Purpose and Intelligence exhibited by the Protozoa. 557 



Note. — The eminent Ehizopodist Moris. E. Penard made a state- 

 ment some ten years ago which I must allow myself to translate by 

 way of post-scriptum. " If we wish to adopt the chemico-physical 

 theory so much in favour nowadays, according to which everything 

 in the lower beings is but mechanical reaction, it is necessary to 

 apply the theory consistently, to examine the higher animals as 

 well as the others, and we shall then be forced to recognize that 

 between the top and the bottom of the physical scale there is only 

 a descending gradation. Hence, according to this theory, the 

 Savant solving a problem should only differ from the Protist in 

 the greater complexity of the physico-chemical reactions. If, on 

 the contrary, one is led to see something more than matter in the 

 highest manifestations of human thought, this something must 

 likewise be admitted for the beings lowest in the scale. . . . Finally, 

 we cannot deny to these organisms a certain self-consciousness, 

 and a knowledge of what they must do or avoid." (" Les Hdiozoaires 

 d'Uau Douce."' Geneva, 1904 p. 68.) 



Whilst these pages have been passing through the press I have been asked by 

 several correspondents what is the next stage in the investigation of these 

 phenomena, leading to a further elucidation of the principles involved. It is, 

 naturally, the investigation of the nature of protoplasm in unicellular organisms. 

 The steps to be taken are adumbrated in J. E. Barnard's paper, " X-rays in Rela- 

 tion to Microscopy " (see this Journal, 1915, p. 1), and my observations thereupon 

 (loc. cit., p. 87), and in Prof. E. A. Minchin's Presidential Address (Brit. Assoc, 

 Manchester, 1915, Section D). Prof. J. Arthur Thomson has favoured me with 

 the Syllabus of his Gifford Lectures (St. Andrews, 1915), and many illuminating 

 notes upon the subject of the present paper. These Lectures when published will 

 necessarily occupy an important place in the argument which I am bringing 

 forward. 



Bibliography. 



1. E. Heron-Allen & A. Earland — The Recent and Fossil Foraminifera 



of the Shore Sands of Selsey Bill, Sussex. Journ. Roy. Micr. 

 Soc, 1908-11. 



2. On a new Species of Technitella from the North Sea, with some 



Observations upon Selective Power as exercised by certain 

 Species of Arenaceous Foraminifera. Journ. Quekett Club, 

 Ser. 2, x. (1909) pp. 402-12 (pis. 31-5). 



3. On some new Astrorhizidae and their Shell-structure. Journ. Roy. 



Micr. Soc, 1912, pp. 382-9 (pis. v, vi). 



4. On the Distribution of S'acca/nvmina sphcurica M. Sars and Psam- 



mosphcera fusca Schulze in the North Sea, etc. Journ. Roy. 

 Micr. Soc, 1913, pp. 1-26 (pis. i-iv). 



5. Purpose and Intelligence in the Foraminifera. Proc Zool. Soc. 



London, 1914, pp. 1069-70. 



6. The Foraminifera of the Kerimba Archipelago (Portuguese East 



Africa). Trans. Zool. Soc. London, xx. pt. 1 (1914) pp. 363-90 

 (pis. 35-7) ; pt. 2 (1915) pp. 543-794 (pis. 40-53). 



7. E. Heron-Allen — On Beauty Design and Purpose in the Foraminifera. 



Roy. Inst. Gt. Britain, Friday, May 21, 1915. 



8. Contributions to the Study of the Bionomics and Reproductive 



Processes of the Foraminifera. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc London, 

 Ser. B, ccvi. (1915) pp. 227-9 (pis. 13-18) (B. 329). 



