42 WM, A. KEPNER AND B. D. REYNOLDS. 



Plate II. 



Fig. 3. Difflugia spiralis. 3-A. Specimen placed in contact with a dead 

 and a nearly dead fragment of its own ectoplasm. The dead fragment was at 

 once rejected, the animal passing it (clinging along upper side of shell 

 at 3-5) and dragging the nearly dead (spherical) fragment with it 3-B. 

 In time both fragments were rejected. 



Fig. 4. Difflugia pyriformis. Fragment a was whipped off by the sudden 

 retraction of the pseudopod A. This fragment lay, of course, in position 

 indicated by end of pseudopod A. For graphic reasons it and b, c, d, had 

 to be placed below. While fragment a lay in this position, it lost its re- 

 fractive axial rod as in b; put out a pseudopod to right as in c; assumed 

 contour as in d. Next it travelled as an ameboid body to positions e, f, g. 

 In the meantime pseudopod A had not reappeared and pseudopod B was 

 thrown out behind and beyond g. When this met g, the currents in g were 

 reversed and the body of g fused with the walls of the cup that B had 

 formed about it, as shown at g' ; as a result g flowed into B without leav- 

 ing any local enlargement of B, or being seen as a discrete body within B. 



