148 
be seen as a sharply marked-off elliptic body, or sometimes 
somewhat kidney shaped in figure, and of a granular appear- 
ance and bluish colour, like that of many other kindred 
Rhizopoda, but does not appear to show any wall or sur- 
rounding investment, though sharply bounded. 
Probably, then, a stronger reason—one, indeed, that to 
some, however, may appear really but a very weak one—for 
doubting the strict identity of either of my forms with Cla- 
paréde and Lachmann’s, resides in the seemingly different 
character of the pseudopodia, as seen in their figure, and as 
may be gathered from the text. In referring to the figure 
given by those authors I need hardly here guard against a 
possible misconception in supposing it is meant to be indi- 
dicated that the pseudopodia originate equatorially from the 
periphery of the orbicular body, which would be contrary to 
the description. The specimen is drawn as viewed from 
above, the posterior part being towards the observer, and, 
though the pseudopodia really originate in a single tuft from 
the side turned away, they appear, of course, seen from that 
point of view, to radiate around. In fact, all Rhizopoda of 
this character, that is, giving off the pseudopodia exclusively 
from an “anterior” end (such as Euglypha, Arcella, Difflugia, 
and many others), have a decided tendency to turn up (so to 
say) vertically, and creep, by action of the pseudopodia, along 
the surface on which they find themselves. In fact, itis hard 
to get a ‘‘ Plagiophrys” to remain very long presenting to 
the observer a side or profile view. The distinction, how- 
ever, to which I allude is the coarse, granuliferous, and 
unbranched character of the pseudopodia, as shown in Cla- 
paréde and Lachmann’s figure as compared with the slender 
and hyaline and tufted tree-like bundle of very fitful pseudo- 
podia presented by our form. In fact, the authors attribute 
to their genus Plagiophrys “Actinophryan” pseudopodia. 
Now, the form I have in view does not possess pseudopodia 
comparable to those of an Actinophrys, nor to those of any 
heliozoan species. It is quite true ““Actinophryan” pseudo- 
podia sometimes inosculate, or even occasionally can tempo- 
rarily divaricate; but I do not think they ever form a 
shrub-like or tree-like perpetually altering tuft, somewhat 
quickly appearing, branching, waving, extending, contracting, 
and, perhaps, as quickly disappearing, or at other times 
somewhat rigidly maintaining themselves as a little tree. To 
some these may appear as too fine-drawn distinctions, but I 
cannot yet but think that these idiosyncrasies are, on the 
whole, characteristic in these forms. 
On the other hand, apart from these distinctions, we haye 
