260 - D. WARD CUTLER 
in this paper is undoubtedly a member of the Pseudo- 
trichonympha. 
The two threads in P. pristina, arising from the centro- 
blepharoplast and distally connected with the nucleus, have 
not been described in any of the other species, though Hart- 
mann believes that he saw them on one occasion. In P. pris- 
tina, however, they are conspicuous elements in practically 
every animal observed, and undoubtedly function as suspensory 
or supporting structures of the nucleus. Rods and threads, 
often complicated in their arrangement, have been described 
as supporting the nucleus in the Trichonympha, and 
it is reasonable to believe that the two threads found in 
P. pristina are the homologues of this nuclear ‘ basket ’ 
described by the Itahan workers. 
Foa (4) has suggested that the threads of the Tricho- 
nymphidae can be regarded as homologous with the 
collar of Joenia, which Janicki regards as the parabasal 
body of this animal. There seems to be little justification 
for so homologizing the threads of Trichonymphidae, 
but until our knowledge of these bodies is greatly extended 
it is unprofitable to discuss their possible homologies. 
It may well be that future research will show that many 
of the so-called parabasal bodies are totally unrelated one 
to another. As far as the evidence goes the Tricho- 
nympha and Pseudotrichonympha do not possess 
such bodies. 
The nucleus of P. pristina is substantially lke that 
described by Hartmann. As lImms states in his paper, 
there is not the slightest evidence of it being of a poly-energid 
nature; nor have I found any trace of secondary nuclei 
scattered through the cytoplasms. It is surprising that such 
a wonderful cycle of events as that described by Hartmann 
could have been found in such a relatively simple nucleus as 
that of the Pseudotrichonympha! 
P. pristinais, I think, the first species in which the repro- 
ductive phases have been followed : Hartmann describes a few 
phases, whichagree withsome described here. Thus he states that 
