414 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF 



lished in the Proceedings of this Academy. Thus he commences 

 by saying that it had been brought to his notice that Prof. Leidy 

 had published " in some of the American scientific journals an 

 account of researches," and at the end of the article he expresses 

 regret that I should have failed to make any reference whatever to 

 his papers. Aside from the circumstance that my communica- 

 tions to the Academy were only brief verbal notices and not elabo- 

 rate articles, I nevertheless think I have done no injustice to 

 others in not referring to the literature on the subject, as I have 

 laid claim to but little as new. In my first communication (Proc. 

 Acad. Nat. Sci. 1874, p. 13), I state in general terms that I had 

 recognized a large number of fresh-water protozoa as the same as 

 those described by European authors, and likewise remark that 

 among our fresh-water rhizopods I had observed most of the 

 genera and species as indicated by European naturalists. Of the 

 few names of the latter I have mentioned, that of Dr. Wallich is 

 one, and this I could not have done had I not been familiar with 

 his publications. 



Dr. Wallich intimates that even my supposed discovery of the 

 remarkable form for which I have suggested the name of Our- 

 amoeba has been included in his own published papers. From 

 another notice by the same author, in the May number of the 

 Monthly Microscopical Journal for 1875, page 210, it appears that 

 Amoeba villoma is the species which Dr. Wallich supposes I have 

 redescribed under the name of Ouramosba. Although Mr. Archer, 

 of Dublin, another able investigator of the rhizopods, regards 

 Ouramceba as only another condition of Amoeba villosa from that 

 ordinarily observed, I am not prepared to accept this opinion, for 

 reasons given in a communication to the Academy, and published 

 in the Proceedings of April 20th, 1875, page 126. 



In the latter notice of Dr. Wallich, while the author expresses 

 the conviction that I published my papers in ignorance of his 

 having handled the same subjects long before me, he also regrets 

 that I do not entertain the same opinion that he did in regard to 

 the interpretation of characters said to involve generic and spe- 

 cific distinctions. 



While extended researches have led me to incline more and 

 more to the views expressed by Dr. Wallich in his exhaustive 

 papers, my published remarks sufficiently indicate that I had not 

 neglected these; for in the particular ones to which he refers, I 

 have either mentioned his name or those of species which he has 

 described. 



In conclusion, while regretting that Dr. Wallich or any one 

 else should have occasion to reproach me with neglect of the 

 labors of others, I take the opportunity of stating that my com- 

 munications to the Academy on the rhizopods have been brief 

 verbal remarks, introductory to the publication of a monograph 

 on the fresh-water forms, in which I shall endeavor to do justice 

 to all who have preceded me in the same field. 



