242 NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY OF DUBLIN. 
was very curious to see. I had, however, on the very first occasion I 
detected this form, quite satisficd myself of its true nature by a pro- 
longed observation. 
A consideration of the characters of this lowly creature, simple and 
few as they may be, suggests affinities with its allies not a few, and 
those various; and, in attempting to draw attention to them, it is a 
difficulty to what side we should first turn. Of course, it is only 
amongst the naked Rhizopods, or those destitute of a test, that, accord- 
ing to received views of classification, we have to look for its im- 
mediate allies. To Gromia our form offers some resemblance in the 
somewhat branched and not unfrequentiy inosculating pseudopodia, 
but they are far finer and more slender; there is nothing at all like the 
vigorous flow of the granules along the pseudopodia seen in that genus, 
nor do they reach anything like a proportional length and size; in fact, 
in our form they are very slender, and somewhat silvery in appearance ; 
but, moreover, it differs from Gromia, as I need hardly observe, and to 
speak of nothing else, in the absence of a test. With the genus Lie- 
berktihnia (Claparéde et Lachmann), it agrees in the absence of a test; 
but it differs equally widely in the character of the pseudopodia, Lie- 
berkihnia being, so to speak, aGromia menus a test. In our animal, 
the pseudopodia emanate from all parts of the body, from amongst the 
central cluster of cells, whereas in Lieberktihnia, notwithstanding that 
the creature’s body is devoid of a test, the pseudopodia emanate from a 
given part only. It is also very greatly larger than our form. I have 
never been so fortunate as to encounter Lieberkiihnia, nor am I aware 
that it has been met with by any other than its original discoverers. 
I have, however, very rarely met with a form in the fresh water, 
which I would now have little, if any, doubt in regarding to be the 
same as the so-called Ameeba porrecta (Schultze).* To the description 
given by Schultze I have nothing to add, save that, if my indentifica- 
tion be correct, this form presents in the granular mass of the body an 
olive colour. With Haeckel I may venture, however, to say that I 
quite concur in believing that such a form as this cannot possibly be 
regarded as falling under Amoeba; without, however, knowing, as I 
need not say, anything whatever practically of his genus Protogenes, 
it is quite possible that it may be far better called Protogenes porrecta, 
but still I fancy there is a considerable affinity to Lieberktihnia, not- 
withstanding that in the porrecta the pseudopodia emanate from every- 
where or anywhere, and not from a single part only of the surface of 
the body. Neither have yet shown anucleus or contractile vacuole. I 
mention this form here, however, whilst likewise drawing attention to 
its resemblance to some extent to our new form, to say that I by no 
means would regard the latter as the same thing plus the cells—that is, 
as any state of porrecta loaded with what might possibly be regarded as 
* Schultze, ‘‘ Ueber den Organismus der Polythalamien,” p. 8, t. vii., fig. 18; 
Pritchard, ‘ Infusoria,” p. 550, Pl. XXI., fig. 3. 
