



flOO 



- 





/^ / 



lA 500 







// 



b *00 



^ /" 





J^ j ' 



i 300 





s^g^ 



-""^ /^ 



200 



■Mil 1 "^ "^1 1 ^ i 1 





GENERA / 





/ — 



100 



^ 



- 



Fig. 1. — Cumulative curves showing rate of production of new genera, species, and 

 papers on Paleozoic ostracodes. 



Boucek (1936), Kellett (1936), Swartz 

 (1936), and Teichert (1937). 



As in other groups of fossils, we find both 

 "splitters" and "lumpers" among the mi- 

 cropaleontologists and the species concept 

 seems to be just as clouded with differences 

 of opinion as with the zoologists. I do not 

 quite agree with Arkell and Moy-Thomas 

 (1940) that "the question 'what constitutes 

 a species?' hardly concerns the paleontolo- 

 gist." The paleontological classification 

 should be .practical in the sense that the "In- 

 ternational Rules" should be adhered to 

 meticulously and every new species should 

 conform as nearly as possible to a uniform 

 scale of values. Perfection lies somewhere 

 between the demands of the specialist who 

 endeavors to describe every minute devia- 

 tion from the norm and the requirements of 

 the teacher or field geologist who must have 

 a simple classification w^hich is easy to use. 

 Although the paleontologist cannot possibly 

 apply the species concept of the biologist to 

 any group of fossils because of the lack of the 

 complete remains of the fossil animal or 

 plant, it is upon species, or even upon the 

 more minute subdivisions as now used by 

 paleontologists that the stratigraphic pale- 



ontologist must rely for correlation. If "a 

 species is what a competent systematist 

 considers to be a species" (Croneis, 1939) 

 and that seems to be w^hat a fossil species is 

 today, then it cannot be too strongly urged 

 that the system of classification and of 

 nomenclature be kept as practical and there- 

 by as useful as possible. "The most impor- 

 tant question for a worker to ask himself, 

 when erecting genera and species, is why he 

 is doing so. He must remember that he is 

 catering for the specialist and general geolo- 

 gist alike, and that any new addition should 

 aim at clarifying the existing condition, and 

 not obscuring it." (Arkell and Moy-Thomas, 

 1940). There have been considerable differ- 

 ences of opinion of late regarding the familial 

 affinity of a number of Paleozoic ostracode 

 genera, and the need for a comprehensive 

 study of the superorder as a whole is great. 

 Sherborn (1897) early recognized the need 

 for the careful collecting necessary for good 

 stratigraphic work when he said "What is 

 really wanted is careful collecting from some 

 w'ell-known section, or series of sections, of 

 any geological formation, and this would be 

 of greater importance than the casual de- 

 scription of various species taken at random 



