THE NEW GENEALOGICAL TREE 355 



such a division does not seem to have much sense if viewed 

 entirely from the phylogenetic standpoint. It is more than 

 probable that the Metaphyta had evolved several times from 

 various protophytic lines. Neither is it sensible to bring 

 together in our system of organisms, all the nucleate (mono- 

 cellular) plants and animals into one group of Protista (Proto- 

 bionta, according to Rothmiiller, Unicellularia, Thaloidea, 

 Protista, according to Barkley; yet not according to Haeckel). 

 We are not justified in proposing such a group because its 

 members had evolved in all probability polyphyletically and 

 because it is obviously necessary to make a distinction be- 

 tween plants and animals. Rothmiiller believes that such a 

 distinction should be made on a higher level only, on the 

 level of the polycellular beings, where he distinguishes be- 

 tween the Cormobionta (i.e. Phyta, according to Barkley) and 

 the Gastrobionta (i.e. Zoaea, according to Barkley; Metazoa 

 s. 1. autorum). 



The third main group consists of animal organisms w^hich 

 are secondarily heterotrophic (Zoa, Zoaea, according to 

 Barkley). They feed at the expense of the autotrophic organisms. 

 If we wish to remain consistent we must not classify as animals 

 such Protophyta which feed either "occasionally" hetero- 

 trophically (while at the same time they lose their chromo- 

 plasts) or permanently in the same way as animals while at the 

 same time they preserve characteristics that can be easily 

 identified and which show that they certainly belong to the 

 Protophyta. The fact alone that they are monocellular forms 

 cannot be considered as sufficient reason for a classification 

 of such a being as an animal. This is the case with the Cysto- 

 flagellata (with Nocfiluca etc.) within the group of the Dino- 

 flagellata. Because of such species or even whole groups we 

 could think that there is no uniform group of animals. Zo- 

 ologists should rather agree to exclude these forms from the 

 animal world and thus to leave them to be studied by bota- 

 nists or by protistologists who specialize in them. This would 

 be the fate of the so-called Phytoflagellata which do not even 



