264 NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY OF DUBLIN. ~ 
what of the form I have called Cystophrys Haeckeliana, with its sub- 
arborescent pseudopodia, which often coalesce, more or less, in a reti- 
culose manner, whilst the other form referred as yet to the same genus 
(C. oculea) has linear and non-coalescent pseudopodia, clearly placing 
at under Carpenter’s Radiolaria? What too of the forms on Pl. X., 
referred by me to Pleurophrys (Cl. et Lachm.), Diaphoropodon (mihi), 
and Amphitrema (mihi)? These almost seem to hover between Car- 
penter’s Radiolaria and Reticulosa. 
Again, looking to Wallich’s proposed classification,* Pompho- 
lyxophrys punicea and Heterophrys myriopoda, with no definite nu- 
cleus, and no contractile vesicle, and no spicula (confined by the 
diagnosis) must come under one division of the Order ‘‘ Herpnemata,”’ 
whilst Raphidiophrys, likewise with no definite nucleus and no con- 
tractile vesicle, but with spicula, would come under another division of 
the same Order; yet I fancy it could hardly be doubted but that, 
although none of those named show a ‘‘nucleus,’’ these forms come 
most naturally in alongside of the solid-skeletoned ‘‘ Protodermata”’ 
(Wallich). I never saw a contractile vacuole in the little Groma 
socialis, but it has a nucleus, thus seemingly with only half a right to 
a place under Wallich’s Order Proteina, where, however, seemingly 
clearly should come Pleurophrys and Diaphoropodon. 
In neither Raphidiophrys, Heterophrys, nor Pompholyxophrys, 
can I see anything capable of being called a nucleus, such as 
occur, for instance, in Actinospherium. If we admit the validity 
of that class, are they then ‘‘Monera” (Haeckelt)? Even some 
of those can secrete siliceous structures during a developmental con- 
dition. The nature of the sarcode of the body mass in the new forms 
here described, which, as we have seen, is far indeed from being ‘‘struc- 
tureless and homogeneous’’—a characteristic in the diagnosis of the 
Class given by Haeckel, placed even before the absence of a ‘‘ nucleus,” 
—would in itself, no doubt, place them above the ‘“‘Monera’” in the 
system. But Haeckel would now claim Actinophrys sol as a Moneron, 
but that form could hardly be placed far from such as Heterophrys 
Fockwi, which indeed, like A. sol, does not show a nucleus, and they 
agree In possessing a marginal pulsating vacuole. 
It, therefore, seems to me that an attempt to place the forms I have 
brought forward in this paper in their Classes or Orders is not yet to 
be accomplished. We must just for the present consider the forms on 
Plates VIII. and IX., as annexing themselves most closely to Radio- 
laria (Haeck.), forming a Heliozoan subgroup, wanting a central cap- 
—sule, of which Actinophrys sol is the very simplest representative ; 
whilst the forms upon Plate X., even including Diaphoropodon (of 
course leaving Diflugia carinata, fig. 6, out of view), appertain more 
closely to Gromida. 
* Wallich “ On the Structure and Affinities of the Polycystina,” in ‘‘ Quart. Journ. 
Micr. Science,” vol. v., p. 57. 
t ‘“‘ Monographie der Moneren,” /oc. ect. 
