108 



Heterophrys Fockii (Arch.). 

 PI. XVI, fig. 3. 



Specific characters. — Outer region of a palish buff colour or 

 nearly colourless, mobile, not homogeneous, but shoiving various 

 lines, dots, granules, and inequalities, frequently changing in 

 aspect and its margin fading off indefinitely , and giving off 

 indefinite, variously figured marginal processes — inner region 

 one or several orbicular sarcode masses of a light bluish- 

 coloured tint, enclosing various opaque granules, colourless and 

 of a brownish colour, and sometimes chlorophyll- granules, its 

 margin sometimes exhibiting one or more pulsating vacuoles, 

 and giving off numerous linear, colourless, granuliferous, non- 

 coalescing pseudopodia ; the compound groups sometimes 

 cohere for a length of time, finally conjoined only by the per- 

 sistent mutual fusion of the pseudopodia extending from one to 

 another. 



Measurements. — Somewhat variable in size, diameter of 

 inner globe averaging abont , „'o ,/ '. 



Localities.— Yowwdi in various situations in Co. Wick low, 

 Cork, Kerry, Westmeath, in moor pools, but scanty. 



Affinities and Differences. — Distinguished at first glance 

 from the form I associate with it under the name of Hetero- 

 phrys mxjriopoda by its much smaller size, less green colour 

 of the inner body, more highly coloured marginal region, 

 which gives off irregular and fitful sub -triangular, indefi- 

 nitely bounded projections, not subdivided into a very great 

 number of hair-like linear processess. The marginal pulsa- 

 iiig vacuoles of the inner body, sometimes seen, render it like 

 Actinophrys sol, but the conspicuous outer region distin- 

 guishes this form readily. As previously alluded to, I con- 

 ceive mine to be most likely the same as Focke's " No. 1 ;"^ 

 but the fact that Greef does not allude thereto in his paper, 

 though he figures a form which appears to me to be so very like 

 it,^ causes me now a little to waver. The form, however, which 

 Greef figures he suggestively thinks may be either a young 

 state of Acanthocystis turfacea [viridis, ejus), or perhaps a dis- 

 tinct species." But I would very deferentially think, if he 

 coines to the latter conclusion, it would be incorrect to place 

 a rhizopod quite destitute of "skeleton" or spicula in the 

 same genus with other forms characterised by the jiossession 

 of these in a very marked degree. If indeed that figured by 

 Greef be truly identical with my H. Fockii, I certainly would 



' Loc. cit., t. XXV, " Loc. cil., I. xxvii, fig. 35. 



