98 
aspect. So far only did observation as regards this not very striking 
but puzzling production reach. If a folded membrane actually, 
whence does it originate? If the exuvium of any creature, what 
power folds it into these seemingly methodically made-up scrolls ? 
If it be such a “skin” or “cell-wall” of any organism, where are 
the living parts or the “contents”? The very inexplicability of 
this production would be Mr. Archer’s excuse for drawing attention 
to an object so very unattractive to look at; indeed, he had to 
apologise for adding one more to the crude nondescripts he had 
before now drawn attention to, but perchance a record of such might 
educe from others some elucidation of a thing, it may be, very 
simple, though just now here to us, possibly from oversight or mis- 
apprehension, extremely enigmatical. 
Dr. John Barker exhibited a large and handsome form of Euglena 
(which latter, indeed, all the forms are), which he was disposed to 
identify as Euglena geniculata (Duj.). It seemed, however, to 
agree with the forms referred to Huglena spirogyra (Ehr.) by 
Carter (in ‘Ann. Nat. Hist.,’ n.s., vol. xviii, pl. vii, fig. 87) in 
several details. The present form was large, of very slow motions, 
flexible, but not metabolic, prismatic in section and twisted; nuclear 
body central; “glair-cells’’ (Carter) two, one before and one behind the 
nucleus, these elongate, straight-sided with rounded ends, eye-speck 
large, body spirally striate, stris uninterrupted (that is, not dotted), 
tail long, straight, obliquely set. Thus this agreed with Carter’s 
figure, save that that does not depict the spiral strie. But the 
description of Huglena geniculata and E. spirogyra attribute cylin- 
drical or depressed bodies to those forms, whereas here it was pris- 
matic. In this latter character, then, it agreed with the Phaeus 
tripteris (Duj.) so called, but that form is described as without 
striz. In this confused condition appears to be the identification of 
these handsome forms. 
Dr. John Barker showed specimens from County Westmeath of 
a very pretty alga-form, found in Ireland but once only before by 
Mr. Archer, and, doubtless, the Hormospora transversalis (Bréb.). 
Dr. Barker was disposed, however, to think it distinct therefrom, 
and it certainly differs from de Brébisson’s figure by the cells being 
stouter and more broadly elliptic, and not having the tendency 
to become grouped in fours within the characteristic investing 
mucous tube; but it coincides with the woodcut figure given in 
Rabenhorst’s ‘ Flora Europza Algarum Aque dulcis et submarine.’ 
These very pretty examples were, at all events, quite identical with 
those previously taken by Mr. Archer at Kilbride, County Wicklow ; 
it is seemingly rare. 
Mr, Vickers showed examples of growing grapes attacked by the 
vine-fungus, and exhibited the strings of spores under higher 
powers. 
18th August, 1870. 
Rev. E. O’Meara exhibited and made some remarks on various 
specimens of the diatoms furnished in Herr Eulenstein’s ‘ First 
