338 M. M. Mercaur 
described in the outer, coarsely alveolated layer of the body; the 
endosare is said to show no special inclusions [but bodies apparently 
resembling the ordinary refractive spherules of the endosarce are 
figured]; the phenomena of mitosis are described with very clear 
figures (cf. Text Fig. IV, page 249): longitudinal division is descri- 
bed and figured; uninucleated infection cysts are shown; true copu- 
lation was not observed; an individual resembling a microgamete or 
microgamete mother-cell is described and figured (Text Fig. X VII) 
without being recognised as a gamete; O. saturnalis. on the ground 
of its occurrence in a marine fish, is regarded as the most primitive 
of the Opalinae. The authors say the family Opalininae (including 
the genus Opalina, Opalinopsis and Foettingeria) should be sharply 
distinguished from the <Anoplophryinae (including Anoplophrya and 
Hoplitophrya, which they would unite to form one genus Herpetophrya) 
and that the two families should not be 
regarded as closely related, the resemblance 
between them being a superficial one due 
to convergence caused by parasitism. The 
authors describe for O. ranarum three sorts 
of cysts 1) the well known infection cysts, 
“exogenous”, 2) “endogenous” cysts — in an 
ordinay large individual a bit of the proto- 
plasm containing one to four nuclei separates 
itself from the rest of the protoplasm and 
forms a cyst around itself, being then ex- 
Ia truded from the body —, 3) conjugation 
Ae i cysts — two individuals like those of the 
Text Fig. XVIL ordinary cysts come together by their anterior 
An individual of O.safur- ends, lie for a long time rubbing against 
nalis figured by Licer & each other and turning, and then form a 
Duxoscg. Doubtless it was cyst enclosing them both, each animal occu- 
a microgamete ora micro- ying half of the cyst. [These remarkable 
gamete mother-cell. : ; 
S760 diaincten phenomena of the formation of the second 
and third kinds of cysts have not been 
observed by other students. Licrr & Dusoscq’s very brief un- 
illustrated description can hardly be accepted without confirmation.| 
Faurt-Fremier (1904). in a brief discussion of the structure of 
protoplasm, refers to Kunstuer’s [KunstLerR & GINESTE’s] idea of 
the vesicular structure of protoplasm. He says that the “vesicles” 
of Kuns1uer [in part refractive spherules of the endosare in O. dimidiata 
and other Protozoa] are not inclusions, are not reserve food, are not 
