Dr. O. Schmidt on CoccoUtlis and Rhabdoliths. 363 



very probably exhibit the same reactions as the protoplasm of 

 Bathyhhis 5 so that I should by no means be inclined to deduce 

 the identity of the two bodies in other respects from such a 

 resemblance. But even before I had read Gtimbel's communi- 

 cation in the ^Jahrbuch' it was known to me, by direct obser- 

 vation, not only that empty shells of Foraminifera are filled by 

 Bathi/hius-mud, but also that living Foramimfera incept Bathy- 

 \yms,-jlocks together with coccolithsj no doubt as nourishment. The 

 derivation of ^a^7*?/i«Ms from Foraminifera and other Protista 

 is quite inconceivable when we consider the quantitative pro- 

 portions. If we wash and strain off several pounds of Adriatic 

 Bathyhius-va\\.di^ there remains a minute heaplet of Foraminifera. 

 And, further, the i?a<7^?//>^w.'?-protoplasm, if supposed to originate 

 from Foraminifera, would necessarily become decomposed be- 

 fore it could collect into such incalculable masses. Bathyhius 

 freshly taken out of the sea exhibits very sluggish movements, 

 more sluggish even than those which occur in the sarcodic net of 

 most sponges, but in other respects exactly the same phe- 

 nomena which may be detected in specimens preserved in 

 spirits of wine. This agrees exactly with my numerous com- 

 parative observations of fresh sponges and sponges preserved 

 in spirit. Preparations of the finest sarcodic nets derived from 

 the latter are absolutely undistinguishable, if we leave out of 

 consideration the sluggish displaceability, from fresh prepar- 

 ations just taken out of the sea. I believe, therefore, that the 

 further observation of the living Bathybius will fm-nish no par- 

 ticular information as to its natm'e. 



At present the coccoliths seem to be inseparable companions 

 of the Bathybius-^votoiplsiBm. It is a very different question, 

 however, whether they merely live upon the soil of this pro- 

 toplasm as independent organisms, or are products of it, as 

 parts or organs. In what follows, an interpretation will come 

 out, according to which the coccoliths pass through an inde- 

 pendent cycle of development. 



Both Huxley and Hiickel admit that there are two different, 

 although nearly allied, forms of coccoliths — namely, a simple 

 disciform kind (the discoliths) , and another which presents the 

 form of a double disk united by a central pin (the cyatholiths) . 

 I must decidedly affirm that this distinction does not occm*, 

 and that rather all those forms tvhich Hdckel has described as 

 perfectly developed discoliths with an outer ring are cyatholiths — 

 in other words, that the outer ring is nothing but the margin 

 of that shield which in the cyatholiths stands out better, from 

 its somewhat greater removal from the other pai-ts. Thus I 

 have met with no supposed discolith the margin of which 

 could not with patience be ascertained to be a constituent of 



26* 



