535 



He thought the evidence at present was in favour of their 

 being parasitic or bacterial growths, as suggested by Mr. N. E. 

 Brown. 



Mr. D. Bryce said a similar appearance had been observed 

 parasitic on certain Philodina. 



Mr. J. Milton Offoid said he took the filaments to be either 

 silicious or similar to setae, 



Mr. W. B. Stokes (Hon. Secretary) opposed the parasitic 

 theory, and reminded the meeting that Mr. Scour field had shown 

 these filaments to be stiff and resistant to strong reagents. The 

 probability was in favour of their being silicious processes be- 

 longing to the diatom. Students of diatom structure had ceased 

 to be surprised at the vagaries of this resourceful group. 



The Chairman said there was considerable diversity of opinion 

 as to the true nature of the observed structures. He thought 

 that Mr. Siddall had, perhaps, used the term " pseudopodia " 

 with a different meaning to that usually understood. The usual 

 meaning was, of course, connected with amoeboid movement, and 

 where the structures appeared and disappeared while under 

 observation. It may be that they are excrescences, or they may 

 be parasitic in nature, or not necessarily protoplasmic at all. 

 Mr. Siddall had said that he saw the pseudopodia retracted into 

 the organism. Whatever these structures may be, they have 

 excited a considerable amount of interest. 



Mr. R. T. Lewis, F.R.M.S., read " A Note on Solpuga ferox." 

 In illustration of his paper, Mr. Lewis exhibited under micro- 

 scopes preparations of Solpuga showing : (1) Extremity of a 

 pedipalp ; (2) extremity of first leg, showing striated hairs ; (3) 

 extremity of second leg, showing jointed claw; (4) fourth leg, 

 showing the malleoli in position ; (5) one of the malleoli more 

 magnified; and (6) hairs from the inner surface of chelicerae. 

 Several preserved and mounted cabinet specimens were also 

 exhibited. The paper was further illustrated by coloured 

 diagrams. 



Mr. Conrady, E.R.A.S., describing ''Some Experiments on 

 Alternative Microscopical Theories," said that it had been claimed 

 in the discussion on his previous communication that the light 

 scattered by diatoms, glass-rulings, etc., was due to refraction, 

 but he had found that all the observational facts contradicted 

 this su<^gestion. Diffraction, on the other hand, not only 



