ARCHER—ON RHIZOPODA. Pag ia? 
acute. In A. Pertyona the spines are in length not more than a fifth 
or sixth part of the diameter of the body, whilst in A. spinifera they 
seem to be in length about three-fourths of the diameter of the body. 
They agree in having the discoid base (Fussplattchen), as do, so far as 
we know, indeed, all the species referrible here. In my form there never 
appear any colouring granules except green, never yellow bodies (‘ yel- 
low cells’ ?) like those often occurring in Greef’s. Further, I have 
never seen in the former any indication of the central vesicular body 
(representative of ‘‘central capsule’ ?) which forms a distinguishing 
feature in the latter. I have never, indeed, myself seen Greef’s form, 
but I cannot entertain a doubt as to its complete distinctness from mine. 
As regards other described or figured forms, I have already 
(pp. 238, 235) referred to its resemblance to Actinophrys brevicirrhis* 
(Perty); if, indeed, we conceive for a moment the pseudopodia absent 
from my figure, and assuming that the rays bordering the figures given 
by Perty may be actually spines, not pseudopodia, the resemblance to 
Perty’s is certainly greater than to any other published figure I know 
of; but the very great uncertainty due to the insufficient account given 
by him of his animal fully justifies my appropriating to this species a 
distinct name. 
But in contrasting my form with Greef’s A. sp:nifera, and on read- 
ing over his very interesting account of that species, I am led to advert 
to his further suppositions regarding the assumed developmental or 
transition states thereof drawn by him.t Beyond any question Greef’s 
figures 26, 27, and 28 represent nothing else than Barker’s Diplophrys 
Archert,t and nearly equally certainly Greef’s figure 29 represents my 
own Cystophrys oculea.§ The nearly orbicular (fig. 26), or broadly elliptic 
(figs. 27 and 28), figure of Diplophrys is there,the large characteristic 
conspicuous, oil-like, amber-coloured, refractive body, with the same 
little granular bodies, are there, and the two pencils of delicate pseudo- 
podia emanating from opposite ends, but set slightly obliquely to one 
another, are there—all just as they occur in this very marked little 
form, as it has presented itself in gatherings made from the east, south, 
west, and centre of Ireland. But, although this wide distribution must 
be attributed to it, itis always seemingly scanty, and rarely encoun- 
tered ; this may indeed be, in part, due to its great minuteness. Per- 
haps Greef’s otherwise excellent representation of this form would have 
been improved if he had indicated that sometimes the pseudopodia 
slightly subdivide dichotomously, and occasionally show more or less 
of a changeable dilatation at the point of ramification or along the 
length of a pseudopodium. I myself have never seen anything like 
Greef’s figure 25. 
* Toc. ctt., p. 493, t. xxvil., figs 20-23. 
+ Loe. cit., t. xxvii., figs. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. 
t Proceedings of Dublin Microscopical Club, in ‘ Quart. Journ. Micr, Science,” doe. 
cit. 
§ Ante in this paper, p. 244. 
