EEPOET OH THE FOEAM1NTFEEA. 
55 
B. Tribe. — Perforata, Carpenter ( + pars Lituolidarum). 
Family 1. Rhabdoinct, Schultze. 
2. Polymorpldnina, Biitschli. 
3. Globigerinince, Carpenter (p.p.). 
Sub-family (a) Globigerinse, Carp. 
(b) Cryptostegia, Eeuss. 
(c) Textularidse, Carp. 
(d) Eotalinse, Carp. 
4. Nummulitince ( N-ummulinida , Carpenter) emend. Biitschli. 
Sub-family (a) Involuting, Biitschli. 
(b) Pulleninae, Biitschli. 
(c) Hummulitidse. 
(d) Fusulinidse, Moller. 
(e) Cycloclypidte, Biitschli. 
These tables taken collectively form a sort of epitome of the literature of the last 
twenty years affecting the classification of the Foraminifera. The publication of Max 
Schultze’s classical memoir, though its least successful portion was that devoted to the 
systematic arrangement of the animals whose life-history the author had so carefully 
investigated, paved the way for a natural method of grouping ; and not many years 
elapsed before it was followed by the “ Entwurf ” of Professor Reuss, and the more 
elaborate “ Introduction ” of Messrs Carpenter, Parker, and Jones. 
The classification proposed by Reuss was excellently adapted to meet the wants 
of the working palaeontologist, and it obtained very general acceptance on the continent of 
Europe ; but apart from the deficiencies arising from the discovery of many new types, 
and the abandonment of others since shown to have been wrongly placed amongst the 
Rhizopoda, it has serious defects which cannot be overlooked. 
The primary division of Foraminifera into Perforata and Imperforata would be very 
convenient if it could be employed in its original sense ; but it is now a well recognised 
fact that some of the arenaceous types have interstitial openings amongst the sand-grains 
of which the test is built, as well as a general aperture ; that others, like Psammo- 
splicera and Sorosphcera, have no general aperture, but only interstitial orifices ; and that 
a few, Thurammina for example, have numerous small mammillate orifices, irregularly 
disposed over the surface of the test, either with or without a general aperture. If the 
arenaceous group be removed from the Impevforata, there remain but the chitinous and 
porcellanous forms. That the Porcellanea are, under all circumstances, imperforate, 
scarcely admits of question, and that a large proportion of the Arenacea share the same con- 
dition, there is no reason to doubt ; but the exceptions in the latter case are so numerous 
and varied, that the Arenacea cannot be included, as a whole, in a Sub-order of which 
the distinctive character is the imperforate test, and if omitted the term becomes at once 
