128 W. ARCHER, 
Referring to certain filamentary forms assumed thereby, he 
draws attention to the ‘‘ formation of lenticular enlargements 
of the basic substance of the threads. ‘The number and 
size of these of course depends upon the persistence of the 
interruptions of the current, as also upon the quantity of the 
substance flowing onwards after each interval of pause. 
These isolated masses of the granular substance can glide 
along the thread up and down, approach, coalesce into a 
larger expansion, or become removed from one another ; the 
basic mass of the thread remains also here motionless.” 
Now, I am much inclined to think that a comparison of 
the phenomena as here described by Cienkowski for the 
Fadenplasmodium in Mycetozoa, with those evinced by the 
organism brought forward by me in this communication, 
still less a determination of these as but the expressions of 
similar structures would not be tenable. The appearances 
and characteristics evinced by my form seem more to admit 
of comparison with the fungal (from the flower-pot) referred 
to by Cienkowski, but there appear, so far as can be judged, 
general points of difference—of course no one could for a 
moment regard them as identical. If we judge aright from 
Cienkowski’s figure,' the ‘‘spindles”’ in his unknown organism 
(from the flower-pot) do not seem of differentiated character 
from the tracks; they seem to be composed of the basic sub- 
stance, and to contain the same extremely minute granules, 
notwithstanding that they have an independence of move- 
ment. Unlike the marine Labyrinthulez, they do not seem 
to be nucleated, and in that respect would agree with those 
of my organism. But in the latter the ‘ spindles ” are un- 
doubtedly pre-existent in the central mass, and are of quite 
different colour, consistence, and character from the basic 
substance containing them, or the “ tracks ” on which they 
travel. 
We have thus to do with an organism singular in its 
details and highly puzzling as to its real nature—one which 
offers but few resemblances to recognised and described 
objects. Its outward ‘ facies” and its most striking resem- 
blances doubtless suggest affinity to the Labyrinthulee, 
especially L. vitellina, Cienk., but this may be a mere resem- 
blance, nothing more, if we were acquainted with its 
development. It, like the marine forms, has a resemblance 
to Cienkowski’s as yet, even to him, enigmatical fungal 
(from the flower-pot) ; it has a less striking resemblance to 
conditions of Mycetozoa, as pointed out also by Cienkowski. 
In the absence of a “nucleus” it agrees with Monera 
1 Loc. cit., T. XIX, f. 5 and 6. 
