} 
ARCHER—ON RHIZOPODA. 263 
be more distinct, though the descriptions of each to a certain extent, no 
doubt, coincide. 
Having thus, in the foregoing sections of this communication, 
passed in review the various new Rhizopoda figured on the present 
occasion (with the exception of Diffiugia carinata), the account of the 
forms described must naturally conclude with their short diagnostic 
generic and specific characters. 
However, as regards locating them first in their due position in 
higher, more comprehensive groups, it does not appear to me that the 
known forms of Rhizopoda inhabiting fresh waters are yet sufficiently 
numerous or sufficiently understood to enable us to classify them other- 
wise than approximately or provisionally under received Orders or 
Families. Thus the three Pleurophrys (?) shown in Plate X., figs. 1, 
2, 3, and Amphitrema (figs. 4, 5), and Diaphoropodon (fig. 6), would 
come under the Order Proteina, as adopted by Claparéde and Lach- 
mann, but would seem possibly to make a Family intermediate in 
_ character between Amcebina and Actinophryna. Gromia_ socialis 
(figs. 7-11) belongs to Gromida, whilst Acanthocystis and Raphi- 
diophrys would appertain to KEchinocystida by reason of having sili- 
ceous spicula; but Heterophrys, Pompholyxophrys, and Cystophrys 
have no spicula, yet are, no doubt, closely related to the latter, but yet 
according to the characters given by Claparéde and Lachmann (op. c7t.) 
they would require a new Order. 
Endeavouring, again, to arrange them after the system laid down 
by Haeckel in his ‘‘ Radiolaria,”’* and acquiescing that the forms here 
drawn attention to, referrible to Pleurophrys (Clap. et Lachm.), do not 
possess a contractile vacuole, and if it be conceded that the marginal, 
pulsating vacuole shown by Diaphoropodon is entitled to come under 
that designation, then the latter genus must be placed near Difflugia, 
and far apart from Pleurophrys, whereas I believe it cannot be doubted 
but that they are closely allied. Again, the forms I have comprised 
under the new genera Raphidiophrys, Heterophrys, Pompholyxophrys, 
Cystophrys—not one of them, in my opinion, possesses a central cap- 
sule, nor so far as I see even an analogue of that part of the orga- 
nization of Haeckel’s marine forms. -4 priori then they would fall 
under Haeckel’s Order Acyttaria and Family Athalamia, where he 
would, when he then wrote, place Actinophrys sol. But I think there 
can be but small doubt that they have a far stronger claim to admission 
into the Order Cytophora, Family Radiolaria, notwithstanding the 
want of a ‘‘ central capsule.” 
Again, on having recourse to the system laid down by Carpenter, + 
the forms referrible to the genera Raphidiophrys, Acanthocystis, Heter- 
ophrys, Pompholyxophrys, would, of course, fall under his Radiolaria. 
The new Gromia (G. socialis) must be placed to Reticulosa; but then 
* “¢ Tie Radiolarien,” p. 212. 
¢ “Introduction to the Study of the Foraminifera,” 1862, p. 17. 
