of Foraminiferal Structure. 163 



into two portions, each of these behaves precisely as another 

 oil-globule does by instantaneously presenting an unbroken 

 outline, that the said oil-globule is diiFerently constituted at 

 its surface and in its interior. The same argument applies, 

 and with redoubled force, to a mass of albumen suspended in 

 water ; for here the tendency to assume a spherical form is 

 by no means so pronounced as in an oil-globule ; and if we 

 break up the mass into a number of smaller masses, we have 

 presented to us appearances which very closely resemble those 

 observable in the pseudopodium of the Amoeban Rhizopod. 

 Indeed so close is the resemblance, that, barring the element 

 of vitality (which the chemist is still as far off as ever from 

 producing at call), we have before our eyes those very " fun- 

 damental jyotentialities " which a highly imaginative rendering 

 of certain appearances has declared to be typical of the living 

 sarcode of the Rhizopod. 



Were it not that it befits us to speak with bated breath of 

 the mighty dead, another instructive argument on this subject 

 might be adduced from the history of the rise and fall of the 

 unfortunate ' ^Bathyhius.'' ' 



But the fact is, that, divide the sarcode body of a living 

 Amcehan, or even an Actinopliryan^ Rhizopod as we may, by 

 pressure or other agency, the divided surface will forthwith 

 present every character presented by the undivided portion : 

 any peculiarity of outline, if present in the undivided part, 

 will at once reappear in the divided part ; any seeming contrast 

 between the external layer and the contained mass within 

 will instantly show itself; and the character of the pseudo- 

 podial processes will be the same. This identity of character 

 in the divided and undivided surfaces is absolutely instanta- 

 neous, there being nothing like a gradual transition from one 

 condition to another, such as we should undoubtedly be able 

 to see taking place were the ruptured surfaces in any respect 

 dissimilar to the rest of the mass. This is the view I have 

 always advocated, its unacceptable point being, I presume, that 

 it is quite unconformable with Dr. Carpenter's published defi- 

 nitions of Rhizopod structure. 



As it would be foreign to the immediate purpose of the 

 present paper to enter into all the details of the subject, I 

 must confine myself to stating that the inconstancy of the 

 pseudopodial characters in Amceba^ which is of course quite 

 incompatible with the assumed presence of an external layer 

 of much more highly developed sarcode than that which it 

 encloses, is conceded (but without the inevitable inference which 

 must be associated with it) in the * Introduction to the Study 

 of the Foraminifera,' 1862 (p. 23), when Dr. Carpenter says 



