Foraminifera are commonly applied as essential tools for relative time control and reconstructions of paleo/environmental conditions. These single-celled organisms leave in the sedimentary rocks two types of fossil records represented by mineralized shells (tests) and their organic linings. Although both types require different preparation methodologies, they should be treated complementary as they represent the same specimens. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and the foraminiferal fossil record is highly biased towards mineral shells. The fossil archive of acid resistant organic linings is highly fragmentary and limited to accessory components within palynological preparations of marine sediments.

Surprisingly, meta-analysis of the overall published record of linings from the Paleozoic till today indicates that nearly all foraminiferal linings reveal globular chambers that tend to show minimized distances between apertures. These two morphologic features classify them into the same Globothalamea class (sensu Pawlowski et al., 2013). The question therefore is why there is nearly no record of fossil linings belonging to other foraminiferal classes. Do all foraminiferal classes produce organic linings? Are they compositionally and structurally similar? What is their taphonomic potential? If the foraminiferal lining is phylogenetically significant, it might be involved in specific functions associated with different morphogenetic and biomineralization patterns. All these questions encourage novel interdisciplinary investigations on organic linings as a crucial research target.

有孔虫通常用作相对时间控制和古/环境条件重建的基本工具。这些单细胞生物在沉积岩中留下了两种以矿化壳（测试）及其有机衬里为代表的化石记录。尽管这两种类型需要不同的制备方法，但由于它们代表相同的标本，因此应将它们互补对待。不幸的是，事实并非如此，有孔虫化石记录高度偏向于矿物壳。耐酸有机衬里的化石档案非常零碎，仅限于海洋沉积物孢粉学制备物中的辅助成分。

令人惊讶的是，对从古生代到今天的所有已发表衬里记录的荟萃分析表明，几乎所有有孔虫衬里都显示出球状室，这些室倾向于显示孔之间的距离最小。这两个形态特征将它们归入相同的 Globothalamea 类（sensu Pawlowski 等，2013）。因此，问题是为什么几乎没有属于其他有孔虫类的化石衬里的记录。是否所有有孔虫类都产生有机衬里？它们在成分和结构上是否相似？它们的埋藏潜力是什么？如果有孔虫内衬在系统发育上具有重要意义，则它可能参与与不同形态发生和生物矿化模式相关的特定功能。