682 
THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER. 
Cristellaria, pars, Lamarck [1822], 
Placentula, pars, Lamarck [1822], Berthelin. 1 
Crepidulina, pars, Blainville [1824]. 
Rotalites, pars, Blainville [1824], 
Rotalia, pars, d’Orbigny [1826], Reuss, Parker and Jones, Morris and Quekett, Karrer, 
Schwager, Giimbel. 
Rosalinct, pars, d’Orbigny [1826], Parker and Jones, Giimbel, Terquem. 
Turbinulina, pars; Planorbulina , pars, d’Orbigny [1826]. 
Omphalophacus, Ehrenberg [1838]. 
Rotalina, pars, d’Orbigny [1839], Reuss, Czjzek, Bailey, Ehrenberg, Bornemann, Egger, 
Williamson, Karrer, Seguenza, Alcock, Terquem, Parfitt, Schlielit, Schlumberger. 
Vcmulina, pars, d’Orbigny [1839], Terquem. 
Gyroidina, Roemer [1840]. 
Planulina , pars, Roemer [1840], Ehrenberg. 
Platyoecus, Spiropleurites, Ehrenberg [1854], 
Pulvinulina, Parker and Jones [1862],. Carpenter, Brady, S. Owen, Reuss, Karrer, M. Sars, 
Hantken, G. M. Dawson, Eischer, Miller and Vanden Broeck, Schulze, Norman, Blake, 
Wright, Siddall, Terrigi, &c„ 
Discorbina, pars, Schwager [1866], Seguenza.. 
T nmcatulina, pars, Karrer [1868], Seguenza.. 
Epistomina, Terquem [1883], TJhlig., 
Of all tlie Rotaline genera Pulvinulina presents tbe greatest range of morphological 
variation. It is impossible to summarise the characters of the genus in the terms of a 
brief zoological description, or even to seize upon distinctive features sufficiently constant 
to serve under all circumstances for its separation from allied or collateral groups. It is 
only by the study of its various modifications in series and in relation to a central type, 
after the method pursued by Parker and Jones and Carpenter, that any adequate knowledge 
of its multiform aspects can be obtained. The Nautilus repandus of Fichtel and Moll 
exemplifies, perhaps, the most characteristic features of the group, and with a sufficient array 
of specimens it is easy to demonstrate that the simple Spirillina-like investment of Pul- 
vinulina vermicidata and the complex Nummidina-like, shell of Pidvinulina elegans or 
1 M. Berthelin prefers Lamarck’s appellation* Placentula, for the present genus, and has on more than one occasion 
defended its employment on the ground of priority, basing his argument on the occurrence of the term in the Extrait 
du Cours de Zoologie du Museum cl’Histoire Naturelle. 
Lamarck’s connection with the genus is as follows. In the Extrait du Cours, &c., 1812, p. 122, the word, 
“ Placentule ” appears, together with Rotalie and Lenticuline, in the category of the 5th section of “ Cephalopodes testaces 
polythalames,” jusfias Discorbis occurs in a subsequent list ; hut without either description, figures, or any other indication 
of zoological characters. It is manifest that the employment of an indefinite vernacular name in this way has no 
hearing whatever on a question of systematic nomenclature. 
In the Tableau Encycl. et Method., &c., 1816, pi. cccclxvi. figs. 9, 10, Lamarck has copied Fichtel and Moll’s 
drawings of Nautilus repandus and Nautilus asterimns, appending to them the names Pulvinulus repandus and Pulvinu- 
lus asterizans respectively ; and in the Hist. Nat. des Anim. sans Vert., vol. viii. (1822) p. 621, he describes the same 
forms as Placentula pulvinata and Placentula asterizans. 
According to modern ideas, the figures indicated represent the types of two very distinct genera of Foraminifera, 
Pulvinulina and Nonionina ; and were there any ground for coupling one of Lamarck’s names with the former, the 
other must perforce take precedence for the latter genus. But no such authority exists, and it has been tacitly admitted 
that, by the adoption of the generic terms Pulvinulina, Discorbina, Rotalia, &c., in their rearrangement of the Rotalina, 
Messrs. Parker and Jones have taken the course least open to objection, and have at the same time sufficiently recognised 
the earlier Lamarckian nomenclature. 
