109 
patch of “ sarcode,” and so all have a pervading uniformity of 
nature, they are, therefore, all as it were, but one Rhizopod, 
this protean creature presenting itself to view under various 
aspects, whose seeming specialities are but accidental and 
unessential. If, indeed, I have misapprehended the views of 
Dr. Wallich and others in thinking they hold the extreme 
opinion I have just indicated, they at least urge that, not 
only are the individual “‘ species ” in certain types or genera, 
to a great extent, invalid, but would even combine together 
certain recognised distinct “‘ genera” as hardly correctly or 
actually distinguishable individual forms. As regards 
Difflugiz, the view propounded by Dr. Wallich seems to be 
endorsed by Mr. H. B. Brady,! that is, that the differences 
these present are due but to the influence of external 
circumstances. 
But I venture to think that such a view is untenable, 
when, time after time, and season after season, in pools many 
miles asunder, or in a single pool, with exactly the same 
crude materials around, exactly the same substances in sus- 
pension or solution in the water, exactly the same kinds of 
food accessible, and (so far as we can observe) exactly the 
same influences in action, such as regard light, &c., current 
or stillness of the water, or such-like mechanical or physical 
circumstances,—when I say, under all these precisely similar 
conditions we constantly find associated and maintaining 
their specialities—it may be in one and the same drop of 
water—a more or less considerable number of forms, with 
more or less mutual affinity, representing, it may be, several 
recognised distinct genera, or even families. 
There is a little mass of “sarcode,” side by side with 
several other little masses of “‘sarcode,” all very like one 
another, each of which somehow contrives to build an edifice 
in which to dwell. An abundant quantity of different and 
various materials abounds around. Some choose long diatoms, 
others short; some choose sandy particles, or other mate- 
rials. One form constantly contrives to attach its materials 
in the roughest and most “ slovenly’ manner. Is it with a 
view to the grotesque or the picturesque, or what? Another 
form as constantly impacts its building materials with a 
mosaic evenness and regularity. Is it with a view to turn 
itself out elegant and spruce? Another form constantly 
sticks on its materials externally, so loosely as hardly to 
deserve to gain credit for any architectural capacity. Is it 
due to inherent laziness of disposition? Another form wants 
1-H. B. Brady, “ Analysis and Descriptions of the Foraminifera,” in the 
‘Ann, Nat. Hist.,’ October, 1870, p. 278. 
_ 
