REPORT ON THE FORAMINIFERA. 
Vll 
repanda, var. menardii, subvar. pauperata ,” are something more than names ; and 
resemble too much the descriptive sentences which did duty with the prse-Linnean 
writers to find general acceptance. Some of the difficulties inseparable from this mode 
of writing may be gathered from the examples above quoted. For instance, if Lagena 
is to be treated as the typical and Entosolenia as a subordinate group, the immediate 
relationship of Entosolenia globosa is with its ectosolenian form, Lagena Icevis ; so that 
to be complete the name should be Lagena sulcata, var. Icevis, subvar. ( Entosolenia ) 
globosa. Again, it may be true that Lagena sulcata is the original type of the genus 
and Lagena Icevis the variety; but, judging from the Silurian and Carboniferous specimens, 
the converse is at least equally probable ; and there are some who would prefer to regard 
the simpler smooth-shelled organism as the type, and the forms with superficial orna- 
ment of one sort or other as varieties ; and this view would involve a change affecting 
the entire generic series. The second example is open to similar objection. To speak of 
Pulvinulina pauperata as a sub-variety of Pulvinidina menardii involves an assumption 
which, so far as I am able to judge, is founded on inference rather than on observed 
facts. The distinctive features of Pulvinulina pauperata are remarkably constant, and 
I have never met with a specimen, at any stage of growth, with characters presenting 
the least approximation to those of Pulvinidina menardii. 
Thus, whilst recognising fully the value of the plan introduced by my friends, the 
authors referred to, of grouping the almost endless varieties of the Foraminifera round a 
small number of typical and subtypical species, as a method of study, and indeed as almost 
the only means of obtaining a serviceable knowledge of the entire Order, I have been 
unable to follow them so far as to make it a basis of nomenclature. 
It is surely not requisite for purposes of this sort that a uniform standard of fixity 
of characters should be adopted ; or that a set of beings of low organisation and extreme 
variability should be subjected to precisely the same treatment as the higher divisions of 
the animal kingdom. The advantages of a binomial system of nomenclature have not 
diminished since the days of Linnaeus, though the views of the naturalist as to what 
constitutes a “genus” or a “species” have changed and will probably continue to 
change ; but be that as it may, the Linnsean method is too simple and convenient to be 
abandoned without some better reason than the different value of these terms, as employed 
in different zoological groups. The practical point upon which all are agreed is that it 
is impossible to deal satisfactorily with the multiform varieties of the Foraminifera 
without a much freer use of distinctive names than is needful or indeed permissible 
amongst animals endowed with more stable characters. 
That specific names have been needlessly multiplied becomes manifest on a very slight 
acquaintance with the literature of the subject ; indeed the process of re-naming has been 
carried to such an extent as to be a source of constant embarrassment to the student 
and an obstacle to the progress of knowledge. The lists of synonyms appended to the 
