WHAT SHOULD WE CALL THE FORAMINIFERA
Shelled granuloreticulose microorganisms have had a complex etymological history that began in 1826 when d'Orbigny gave his new order the name Foraminiferes and characterized the group. Soon afterwards, further examina- tion and proper Latinization established them as class Foraminifera. D'Orbigny should be credited with the suprafamilial group name, regardless of rank, because he provided defining characteristics, and also because higher taxa are not governed by ICZN rules; in addition, we should consider the history of its attribution and what is traditional and customary in zoological nomenclature. The name Foraminifera is the source of a variety of informal terms, including foraminifera, foraminifer, foraminiferan, and for- am. Long after being demoted to order, the Latinized name was modified to Foraminiferida in 1964 by Loeblich and Tappan, the informal foraminiferid was introduced later. Here, we briefly examine these terms as sets of singular and plural nouns, and their derived adjectives and nouns that begin with foram-. Authors can choose any of the derived terms, but they should be consistent by using only one term-set throughout their paper. Other nouns derived from forami- nifer-, such as foraminiferologist for a student of the group, are not usually part of a term-set. The informal term foram is a valid derivation and it is the most common of the names used in conversation among earth scientists and biologists. It is already accepted in major dictionaries and literature, and it has been used in specific word pairs found in scientific publications. In addition, foram eases communication by its multilingual applicability; it is also the easiest of the terms to pronounce, write, and read. For all these reasons, its use may increase in scientific literature.
ECOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS AND GEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF FORAMINIFERA AND ASSOCIATED MEIOFAUNA IN TEMPERATE SALT MARSHES OF EASTERN CANADA
............................................................................................................................xv List of Abbreviations and Symbols Used .....................................................................xvi Acknowledgements................................................................................xvii Chapter 1: Introduction...........................................................................1 1.1 General Introduction .....................................................................................................1 1.2 Study Location and Evolution of Thesis........................................................................8 1.3 Chapter Outlines and Objectives.................................................................................11 1.3.1 Chapter 2: Development of a Salt Marsh Mesocosm to Study Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Benthic Foraminifera............................................11 1.3.2 Chapter 3: Taxonomic Resolution and Tidal Gradients in Food Webs for Two Temperate Salt Marshes: How Much Detail is Enough?...............13 1.3.3 Chapter 4: Use of δ 13 C and δ 15 N Stable Isotopes Within and Between Two Temperate Salt Marshes in Atlantic Canada to Examine Patterns of Food Web Structure and Function......................................................14 1.3.4 Chapter 5: Mesocosm and Microcosm Experiments on the Feeding of Temperate Salt Marsh Foraminifera...................................................16 1.3.5 Chapter 6: Conclusions.................................................................................17 1.4 Overview ..........................................................................................17 Chapter 2: Development of a Salt Marsh Mesocosm to Study SpatioTemporal Dynamics of Benthic Foraminifera ..............................................19 2.0 Abstract ..........................................................................................19 2.
Time and Heritage
As a historian studying what can be considered a form of intellectual history, I have slowly come to adopt Michel de Certeau’s observation made at the end of the 1980s that ‘objectifying the past, for the last three centuries, has undoubtedly left unconsidered time within a discipline that has continued to use it as a taxonomic instrument’. To a certain degree, time has become commonplace for the historian who has preserved or instrumentalized it. It is not considered because it is inconceivable, but because we do not think of it or, more simply, we do not think about it. As a historian attempting to pay attention to the time I’m living in, I have thus, like many others, noticed the swift development of the category of the present until it has become obvious that the present is omnipresent. This is what I refer to here as ‘presentism’.