12 INTRODUCTORY 



Such is simply petitio principii. Nor is there any advantage at present 

 apparent in attempts to associate slime-moulds with other presumably 

 related groups. Saville Kent's effort to join them with the sponges 

 was not happy, and Dr. Zopf's association of the slime-moulds and 

 monads appears forced, at best; for when it comes to the consideration 

 of the former, their systematic and even morphological treatment, he 

 is compelled to deal with them by themselves under headings such as 

 "Eumycetozoen," "Hohere Pilzthiere," etc. One rather commends 

 the discreetness of DeBary, whose painstaking investigations first 

 called attention to the uncertain position of the group. After review- 

 ing the results of all his labors DeBary does not quite relegate the 

 slime-moulds to the zoologist for further consideration, but simply 

 says:^ "From naked amoeba, with which the Mycetozoa (^Myxo- 

 mycetes) are connected in ascending line, the zoologists with reason 

 derive the copiously and highly developed section of the shell-forming 

 Rhizopoda . . . And since there are sufficient grounds for placing 

 the rhizopods outside the vegetable and in the animal kingdom, and 

 this is undoubtedly the true position for the amcebje, which are their 

 earlier and simpler forms, the Mycetozoa, which may be directly de- 

 rived from the same stem, are at least brought very near to the do- 

 main of zoology." 



Notwithstanding all the controversy in regard to the matter, the 

 study of the slime-moulds still rests chiefly with the botanists. A 

 simple phylogenetic scheme for thallophytes is offered in the Stras- 

 burger text as follows : — 



THALLOPHYTA 



1. SCHIZOPHYTA 



Bacteria 



CvANOPHYCEiE 



2. FLAGELLATA 



f Myxomycetes 

 Peridine^ 



COKJUGATiE 

 HETEROCONTi^ 



, ( Chlorophyce^ 



( CHARACEiE 



3. RHODOPHYCE^ 



4. FUNGI 



1 Cf., 1884, Ver. Morp/i. u. Biol, der Pilz. Mycet. u. BacL, p. 478. Italics, 

 in quotations, ours. 



