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. Genus <u>Alveolina</u> 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
Part 2: Researches on the Foraminifera, 1856. From The Royal Society, PT/53/8
Please login to comment