123 



and even one of the apertures may be sliut up by their pre- 

 sence in abundance. The contents, however, are seemingly 

 always green, and the larger foreign particles distributed to 

 the margin of the test ; the pseudopodia, too, are finer and 

 longer than in P. amphitremoides. From the type or genus 

 which seemingly must be admitted to be represented by 

 Diplophrys (Barker), the jDresent is (]istinguish<d by it'^ test 

 being covered by foreign pai tides, quite as decidedly, spem- 

 ingly, as Difflugia from Arcella, as Pleurophrys from Plagio- 

 phrys, as the group Lituolida from the group Gromida. The 

 Avhole aspect of the forms I have put forward under this 

 genus and Pleurophrys seems to me to be quite distinct, as 

 1 have mentioned, from Gromida or the Difflugise. 



Genus, Diaphoropodon (A.rch.). 



Generic characters. — RMzopod with a nucleus, giving off 

 rhizopodial processes of two kinds , one from the anterior end 

 long, pellucid, and retractile, the other given off from the body, 

 short, pellucid, and persistent, enclosed in a test formed of 

 foreign particles loosely agglomerated. 



Diaphoropodon mobile (Arch.). 



Specific characters. — Rhizopod large, egg-shaped, nucleus 

 large, granular in appearance ; anterior pseudopodia often very 

 long, much branched, hyaline, very contractile ; marginal ones 

 short fringe-like, hyaline ; anterior extremity sometimes show- 

 ing amarginal pulsating vacuole ; test brownish, but formed 

 of very heterogeneous particles (including protoccaceous cells') 

 and diatomaceous frustules. 



Measurement. — In length averaging about tt-o" 



Locality. — A single pool (in a single spot of it) in *' Glen- 

 ma-lur Valley," Co. Wicklow ; hence as yet very rare. 



Affinities and Differences. — No other rhizopod, I believe, 

 shows the curious fringe-like processes, otherwise this form re- 

 sembles some of those I have (be it but provisionally as it may) 

 referred to Pleurophrys ; the pseudopodia are, however, far 

 more changeable, and more arborescent, and the foreign 

 bodies on the " test" far more loosely aggregated than in 

 Pleurophrys or any Difflugia. The forms meant to be repre- 

 sented by fig. 1 and fig. 6, are, perhaps, the only two that 

 could be passed over the one for the other, but I need hardly 

 insist on their differences being sufficiently important. The 

 whole of the forms which are portrayed in my figs. 1, 2, 3, 

 4 and 5, 6, seem to me all to belong to a type quite and 

 equally distinct from Difflugia as from Gromida. 



