188 
DR. carpenter’s RESEARCHES ON THE FORAMINI FERA. 
imagined them to be opercula of Ammonites*; of Porpitce nummulares by STOB^us-j- 
and Bromell:|;, who seem to have regarded them as representing the disks of the 
existing Porpitee ; of Helicites and Operculites by Guettard §, who considered them 
as opercula of Gasteropods ; of DiscoUthes by Fortis ||, who supposed them to be 
skeletons of mollusks ; of Madreporites by Deluc, and of Milleporites by Faujas 
DE St. Fond, whose idea of their nature is sufficiently indicated by the names they 
assigned to them. 
2. The genus OrhitoUtes seems first to have been erected, and distinctly separated 
from Nummulite, by Lamarck, in the first edition of his ‘^Animaux sans Vert^bres,’ 
its type being the O. complanata of the Paris basin. The following is his definition 
of the genus, which he ranks between Lunulites and Millepora, among his “Polypiers 
Foraminfis”: — “Polypiarium lapideum, liberum, orbiculare, planum seu concavum, 
utrinque vel margine porosum, nummulitem referens. Pori minimi, adamussim dis- 
positi, conferti, interdum vix conspicui.” These bodies, he says, are distinguished 
from Nummulites by the opening of their marginal pores, and by the absence of 
spiral arrangement in their minute chambers or cells. In his second edition (1816), 
he altered the name from OrhitoUtes to OrbuUtes ; but the latter designation having 
been previously employed in Malacology, the first appellation has been restored by 
M. Milne -Edwards in his posthumous edition of Lamarck’s work. Under one of 
the designations, OrhitoUtes or OrhuUtes, the genus has been recognized by Schweig- 
GER^, Brongniart and Cuvier**, Lamouroux'|~'|', Deslongchamps:|:|, Defrance§^, 
Blainville |1||, Bronn w, Goldfuss***, Michelin Pictet and Dujar- 
DiN§§§; none of whom, however, have either given any account of its internal struc- 
ture, or made any essential modification in the definition of the genus, which they all 
left in the place which Lamarck had assigned to it. 
3. The existence of more than one recent species of the same type was indicated 
or expressly mentioned by several of the foregoing writers. Thus Fortis tells us 
* De Conchis minus notis, 1739 {fide D’Archiac et Haime), and App. Phytol. F. Coll. 1764 {fide Rupeht 
Jones). 
t Dissertatio epist. ad W. Grothaus de nummulo Brattenburgensi, 1732; Opera petrefactorum, 1752; 
Opusculis, p. 6 {fide D’Archiac et Haime). 
X De Nummulo Brattenburgico, in Act. Litt. Suec., vol. ii. p. 50 {fide D’Archiac et Haime). 
§ Memoires sur differentes parties des Sciences et des Arts, 1770. 
II Memoires pour servir a I’Hist. Nat. de I’ltalie, 1816, vol. ii. ; and Journal de Physique, 1801, vol. Hi. p.l06. 
^ Beobacht. auf Naturg. (1819), pi. 6. 
** Ossemens Fossiles (1822), vol. ii. pt. 2. p. 270. 
tt Expos. Method, des gen. des Pol)"piers (1821), p. 44. pi. 73. 
It Encyclop. Method., Zooph. (1824), p. 584. 
§§ Dictionn. des Sci. Nat. (1825), vol. xxxvi. pp. 294, 295. 
III! Manuel d’Actinologie (1830), p. 411. pi. 72. Lethsea Geognostica (1836-37), pi. 35. 
*** Petrefacten (1826-33), vol. i. p. 41. pi. 12. ftt Icon. Zoophyt. (1845), p. 167. pi. 46. 
XXI Traitd Element, de Paleontologie (1844-45), tom. iv. 
§§§ Diet. Univ. d’Hist. Nat., tome ix. (1847), p. 162. 
