488 C. CLTFFOED DOP.ELL. 



name " Schizomjcetes "—or " Spaltpilze " — is a complete 

 misnomer. Similarly, with regard to the Protozoa, I see no 

 real evidence at all which indicates that affinities exist between 

 this group and the Bacteria. There is no real similarity 

 between them. 



There is, perhaps, rather more evidence of the affinities of 

 the Bacteria with the Cyanophyce^. Nuclear resemblances 

 between the two groups certainly do exist, but on the other 

 hand there are many important differences. The evidence 

 is certainly very far from conclusive.^ 



I believe that at present there is no clear evidence of the 

 affinity of the Bacteria with any other group of organisms. 

 For the present they must be regarded as a group of Protista 

 which stands quite apart. 



I believe, further, that amongst the Bacteria a number of 

 forms are inclnded which do not really belong — that the 

 group Bacteria, as at present constituted, comprises a very 

 heterogeneous assemblage of forms. 



Similar views to these have already been expressed by 

 Mencl (1907) and Guilliermond (1907), when considering the 

 facts which were then known. I have myself also expressed 

 the same views on a previous occasion, and I believe that 

 they are now completely justified. 



Conclusions. 



I think, from the facts which have been given and analysed 

 in the foregoing pages, the following chief conclusions are 

 justified : 



All Bacteria which have been adequately investi- 

 gated are — like all other Protista — nucleate cells. 



' I shunlil lik«» to point out here that the cytology of the Cyano- 

 phyceiB and sulphur Bacteria does not furnish ns with anything more 

 than analogical evidence regarding the structure of tiie smaller 

 Bacteria (i.e. Bacilli, Spirilla, etc.). I believe many sulphur 

 Bacteria are probably only distantly related to the majority of the 

 smaller forms, and there is no clear evidence that the CyanophycestJ 

 have anything to do with them. 



