236 NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY OF DUBLIN. 
to this assumption by his figure showing some of the rays (not to call 
them either spines or pseudopodia) as variously directed, not truly ver- 
tical. My form has, moreover, greenish contents, though I have not 
seen any of so great depth of colour as in 4. turfacea. But he gives no 
good indication of the peripheral spicula in his drawing. Be this as 
it may, I feel satisfied that my animal finds its true place in the genus 
Acanthocystis ; and as commemorative of Perty’s labours, I have plea- 
sure in naming this little form Acanthocystis Pertyana. 
Raphidiophrys viridis, gen. et sp. nov. (Pl. IX., fig. 2.) 
On the occasion of my first chronicling in the ‘‘ Minutes of the 
Dublin Microscopical Club” the discovery of this fine Rhizopod, one of 
the most noble, probably, to be found in fresh water, I designated it as 
of a type roughly definable as an Actinophrys plus spicula. But it is 
actually of a structure more differentiated in some respects than that 
expression would convey; for if we would imagine an Actinophrys 
densely studded at its periphery by some unknown agency with a 
multitude of such acicular spicula as occur in this species, we should 
have something like it, it is true, but we should still have to imagine 
a further amount of differentiation effected in the body structure before 
a type would be produced similar to that now under consideration. 
Nay, if we could even conceive some fairy power able to effect both 
such imaginary alterations, there is no known Actinophrys, even so 
quasi-generically transformed, that would deceive any one, who had 
seen our form, as to its being exactly the same species—that is, there is 
no Actinophrys that offers a basis for the fanciful manufacture, which I 
have supposed, of one and the same thing; for, even imagining it car- 
ried out, we should have but a pretence of a new and distinct Raphi- 
diophrys—not anything to be mistaken for our Raphidiophrys viridis. 
But away with fancy. 
I have taken up this form next after the foregoing Acanthocystis, 
because by the possession of spicula, though but of one kind, it seems, 
like it, very closely to approximate to the marine Radiolaria; like 
Acanthocystis, however, it wants any trace ofa ‘“‘central capsule.” 
If, indeed, it possessed that organ, I do not see any character which 
would exclude it from the marine genus Spherozoum (Meyen), Haeckel. 
In endeavouring to convey a general idea of our form (PI. IX., 
fig. 2), for its exact generic and specific description I shall, as before, 
defer to the end of my communication, it may, perhaps, be better that 
I proceed, as it were, from within outwards. 
In the first place, then, we have a variable number, say from one 
to a dozen or more, of balls of pellucid sarcode matter, about 34, of an 
inch in diameter, of definite outline, not containing any nucleus (that 
I can detect), but each bearing just under the periphery a dense stra- 
tum of somewhat large chlorophyll granules, leaving the centre of the 
clobes free. These globular, definitely bounded masses of sarcode, each 
so enclosing its stratum of chlorophyll granules, are (in the next place) 
