338 On Wyvillethomsonia and Squamulina, 



iiowicz, among the former's collections now in the possession 

 of the British Museum ; and the two are identical j so that 

 here, again, I must "protest" against Prof. Haeckel's unjusti- 

 fiable contradiction ! 



In October 1870 (^Annals/ vol. vi. p. 346) I published a 

 " Xote on the Branched Variety of Squamulina scopula^'' 

 wherein it is stated that I was in a position " to afford posi- 

 tive evidence, from mj own observation,'' of the foraminiferal 

 nature of Squamulina scoqnda and its variety ramulosa. This 

 " positive evidence " was deduced from the pseudopodous 

 extension of the sarcode being exactly like that represented 

 by Max Schultze in his memorable illustrations (' Ueber den 

 Organisraus der Polythalaraien,' " Foraminiferen," Taf. 2-4, 

 1854), in addition to what I had before published respecting 

 the test &c. of Squamulina scopida. 



Again, in my paper on the " Pplytremata " (' Ann.' March 

 1876, vol. xvii. p. 202), just a year before the number of the 

 *■ Jenaische Zeitschrift ' to which I have alluded was pub- 

 lished !) is the following passage : — 



" The internal sarcodic contents [of Squamulina iiCopula\ 

 and the peculiar form presented by the extended pseudopodia 

 during active life being identical with that of a foraminiferous 

 animal." Now Haeckel regards it as a ' polyp ' which he 

 names ' Gastrophysema.'' It is useless to criticize such vacil- 

 lation. 



The "peculiar form presented by the extended pseudopodia" 

 was that to which I have alluded ; and this is so totally dif- 

 ferent from the tentacles of a polyp, while it is so preemi- 

 nently characteristic of the Foraminifera, that the merest tyro 

 in such matters ought to be able to distinguish between the 

 two — so much so, indeed, that were the characteristic form 

 of the test absent, that of the pseudopodia when extended in 

 active life is almost sufficient to indicate the kind of animal. 



With Prof. Haeckel all this goes for nothing, apparently, 

 as in a footnote to p. 5, I am held up to derision in the fol- 

 lowing terms: — " Wie ausserordentlich willklihrlich, unlogisch 

 und kritiklos Carter in seinen Arbeiten verfahrt, habe ich 

 schon in meiner Monographic der Kalkschwamme gezeigt," — 

 having previously noticed that my Diflugia bipes^ which I 

 have described in the same paper with Squamulina scopula 

 (pi. V. figs. 7-9), is a Cyphoderia^ not from the form of the 

 pseudopodia, but from the structure of the test, thus placing 

 the structure of the latter before the form of the living animal, 

 which, in Diffiugia hipes, is as characteristic of a Difflugia as 

 til at of Cyphoderia is allied to Gromia (see Max Schultze's 

 excellent representations, op. cit. Taf. 1). 



