280 NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY OF DUBLIN. 
coloured marginal region, which gives offirregular and fitful sub-trian- 
gular, indefinitely bounded projections, not subdivided into a very great, 
number of hair-like linear processes. The marginal pulsating vacuoles 
of the inner body, sometimes seen, render it like Actinophrys sol, but 
the conspicuous outer region distinguishes this form readily. As pre- 
viously alluded to, I conceive mine to be most likely the same as Focke’s 
“No. 1;”* but the fact that Greef does not allude thereto in his paper, 
though he figures a form which appears to me to be so very like it, 
causes me now a little to hesitate. The form, however, which Greef 
figures he suggestively thinks may be cither a young state of Acantho- 
cystis turfacea (viridis, ejus), or perhaps a distinct species.t But I would 
very deferentially think, if he comes to the latter conclusion, it would 
be incorrect to place a Rhizopod quite destitute of ‘‘ skeleton” or spi- 
cula in the same genus with other forms characterized by the possession of 
these in a very marked degree. If indeed that figured by Greef be truly 
identical with my H. Pockiw, I certainly would not be at all disposed to 
regard it as a young state of A. turfacea; the very smallest examples I 
have ever seen of the latter have shown the radiating spine-like spicules, 
and I have seen examples smaller than the average of those of H. Fock. 
In this form I have not been able to see anything to represent a ‘‘nu- 
cleus” or a “‘ central capsule.” I have in a previous part of this paper 
expressed my own dissent from the view that the outer boundary of the 
inner globe in such a form as this can be rightly looked upon as the repre- 
sentative of the ‘‘ central capsule.” It has sometimes suggested itself 
to me that this form might be identical with that figured by Carter,t 
which he provisionally considered might be a young condition of Acti- 
nospherium Eichhorn; but whether I may be right or wrong in that 
conjecture, I conceive the structure of H. Hockw to be quite unlike even 
a young state of Actinospherium Exchhorni, nor have I been able to see 
any nucleus as shown by Carter. 
I perceive that Leuckart,§ in giving the favour of a notice to my 
communication to the Dublin Microscopical Club, in which I first chro- 
nicled this Rhizopod, suggestively puts it that it may appertain to 
Greef’s genus Amphizonella, established by him in a previous paper, | 
but this is most clearly not so. My form isnot at all referrible to Am- 
phizonella; in that genus the Ameba- or Difflugia-like, nucleus-bearing 
sarcode body is surrounded by a resistent so-called ‘‘ capsule,”’ still 
yielding enough to permit the exit of a few finger-like pseudopodia. 
Thus, that genus would differ from Heterophrys sufficiently widely to 
fall under a completely distinct group of Rhizopoda, no matter which 
* Loc..cit., t. XXv. t Loe. cit., t. XXVil., fig. oo: 
t “ Annals of Natural History,” vol. xiii. (1864), Pl. IL, fig. 23. 
§ ‘Bericht uber die wissenschaftliche Leistungen in der Naturgeschichte der niederen 
Thiere,” 1866, 1867, p. 270. 
|| Greef, ‘‘ Ueber einige in der Erde lebende Amceben und andere Rhizopoden,” in 
Schultze’s ‘‘ Archiv fur mikroskopische Anatomie,” 1866, p. 323, et seqq., t. xviii. 
