DUBLIN MICROSCOPICAL CLUB. 9038 
men, on the same slide, of the form he had provisionally thought to 
be equivalent to Plagiophrys spherica, Clap. et Lachman. This 
was precisely identical with the figure he had given in ‘ Quart. 
Jrn. Mier. Se.’ (vol. xi, p. 146, pl. vii, fig. 13), showing, as there 
depicted, the ellipsoidal nucleus, &e. This form, however, seems to 
be regarded by Hertwig and Lesser as a distinct species of Plagio- 
phrys.—Mr. Archer,however, though unable to show the Plagiophrys 
example, took the opportunity to mention, in reference to Professor 
Leidy’s remarks in a paper on Rhizopods, read by him before the 
Philadelphia Academy, of which he had seen only the brief abstract 
in the ‘Monthly Microscopical Journal, Nov., 1874, p. 251, that 
he could not as yet concur with that observer as to the validity of 
the proposed genus Ouwrameba. Ameba villosa, Wall., Mr. Archer 
had shown at a meeting of the Club on 15th Feb., 1866, and 
again on 24th Feb., 1870(* Quart. Jrn. Mier. Sc.,’ vol. x, n.s., p. 805), 
whilst at a very recent meeting Dr. Barker had had a specimen, 
each in just the same condition (but which, before being exhibited, 
got lost !), all, doubtless, quite the same as that drawn attention to 
by Dr. Leidy, that is, showing Ama@ba plus a tuft or bunch of 
slender, elongate, linear, simple processes issuing from the posterior 
region, not at all employed in progression; these, Mr, Archer 
thought, are capable of retraction. Dr. Leidy speaks of “ several 
forms’ referable to his proposed genus, Ourameba ; without figures 
they would not be very intelligible. He suggests the possibility 
that some of the forms he refers to may be the same as Plagiophrys, 
Claparéde. This genus is guite distinct indeed from the tufted 
states of Amoeba Mr. Archer had previously drawn attention to. 
Plagiophrys has (as the present example would show) a distinct, 
almost membranous, even glossy tegument. Dr. Leidy seems to 
suggest, too, that Pamphagus, Bailey, might have been one of the 
forms he had before him; that is, perhaps, possible, for in Pam- 
phagus it does not seem feasible to demonstrate a truly distinct out- 
ward coat or membrane ; still the boundary is quite defined, and the 
broadly pyriform figure but little changeable, whilst very rigid and 
angular bodies, when incepted, even when the organism is crammed 
to excess, do not stick out through or lacerate the tegument, if, in- 
deed, the external boundary can be so denominated. Still, it may 
turn out that Pamphagus mutabilis, Bailey, and the species of 
Plagiophrys are in reality all congeneric forms, but specifically the 
former is unmistakably and strongly distinct from any referred 
to the latter, and not any of them are for a moment comparable 
(except, indeed, in a very distant way) to the Amcbe with the 
linear (Mr. Archer thought temporary) appendages previously shown 
by him, which could be little doubt were the same as Dr. Leidy’s. 
It is to be wished that Dr. Leidy may publish figures of his Rhizo- 
podous forms, embracing Difflugiee, for it is sometimes difficult to ex- 
press those often subtle but characterisic differences which these 
organisms present and withal seem to maintain. 
VOL. XV.— NEW SER, 18) 
