GROUPS PROTISTA AND MONERA. 45 



of the pre-existing single one. The Protista, however, as a group separate 

 from both the animal and vegetable kingdoms, has no real existence, 

 there not being, with the exception of the Diatomaceae, a single family or 

 generic type included in Haeckel's tabular view of his new kingdom that 

 cannot with tolerable, if not absolute certainty, be referred to the former of 

 these two sections. 



As a subordinate group of the Protista, Professor Haeckel has further 

 proposed to found the class of the " Monera " for the reception of all those 

 types, externally corresponding with ordinary Rhizopoda and Radiolaria, 

 in which as yet the possession of a distinct endoplast or nucleus has 

 not been demonstrated, and which are consequently regarded by him as 

 exhibiting an essentially lower type of structure. The progress of modern 

 scientific discovery has, however, so curtailed the boundaries of this 

 supposed Moneran class, that further exploration in the same direction 

 bids fair to deprive its illustrious founder of all interest in it beyond 

 that of an empty title. Up to a very recent date the members of the 

 extensive and important order of the Foraminifera were presumed to exhibit 

 this specially simple structural type, and were in consequence relegated 

 by Haeckel to, and formed the most important constituent of, his class 

 Monera. Following Haeckel's lead, such a position among the so-called 

 Monera is allotted to the Foraminifera in Professor Huxley's 'Anatomy of 

 the Invertebrata,' though in a supplement to the same work (p. 658), the 

 discovery of distinct nuclei in many genera of this order by the independent 

 investigations of Schultze and Biitschli is alluded to as carrying with it the 

 necessity of their withdrawal from this position.* A similar demonstration 

 of the possession of nucleolar structures in the few remaining organisms 

 relegated to this group will not improbably result from their further careful 

 examination, with the assistance of the special treatment resorted to in the 

 case of the Foraminifera. Finally, it is altogether questionable whether the 

 presence or absence of a nucleus or endoplast can be accepted as furnishing 

 a distinct and reliable character even for specific diagnosis. This structure, 

 as shown at greater length in the chapter devoted to the organization of 

 the Infusoria, is evidently in many instances an accompaniment only of the 

 matured and reproductive phase. 



Dismissing as entirely unnecessary and untenable, the proposed sub- 

 stitution by Professor Haeckel of an intervening kingdom of the Protista, 

 it has been elected here to fall back upon the old lines, and to indicate as 

 nearly as may be, the most salient features of distinction adopted, though 

 perhaps somewhat arbitrarily, in this volume for the separation of the 

 animal and vegetable series. The purpose of this treatise being the 

 description and exposition of the structure and life-history of those 



* The presence of nucleus-like bodies in the Foraminiferal type Halyphysema Tumanowiczii, 

 Bwbk. (Squaniiilina scopula, Carter) has likewise been noted and figured by the present author in an 

 article on the nature and affinities of this species, published in the ' Annals and Magazine of Natural 

 History' for July 1878 ; such discovery being confirmed by Professor E. Ray Lankester's subsequent 

 investigation of this form reported in the ' Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science ' for October 

 1879. 



