527 
he altered the name of the former species to twberculosa. That is a good 
species, well described and figured, but alveolata comprises two species, 
one of his figures (9) showing a test with a few scales near the fundus 
modified into long spines, and the other (10) showing one free from 
spines, and not essentially differmg from the form he had already de- 
scribed as tuberculata, as it must be called, being the first name used. 
Ehrenberg in the same year, but evidently after the publication 
of Dujardin’s work, contributed to the Berlin Kgl. Akademie der 
Wissenschaften a memoir in which he described and figured the same 
species as Deifflugia areolata and D. acanthophora, the former having, 
he says, “postica parte nuda”, and the latter “postica parte tribus qua- 
tuorve aculeis armata” 4. In his description of the plates on which these 
species are figured he refers Dujardin’s Huglypha alveolata to them, 
saying that it therefore falls; and he also says that “E. tuberculosa” is 
not distinct from E. alveolata, the figures of which, as stated above, re- 
present two species. One of these (fig. 9) he refers to Difflugia acan- 
thophora, and the other (fig. 10) to D. areolata. 
In his determination of the identity of the species, Ehrenberg, 
who did not admit Huglypha to be a genus distinct from Difflugia, was 
right, but he was wrong in ignoring both the specific names given to 
them by Dujardin and bestowing others upon them. 
Nearly all subsequent writers have overlooked Ehrenberg’s de- 
termination, taking Dujardin’s two species as one under the name of 
Euglypha alveolata, so that it is impossible without description or figure, 
or a reference to either, to know which species is implied. When de- 
scribed or figured the name is found sometimes to apply to one and 
sometimes to the other. Thus, to take an early and a late example, 
Carter in 18565 applied the name to the spineless species, and Popoff 
in 19126 to the spined species. Several authors have used the name 
tuberculata and a very few tuberculosa, under either name the spineless 
species being implied. 
In 1902, however, Eugene Penard recognized’, as Ehrenberg 
had done, that alveolata comprised two species, and he erroneously re- 
ferred the spined form to Leidy’s Euglypha brachiata, from which it is 
quite distinct. This error was corrected in 1911 by G. H. Wailes, 
who named the species armata®, he being unaware that it had pre- 
viously been named acanthophora by Ehrenberg. 
4 Abh. Akad. Wiss. 1841. S. 413. (Berlin 1843.) 
5 Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 2. vol. XVIII. p. 224. pl. V. fig. 25—36. These 
figuresclearly represent tuberculata, though Carter referred, on the page quoted to 
Dujardin’s fig. 
6 Archiv f. Protistenkunde. Bd. XXV. S. 8—26. T. I, II. 
7 Faune Rhizopodique du Bassin du Léman. p. 504. 
8 Proc. R. Irish Acad. vol. XX XI. Clare Island Survey. pt. 65. p. 37. 
