390 
Proceedings of the Royal Society 
a fresh-water planariam, and numerous infusors. He finds that 
these green bodies are masses of hyaline protoplasm, containing a 
nucleus and a peculiarly curved chlorophyll granule. Sometimes 
two to six are present; these he considers as states of division. He 
regards these facts as proving that these bodies are unicellular algse, 
and erects the genus ZoocMorella. He finds them survive isolation, 
and even develop starch in light. Specimens from Spongilla were 
taken in by infusors, but were either digested or ejected, those from 
Hydra were, however, retained by Paramcecium , Coleys , &c. He 
believes that the chlorophyll never belongs to the animals, but 
always to algae. 
I have, on the other hand, stated my opinion above, that in 
certain animals, such as Hydra , Spongilla , and Convoluta , the green 
bodies do belong to the animals and are not algae, and I do not yet 
see sufficient reason for withdrawing that view. Dr. Brandt’s 
figures of Zoochlorella show no resemblance to any unicellular algae 
hitherto described, but (as has recently been clearly pointed out by 
Mr. Lankester, to whose paper * I shall subsequently refer) closely 
resemble in form and mode of division the chlorophyll-granules of 
plants. Moreover, although he finds the green cells of Hydra to 
survive isolation he has not observed any morphological changes 
similar to those undergone by the yellow cells of Badiolarians. 
His experiments upon the infection of Paramoecium by the green 
bodies of Hydra are also to my mind quite inconclusive, since the 
remarkable indigestibility of chlorophyll must not be forgotten. 
Any one who examines, for instance, a scrap of Ulva which has 
passed through the digestive tract even of an Echinus or an 
Aphysia , will often find the chlorophyll grains scarcely appreciably 
altered either in form or colour. It is not however altogether 
inconceivable that chlorophyll-granules should survive transference 
from one living protoplasmic matrix to another. 
Further ^consideration of this portion of Dr. Brandt’s paper, 
especially in presence of Mr. Lankester’s recent elaborate destructive 
criticism,! seems unnecessary. 
* On “the Chlorophyll- Corpuscles and Amyloid Deposits of Spongilla and 
Hydra,” Quart. Jour. Micro. Sci., April 1882. 
t “ On the Chlorophyll- Bodies and Amyloid Deposits of Hydra and Spon- 
gilla,” Quart. Jour, Micro. Sci., April 1882. 
