282 NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY OF DUBLIN. 
Genus, Cystophrys (Arch.). 
Pl. VIIL., fies. 
Generte Characters.—Rhizopod changeable in figure, sarcode mass of 
but one character, and éontaining immersed therein more or less numerous 
cell-like structures, and gwing forth slender marginal pseudopodia. 
The generic type sought to be established here would be unnecessary 
if the two forms it is destined to contain possessed ‘‘ central capsules,” 
for in that case they would seemingly fitly enough fall under the genus 
Thallasolampe (Haeckel), which is destitute of ‘“‘skeleton,”’ admitting, 
indeed, that the contained cells might be assumed as homologous with 
the ‘yellow cells’ of that genus. But, as before alluded to, the ab- 
sence of the ‘‘ central capsule’? would altogether exclude our forms from 
the true ‘‘ Radiolaria.”” There appears a certain resemblance to Stret- 
hill Wright’s genus Boderia (B. Turneri, Strethill Wright),* and this 
supposition favoured rather by his figure than by his description. That 
form is described as consisting of ‘‘a simple mass of brown or orange 
sarcode, enclosed in a very delicate and colourless membranous enve- 
lope, from openings in which protrude long pseudopodial branches, 
generally three or four in number, but sometimes more numerous, espe- 
cially in larger specimens.” It is, I think, quite certain that in my 
forms there is no ‘‘ membranous envelope’ (however delicate), though, 
indeed, this character is not seemingly expressed in his figures, whilst 
his fig. 2 is supposed to show two examples ‘‘ conjugated,’’ and this in- 
deed not prevented by the assumed outer ‘‘envelope.”’ Further, the 
rounded bodies, superficially bearing some resemblance to those of 
my forms, are represented as ‘‘ nuclei, or rather ova,’’ not as themselves 
nucleus-containing, outwardly bounded homologues (?) of ‘‘ yellow 
cells.”” Judging from Strethill Wright’s deseription, it is, I think, only 
possible, but not very probable, that either of my forms can be conge- 
neric with his. Perhaps, should these lines ever meet his eye, he may, 
however, be able to throw a further light on the question. 
If, as is probable, such seemingly truly cellular structures as those 
characteristic, for instance, of Cystophrys Haeckelvana, are to be consi- 
dered as the representatives of the ‘‘ yellow cells’ of the typical ‘‘ Radio- 
laria,’’ then I think that Wallich’s view that the homologues of those 
structures pervade all the Rhizopoda cannot be maintained.t I am unable 
to follow him in recognising the representatives of ‘‘ yellow cells” in 
fresh-water Rhizopoda in general; for the granular and guasi-cellular 
structures noticeable seem to lack the ‘‘cell’’-characteristics present here, 
and described for the ‘‘ yellow cells’ by Haeckel in his beautiful and 
elaborate Monograph. These must possess a rigid and firm membrane or 
‘‘ wall,” granular (yellow) contents, and a clearly defined nucleus, and 
* «¢ Observations on British Zoophytes and Protozoa,” by T. Strethill Wright, M. D., 
in “Journal of Anatomy and Physiology,” vol. i., p. 335, Pl. XV. 
¢ Loe. cit., p. 70. 
