18 



stoodj because the pseudopodia are depicted as radiating all 

 around, for, as the explanation of the plate states, the fig-ure 

 is drawn as seen from above, and hence the opening, whence 

 emanates the pencil of pseudopodia, must be below, and 

 these, seen from that point of view, naturally appear to pro- 

 ject in all directions. 



Three circumstances seem to render the identity of the 

 form of which I have tried to convey an idea by fig. 1 with 

 PL spherica somewhat doubtful. The first is that this latter 

 form is dej>ict<>cl as possessing linear pseudopodia quite un- 

 branched, whereas our form shows its pseudopodia very 

 distinctly, but not indeed very copiously, branched. The 

 second point is that the outer covering is represented 

 by Claparede and Lachniann as formed of irregular arena- 

 ceous-looking particles, whereas in our form the test appears 

 to be formed of certain problematic linear or bacillar bodies, 

 along with minute indescribable granules agglutinated in a 

 single stratum by an intervening, indeed seemingly organic, 

 cement into a more or less flexible test. The third point is 

 that our animal appears to be notably larger than Claparede 

 and Lachmann's. That those observers are silent as to the 

 presence of a nucleus may not bear upon the immediate 

 question, because it may have been present in their form, 

 though concealed by the opacity of the outer covering. 



But it might almost become a further question if any of 

 the three forms I figure belong rightly to the genus Pleu- 

 rophrys by reason of the decidedly branched character of the 

 pseudopodia ; for though no absolutely strict distinction can 

 be drawn from pscudo podia in this regard, still, as is well 

 known, these, in many forms, maintain a great amount of con- 

 stancy in their individual character. For instance, compare 

 the pseudopodia of the two forms I have designated in this 

 paper as Cystophrys Haeckeliana and C. oculea (PL XVII, 

 figs. 1 and o) , as well as of others. 



The test not being membranous, but formed of foreign and 

 miscellaneous particles, excludes my three forms from Gromia 

 (Diij.), not to speak of the nature of the pseudopodia, which 

 seems to me to be very distinct from those characteristic of that 

 genus. Admitting that their linear but branched character 

 would be compatible \\\{\\ the genus Plcurophrys, they appear 

 to be quite difierentfrom the pseudopodia in a Gromia by their 

 comparatively rigid nature, and clear, non-granular, and tufted 

 shrub-like appearance, Avithout any evident current or reticu- 

 lated arrangement. They are long, and comparatively 

 straight, clear, and silvery, so to say, in ai)pearance, the 

 branches given off more or less dichotomously at an ac\itc 



