190 
DR. carpenter’s RESEARCHES ON THE FORAMINIFERA. 
description was founded (these being now contained in the ‘ Musee d’Histoire Natu- 
relle’), I have been able to compare them with my own; and finding that they 
correspond with the peculiar type of the latter, which is represented in Plate V. 
figs. 2 & 3, I have no hesitation in saying that in this description also the true 
marginal yores, represented in Plate V. fig. 6, have been overlooked; and that what 
are described by M. de Blainville as pores, are nothing else than incomplete cells 
left open in the frilled edges which bound the marginal furrow above and below 
(see 5[ 25). A similar description has since been given by M. Dujardin*, who does 
not hesitate to regard the disk as a polypary, and to speak of the animals whereby it 
is formed, as polypes. 
4. In the Memoir of Professor Ehrenberg already referred to, we find the genus 
Orbitolites for the first time associated with true Foraminifera, as a member of his 
class Bryozoa, order PolytJiala7nia, suborder Polysomatia, family Asterodiscina, 
wherein it is placed next to Lumdites, which undoubtedly belongs to the group of 
Bryozoa (Polyzoa) as now restricted. This family he characterizes as follows:— 
‘^Gemmis in eodem piano prodeuntibus, polypiaria plana, discoidea, formantibus, 
osculis distinctis post mortem apertis;” and it is by the last of these characters that 
he distinguishes it from the family Soritidce, consisting of the two genera Sorites and 
Amyhisorus, of which he says, — “Osculis contracto corpore, tanquam operculo duro 
clausis.” If any faith whatever is to be placed in Professor Ehrenberg’s figures and 
descriptions, his Sorites is nothing else than Lamarck’s Orhulites marginalis \ whilst 
his Amyhisorus, which differs from Sorites merely in having two layers of cells instead 
of one, is (as I shall hereafter show) the same type in a higher grade of development. 
I cannot conceal my astonishment, however, that so practised a microscopic observer 
should have entirely overlooked the real marginal openings between the cells; still 
more, that he should have described the entirely-closed cells of the surface as covered 
in by a moveable operculum, which merely shuts their orifices when the animal is 
contracted ; and further, that, mistaking an accidental for a normal opening of some 
of the cells, he should have ventured to figure an eight-armed Bryozoon as issuing 
forth from one of them, — a phenomenon which, I do not hesitate to say, is entirely 
irreconcileable with our existing knowledge of the organization of the animal of 
which these disks are the skeletons. 
5. The earlier publications of M. d’Orbigny on the subject of the Foraminifera do 
not include any notice of this genus ; and neither in the systematic arrangement 
which he put forth in his article in the ‘Diet. Univ. d’Hist. Nat.’ tome v. (1844), nor 
in that contained in his ‘ Foram. Foss, de Vienne’ (1846), is the order Cyclostegues 
recognized, which makes its appearance for the first time in his ‘ Cours Elementaire 
de Paleontologie,’ tome ii. (1852), between the Monostegues and the Helicostegues, 
with the following definition (p. 192): — “Animal compose de segments nombreux, 
places en lignes circnlaires. Coquille discoidale, composee de loges, concentriques, 
* Diet. Univ. d’Hist. Nat., tome vii. p. 777. 
