103 
produce them. Such examples present a very conspicuous appear- 
ance, and rival the dimensions attained by the form now exhibited. 
But the latter is without pseudopodia, the whole endosare being 
alike through and through, and is bounded by the conspicuous 
thickened hyaline “ ectosare,” but no “cortical” border. It is true 
that across the holes which originate in the larger specimens when 
spread upon a slide there are sometimes temporarily stretched 
slender thread-like sarcode emanations from one side to the other, 
proceeding from the border-like “ ectosare,” for so it is, though not 
in the normal external position, But these thread-like extensions 
soon snap across and become obliterated, and do not appear to pos- 
sess the seeming axis penetrating into the body-mass characteristic 
in Actinospherium. Further, at one portion of the border in some 
of the examples could be seen what seemed to be a localised stil 
further thickening of the “ectosarc,’’ showing in its substance 
vertical lines, as it were indications or roots (so to speak) of villi, 
thus with a certain amount of the appearance, though without all 
the characters, of a “villous patch.”” Thus, though it cannot be 
averred that this may not be a whole congeries of individuals of 
Actinospherium combined into one and considerable amount of modi- 
fication of the, so to say, structural or histological characters under- 
gone, yet it would seem that the considerations drawn attention to 
would rather point to the present form representing a distinct type, 
and, as has been mentioned, one bearing such a relationship to Amceba 
as is that to a certain extent (only) of Actinospherium Eichhornit 
to Actinophrys sol. The question arises, has this form been recorded 
before, and what can be supposed to be its position? Whether it 
may ultimately prove a distinct type or not, Mr. Archer had pre- 
viously thought it must be the same thing as that alluded to by 
Greeff in a paper published in ‘ Schultze’s Archiv fiir mikroskopische 
Anatomie’ for 1867, Bd. iii, p. 400, in a paper entitled “ Ueber 
Actinophrys Eichhornii und einen neuen Siisswasser-rhizopoden, 
besonders in Riicksicht auf Theilbarkeit derselben resp. Vermehrung 
durch kiinstliche Theilung.” The present, Mr. Archer ventured to 
think, was most likely the “new freshwater rhizopod’’ referred to in 
the paper alluded to, but not named or figured by Greeff, who attri- 
butes to it only a size reaching that of a “pin’s head” (but, perhaps, 
there are pins and pins, little and big), the actual measure stated as 
being attained being 1°5 mm., which, however, shows his examples 
really fell short of some of the present in dimensions. Greeff’s 
account would seem to apply here very closely. In brief and sketchy 
minutes like the present it would be unadvisable to go into detail 
and narrate the particulars given by him; suffice it to mention that 
only in one circumstance did the present examples seem to fall short 
of Greeff’s, and that was that the present had never shown the 
evolution of the problematic basillar or wand-like bodies (“stabfor- 
mige Kérperchen”’) referred to by Greeff as having been evolved 
from the “‘nuclei,’’ and conjectured to represent spermatic elements. 
This form, large as many examples are, seems rare, and hence the 
opportunity to make observations upon it are not often presented. 
