288 NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY OF DUBLIN. 
Clathrulina subdivided without passing into an encysted and embryo 
state) at once puts forth pseudopodia, developes a stipes and shell, and 
thus produces a new Clathrulina. 
Cienkowski refers to what he calls a variety of C. elegans (designated 
as minor), which he considers marked by its paler colour and more 
hyaline appearance, its more delicate structure, the apertures indistinct, 
and perhaps most notably by an evident pulsation of certain of its vacu- 
oles. But such examples seem not unusually to present themselves 
where the ordinary highly coloured and most marked examples occur, 
and I would venture to suppose they are but younger specimens, or ex- 
amples more than ordinarily retarded. 
Had I known the further figures of this species were forthcoming 
from Greef’s hand, [ would not have ventured to put forward the too 
stiff figure I have given on Pl. VIIL., fig. 5. 
Such will, I believe, convey a true conception of what this pretty 
Rhizopod is. Cienkowski designated it as hardly distinguishable from 
Actinophrys sol within the stipitate shell; but Greef justly points out 
that it does not exactly bear out that comparison. An Actinophrys pre- 
sents a truly globular figure, its circular outline not interrupted by the 
passage off of the evenly set and regularly distributed pseudopodia, 
and it is marked by the striking: marginal pulsating vacuoles. Op- 
posed to this the body of Clathrulina is more mobile, though of a 
general rather rounded figure; the pseudopodia varying in thickness, 
and some of them, expanding at the base, lend a more lobed appearance 
to the outline. Neither are the pulsating vacuoles by any means so 
frequent or so striking, if, indeed, they can be strictly attributed to this 
form. These in themselves may appear to many to be very small and 
trivial distinctions; but such, at first sight, not very striking idiosyn- 
erasies soon attract the notice of observers bestowing a closer attention 
on these beings, and, as I think, are ere long seen in certain forms to 
put forward a not unfounded claim to be regarded as special and in- 
herent. 
Greef states that he has perceived in young and paler examples that 
(as in Actinospherium Eichhorni, for instance) a differentiated ‘‘ axile”’ 
and ‘‘ cortical’ region in the granuliferous pseudopodia can be made 
out; but he has not been able to satisfy himself that an uninterrupted 
connexion exists between the axes and a vesicular ‘‘nucleus-like”’ 
central body, said by him to be constantly present, which, I think, how- 
ever, must be queried just as yet, though such an apparent structure no 
doubt sometimes shows itself, and I imagine it may be what I ventured 
to suppose in my, from time to time, casual remarks before our Micro- 
scopical Club might possibly be the representative of a ‘‘ central cap- 
sule.”’ It is to be remarked that none of Greef’s figures (figs. 1, 6, 7) 
actually depict either this presumed central “nuclear” body or the 
axile substance in the pseudopodia. He, however, enters into an 
extended argument to show that this may be truly the case, too long 
to epitomize here, but very interesting and instructive. 
A further point shown by Greef is, that the walls of the ‘‘ cysts” 
