146 
new or unexpected features in connection with them may 
become revealed. Should such occur to myself, I trust I 
might be once more borne with in reviving allusion to Acan- 
thocystis spinifera or its allies. Should such occur to others, 
I should hail with a lively interest a record of their observa- 
tions. 
Plagiophrys spherica (Clap. et Lachm.). 
In the course of this and my preceding communication I 
have sometimes made allusion to the form which I am in- 
clined to believe must be identical with Plagiophrys spherica 
(Clap. et Lachmann) ;! it is, at all events, one which now 
and again sparingly presents itself from various localities. 
If, however, I am quite correct in this identification of the 
rhizopod I have had in view, it has struck me that the figure 
(loc. cit.) is not sufficiently graphic; still, had I not lately 
met with some examples not altogether coinciding with that 
which I had previously known, and which, for the present 
at least, I must continue to regard as Claparéde aud Lach- 
mann’s species, I would not (as yet at least) have thought it 
desirable to attempt a drawing of the form. But though 
certain specimens lately taken present some distinctions from 
the former, and on that account it has appeared to me to be 
perhaps worth while to endeavour to convey a likeness of 
both, I am, however, not as yet sufficiently satisfied that 
these. are truly two distinct rhizopods, and I content myself 
with simply submitting the drawings to the notice of other 
observers whose experience may assist in throwing a light on 
the question. 
But although I am disposed, at all events provisionally, to 
regard the first rhizopod I have in view, and attempt to 
repeat fin Pl. VII, fig. 11, as Plagiophrys spherica (Clap. 
et Lachm.), still, on comparing our form, after a prolonged 
examination and experiments with reagents, with Claparéde 
and Lachmann’s diagnosis, I am at the first step met with a 
character which might seem possibly to exclude it from the 
genus Plagiophrys. Jallude to the fact that those rhizopods, 
meant to be included here, are said by the authors to be com- 
parable to “‘ Actinophryens non cuirassés,” and whose nume- 
rous pseudopodia originate in a tuft from a single portion of 
the surface of the body. But if those authors deny a fest 
(they ordinarily use the word “ coque”’) to the (two) forms 
included in Plagiophys, they attribute to Plagiophrys cylin- 
1 Claparéde and Lachmann: ‘ Etudes sur les Infusoires et les Rhizopodes,’ 
p. 454, pl. xxii, fig. 2. 
