690 GEOFFREY LAPAGE 



nqutiUy well be interpreted hs parasites of the Chytridiacean 

 type referred to above. On PI. viii, figs. 12-16, of his book he 

 figures a ' multinucleate ' Amoeba villosa, and in fig. 1 5 

 he shows a process which he describes as the bursting of the 

 nucleus and the expulsion of its coarsely-granular contents. 

 He was almost certainly dealing here with a Chytridiacean 

 parasite and not with a multinucleate amoeba at all. Doubt 

 nmst, therefore, be entertained as to whether his other figures 

 of the nuclei of the various amoebae described by him really 

 represent the nucleus. It is doubtful, for example, in the case 

 of the form of 'Amoeba proteus' which he figures in 

 PI. viii, figs. 17-28, and describes on p. 53 ; and also of those 

 shown in PI. iv, fig. 25, also of " Amoeba proteus". The 

 same doubt applies to the nucleus of Dinamoeba (PI. vii, 

 figs. 5, 7, and 8) described on p. 91 as a ' large, pale granular 

 nucleus, surrounded by a clear halo ', an appearance which 

 the true nucleus of Amoeba proteus rarely or never 

 presents. It is much more likely that what he saw was either 

 a parasite or some other granular organism which had been 

 ingested. The excellence of Leidy's observations in general 

 leads one, however, to accept most of his interpretations, 

 and it is to be remembered that, without the control of stained 

 preparations, mistakes of this kind are almost unavoidable. 



Wallich (29) records a number of observations upon living 

 Amoeba villosa, but in this case also it is practically 

 impossible, in the absence of stained preparations, to determine 

 exactly what he was dealing with. In the first place it is 

 doubtful whether the bodies which he regarded as nuclei were 

 in reality nuclei at all. If they were, it is probable that they 

 were, as some of Leidy's undoubtedly were, nuclei infected 

 ^vith a Nucleophaga. And Carter (4, 4a) probably fell into 

 the same error. 



It became obvious, therefore, that the spheres showed no 



resemblance to any of the parasites of amoeba of which a full 



description was available. The following general considerations 



also contributed to the al)andonment of the parasite hypothesis. 



First, the sphere did no damage to the amoeba which con- 



