Part 2: Researches on the Foraminifera

View transcription
                                ranked in the <u>same family</u>, and in immediate proximity
<s>for?</s> to each other; and that no <s>arrangement</s> classification
can <s>be</s> have any claim to be considered as <u>natural</u>, in
which they shall be widely separated.


92. <u>History</u>. Although the form<s>s</s> and aspect of the Foraminifera
which are referable to this genus would seem to remove them
altogether from proximity to the preceding, yet <s>theyt to</s> the two really
bear a very close relationship <s>to them</s> in all essential points of
minute structure, as will appear from the particulars I
shall presently have to detail. The following outline of what
has been previously ascertained respecting it (for which I am indebted to M. D'Orbigny <sup>1</sup>), will show that
no minute examination of it has been attempted previously to
my own researches, and that the nature of its organization 
has not been at all understood._ Most of the species at present
known are fossils, occurring in association with Nummu-
<u>lites</u>, <u>Orbitolites</u>, &c in the Nummulitic limestone, or in
other formations which represent it; and the <s>form</s> examples
first described (by Fortis) were confounded with Nummulites and
Orbitolites under the term <u>Discolites</u>. By Fichtel and Mohl,
they were ranked as a sub-type of their comprehensive genus
Nautilus. The designation <u>Alveolites</u> was firdt given to this
type by Bosc<sup>2</sup>; but it was not generally adopted; and [Mountfort],
2. Bulletin des Séances de la Societé Philomathique, No.61
1. Foram. Foss de Vienne, p.140.

Please login to transcribe

Manuscript details

William Benjamin Carpenter
Open IIIF manifest
(What's this?)
This is a link to the IIIF web URL for this item. You can drag and drop the IIIF image link into other compatible viewers

Cite as

Part 2: Researches on the Foraminifera, 1856. From The Royal Society, PT/53/8



Please login to comment