144: 
colour; they appear rather of various hues, ranging from a 
pale yellow to a deep orange, and even a bright coppery 
colour, in one and the same individual; they are of very 
shiny appearance and of varied sizes—in fact, altogether like 
admitted oil-globules in other organisms; they have no 
** special wall,” no “nucleus.” Their varied and bright ap- 
pearance, when present, renders this form one of singular 
beauty. Greeff very correctly describes the fact that they 
sometimes come forth from the rhizopod, not, indeed, simply, 
as I regard them, as isolated oil-drops, but these are sur- 
rounded, as he mentions, by a halo of pale sarcodic-looking 
substance. They then, no doubt, very closely resemble what 
would be a very minute form of Diplophrys (Barker), want- 
ing, however, the tufts of pseudopodia. But I must still 
observe that to my eyes they do not seem identical either 
with that form or with the individual globules of the form I 
named Cystophrys oculea. J would here beg to refer to my 
previous remarks thereon.! I have occasionally since then 
taken examples of both one and the other, still maintaining 
the characteristics and appearances they originally presented. 
It will, perhaps, not be unconnected with the subject to 
mention here that, since my preceding communication ap- 
peared, in which I stated I had not then seen anything like 
Greeff’s figure 25 (loc. cit.), I have now had more than one 
opportunity to do so. The specimens I have seen, however, 
were like, but in one respect not identical with, Greeff’s. 
His figure shows the pencils of pseudopodia as proceeding 
from the exterior margin of the four juxtaposed bodies, 
whereas the pseudopodia in mine emanated from the clefts 
or intervals between the four bodies. Now, these bodies were 
considerably /arger than the yellow bodies, with their surround- 
ing halo, emanating from certain specimens of Acanthocystis 
spinifera, and go far to indicate that Diplophrys can repeat 
itself by a complete subdivision into several. Bearing in 
mind that this form is characterised by the possession of two 
tufts of pseudopodia given off from opposite ends, and that 
one of these tufts sometimes is projected and not the other 
(not unfrequently, indeed, neither), the difference between 
the position of the place of origin of the pseudopodia, shown 
in Greeff’s figure 25, and in my examples referred to, may 
be probably explained by supposing that, in the former, one 
set of pseudopodia were predominant, and in the latter the 
other set were those rendering themselves conspicuous. I 
must admit, however, that the whole question of the rela- 
tions of the forms just now adverted to is as yet problematic; 
1 *Quart. Journ. Mier. Science,’ Vol. X, N.S., pp. 101-3. 
