Abstract. Planktonic foraminifera are widely used in biostratigraphic, palaeoceanographic and evolutionary studies, but the strength of many study conclusions could be weakened if taxonomic identifications are not reproducible by different workers. In this study, to assess the relative importance of a range of possible reasons for among-worker disagreement in identification, 100 specimens of 26 species of macroperforate planktonic foraminifera were selected from a core-top site in the subtropical Pacific Ocean. Twenty-three scientists at different career stages – including some with only a few days experience of planktonic foraminifera – were asked to identify each specimen to species level, and to indicate their confidence in each identification. The participants were provided with a species list and had access to additional reference materials. We use generalised linear mixed-effects models to test the relevance of three sets of factors in identification accuracy: participant-level characteristics (including experience), species-level characteristics (including a participant's knowledge of the species) and specimen-level characteristics (size, confidence in identification). The 19 less experienced scientists achieve a median accuracy of 57 %, which rises to 75 % for specimens they are confident in. For the 4 most experienced participants, overall accuracy is 79 %, rising to 93 % when they are confident. To obtain maximum comparability and ease of analysis, everyone used a standard microscope with only 35× magnification, and each specimen was studied in isolation. Consequently, these data provide a lower limit for an estimate of consistency. Importantly, participants could largely predict whether their identifications were correct or incorrect: their own assessments of specimen-level confidence and of their previous knowledge of species concepts were the strongest predictors of accuracy.

Several studies have suggested that shell colour may be phylogenetically distributed within the phylum Mollusca, but this pattern is confounded by our ignorance of the homology of colour and lack of understanding about the identity of most molluscan pigments. We use resonance Raman spectroscopy to address this problem by examining bivalve pigments producing a range of colours and compare spectra from taxa at different phylogenetic levels. The spectra of most shell pigments exhibited a skeletal signature typical of partially methylated polyenes, possibly modified carotenoids, with the strongest peaks occurring between 1,501–1,540 cm−1 and 1,117–1,144 cm−1 due to the C═C (ν1) and C–C (ν2) stretching modes, respectively. Neither pigment class nor mineral structure differentiated Imparidentia and Pteriomorphia. Spectral acquisitions for purple pigments for two species of Asaphis suggest that identical or nearly identical pigments are shared within this genus, and some red pigments from distantly related species have similar spectra. Conversely, two species with brown shells have distinctly different pigments, highlighting the difficulty in determining the homology of colour even within a single class of pigments. Curiously, we were unable to detect any Raman activity for green‐coloured shell or pigment peaks for the yellow area of Codakia paytenorum, suggesting that these colours are due to structural elements or a pigment that is quite different from those observed in other taxa examined to date. Our results are consistent with the idea that classes of pigments are evolutionarily ancient but heritable modifications may be specific to clades.