186 PROCEEDINGS OF SOCIETIES: 
be said a gathering from a few hundred miles away might produce 
them. There was on the table a gathering from Yorkshire (due 
to Mr. Archer’s obliging correspondent, Professor Gagliardi), and 
in it was Arcella vulgaris,and A. aculeata,and Euglypha alveolata. 
But the gathering now brought forward seemed to present a 
certain amount of interest in another point of view, and that was 
the number of these organisms which presented themselves “ con- 
jugated ’’—or, if this term, as it has been elsewhere applied, be 
considered a begging of the question, and as presupposing a pro- 
cess analogous to the phenomenon which takes place in the Con- 
jugatz amongst Algee—these Rhizopods were at least coupled in 
pairs, and the tests in contact by their frontal openings. Now, 
be Carter right or wrong in the views he has published on this 
phenomenon, and difficult, on account of the opacity of the tests, 
as it is to discern what goes on during the continuance of this 
coupling, it cannot be a meaningless process, and, as it has been seen 
by so many observers, it cannot be a merely occasional, or simply 
casual, or accidental one. It must, indeed, point to a process 
important in the life-history of these creatures, and it seems most 
reasonable to conclude that that process is connected with repro- 
duction, even not to speak of Carter’s observations. Now, a point 
which deserved attention as regards the specimens at present ex- 
hibited, and which quite accorded with all observations made on 
the subject, was that, although the individuals were numerous, 
always like form was “ conjugated”’ or in contact with like form ; 
and this was true as regarded Difflugie, Arcelle, or Euglyphe 
respectively. Whilst, then, with his own comparatively very 
slender acquaintance with these organisms, Mr. Archer hoped it 
might not be thought undue temerity in calling in question Dr. 
Wallich’s views as to the convertibility of these organisms, he 
could not but for the present dissent therefrom, and this for the 
two reasons set forth—first, that the same forms seem continu- 
ally to present themselves; and, secondly, be the precise physio- 
logical significance of the phenomenon what it may, that like form 
always chooses out like form when about to “ conjugate.” 
As regards the identification of the forms on the slide, whatever 
difficulty there might be in reconciling them with species as 
described, the same forms seemed, at least when met with, always 
to be like one another; yet it seemed that D. pyriformis could 
hardly be mistaken. Doubtless it sometimes appeared more 
globose and inflated, sometimes more elongate, sometimes with a 
more or less elongate neck; but still pyriform seems to be its 
characteristic. Again, as to the form, Mr. Archer would refer 
somewhat doubtfully to D. corona; it may appear paradoxical to 
say that no two specimens were absolutely alike, and yet, so far 
as the individuals from this heath, they could all at a glance be 
pronounced to be one and the same thing. If, indeed, this be 
D. corona, Dr. Wallich’s figure is too regular and symmetrical, 
too diagrammatic, the adherent foreign particles too accurately 
adapted, and too much of one size, and the horns (so to call them). 
