170 Dr. G. C. Wallicli on the Type 



families which are ranked in the other orders. Thus the 

 name Radiolarian is just as appropriately applied to the 

 pseudopodia of some of the " perforate " :Foraminifera as to 

 those of the Polycystiyia^ which are placed by Dr. Carpenter 

 in his second order, the Radiolaria^ under the erroneous idea 

 that they and the other families which he associates with them 

 in that order possess both a nucleus and a contractile vesicle. 

 Actinophrys, which he makes the type of this order^ un- 

 doubtedly possesses both organs ; but it is the only form in the 

 Radiolarian order (as constituted by Dr. Carpenter) which is 

 so gifted. It is consequently quite out of place elsewhere 

 than in the third or highest order, in which every family, 

 without exception, possesses both these organs. The Poly- 

 cystina^ on the other hand, do not possess a definite nucleus, 

 their body-substance being almost identical in its degree of 

 " diiferentiation " with the body-substance, for example, of 

 Orhidina. It is quite unnecessary for me to point out that 

 since the nature of the animal of the Foraminifera and of the 

 Polycystina is to all intents and purposes identical, no valid 

 objection to their association in the lowest of the orders into 

 which the Rhizopods are divisible can with justice be based 

 on the mere difference in the mineral constitution of their 

 shells. 



It is well to bear in recollection that Muller based his clas- 

 sification of the Ehizopods on the purely artificial difference 

 between the naked and the shell-covered forms. His designa- 

 tion of " RadiolaricB " is certainly not retained therefore out of 

 deference to the meaning which its propounder attached to it. 

 But inasmuch as an attempt is being made to supersede the 

 name of Polycystina given by Ehrenberg to these organisms 

 by calling them Radiolaria^ and, according to every rule of 

 priority* and scientific usage, '"'' the name originally given hy 

 the founder of a group should he permanently retained to the 

 exclusion of all other synonyms^'' unless some good cause can 

 be assigned for the change, I must say the procedure appears 

 to be altogether unjustifiable. For if it be urged that the 

 meaning lurking under the name Polycystina is misleading, 

 what is to be said of the name of Foraminifera as applied to a 

 Miliola or a Lagena ? 



The following is the classification of the Ehizopods which 

 was appended to my paper on the Polycystina in 1865. 

 I beg leave to submit it once more to naturalists without com- 

 ment or modification of any kind, either in the tabular por- 



* See "• Rules for Zoological Nomenclature," authorized by Section D 

 of the British Association, 1842. Reprinted by requisition of Section D 

 at Newcastle, 1863, p. 9. 



