409 
Mr. H. J. Carter on Foraminifera. 
transparent test. But, be this as it may, the appearances are 
so similar in Foraminifera, and so like that of reproduction in 
all, that one cannot help assuming that both the marine and 
the freshwater Rhizopoda are propagated in this way, what¬ 
ever the process may be that precedes it. 
It seems to me that in studying the Foraminifera one should 
always remember Bory St. Vincent’s observation to Dujardin, 
viz. that a great analogy exists between the filamentous pro¬ 
longations of the Rhizopoda and those of the ever-changing 
Amoeba —thus viewing the animal of Foraminifera in the light 
of an Amoeba , whose possible changes may account for the 
endless variety of tests presented by the former. 
So far as the embryo is concerned, the u spherule ” of 
Foraminifera, on being discharged, may follow the changes 
observed in that of Euglypha alveolata (Ann. 1. c. fig. 21) ; 
that is, it may become amoebiform, or it may extemporize 
cilia for the purpose of locomotion. But here, again, favourable 
and fortunate opportunities are required for the description of 
this short interval. One thing is certain, however, viz. that 
(from the form of the embryonal chamber in the nautiloid tests 
of Foraminifera) it becomes spherical and covered with a 
poriferous calcareous layer, except at one point called the 
“ aperture,” and that through this aperture the sarcode is 
extended, which forms a second chamber of the same kind, 
but of a different shape, which is successively followed by a 
third, and so on, until the ultimate form and development of 
the species is attained. 
As it may be assumed that the embryonal chamber possesses 
a nucleus, so it may also be assumed that each chamber is 
successively supplied with one by duplicative division of that 
preceding it, although, after all, a nucleus may only be de¬ 
monstrable in one chamber, as in the instance of PolystomeUa 
striatopunctata above mentioned—unless it be inferred that 
all the thirty-eight segments are but parts of one u cell,” and 
that thus there is only one nucleus. But this would hardly 
apply to Gypsina melobesioides , where there are millions of 
cells in its thalloid expansion which must have been formed 
plant-like, i. e. one after another. 
Assuming, then, that the embryonal cell represents the 
simplest form of Foraminifera, we have this in Max Schultze’s 
genus Squamulina , reduced from its original spherical or em¬ 
bryonal to a plano-convex form to meet the requirement of 
the species, viz. that of fixing itself by its flat surface to a 
convenient object. It is true that the test of Squamulina Icevis , 
according to Max Schultze’s statement, was calcareous, smooth, 
and poreless—that is, probably porcellanic (smooth and glisten- 
Ann. & Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 5. Vol. iii. 29 
