136 
conditions constant in Pamphagus, Lieberkiihnia, &c., sepa- 
rating them from their allies—the second to represent a 
definite anterior opening (thus unlike Greeff’s forms)—the 
third to present a distinct portion of the organisation of the 
total rhizopod not evinced by Greeff’s forms—and the last a 
ereater amount of differentiation, or of superaddition of parts, 
indicating a certain advancement. But we have seen that all 
these are variable characteristics evinced in various degrees: 
these variations in reality, taken all together, constituting so 
much of the sum total of the characteristics of our rhizopod, 
whose nature is to show now some of them, now others, more 
prominently or in a more pronounced manner—in other 
words, these characteristics, though attaching themselves to 
the species, not of generic significance. Greeff’s figures of 
A. violacea convey the idea of the pseudopodia being con- 
fined to a separate region, but he does not speak of this in the 
text. The peculiar elastic and yielding outer coat, pene- 
trable by the pseudopodia, would seem to be the great 
character of the genus, coupled with the Amceban body ; and 
in that our form agrees. I need hardly say, its distinctions 
in itself from Greeff’s three forms are sufficiently striking. 
The vertical parallel closely-posed lines in the outer coat do 
not exist in them, nor do they show the hair-like processes, 
nor, of less importance, have they ever shown chlorophyll- 
granules. Indeed, it is unnecessary to contrast them, inter se, 
very rigidly or closely. Its possible relationship to Focke’s 
“< No. iti” (loc. cit.) has been above alluded to. ‘ Affinities 
and Differences” can, however, be regarded from at least two 
points of view—a morphological and a developmental. From 
the former point of view, enough has been demonstrated, 
indeed, to determine as to our form; from the latter, nothing 
very reliable has shown itself to me. I have no doubt, how- 
ever, but that earlier or later phases occur without a coat, 
and that it seems to be formed subsequently, as in Greeff’s 
forms and others appertaining elsewhere. My data in that 
regard are, I regret to say, only obscure and conjectural. 
Should good fortune ever yield an opportunity to gain any 
insight into these points in connexion with our form, I may 
at some future time revert to our rhizopod herein described, 
which, at least, morphologically viewed, stands as a good spe- 
cies, and may, for the present at least—with a double allusion 
on the one hand, to the often well-developed covering of hair- 
like processes,and on the other to the less often seen hyaline 
and subtle outer envelope—pass as Amphizonella vestita. 
