'>67 
cleft proceeds until the two portions of the original body-mass 
remain connected by but a very narrow isthmus, which 
finally tears across. The adjacent parts of the margin of each of 
the now two distinct rhizopods do not as yet seem to possess 
the pseudopodia quite so abundantly or so long as the older 
external margins, but in a few moments no difference is 
observable, and we have two smaller rhizopods out of one, 
and shortly at a considerable distance from one another. 
I would parenthetically remark here that I could not at all 
look upon such a process as this as in any way to be regarded as 
a reproductive one, and yet this is all that Haeckel attributes 
to his “ Protamoeba primitica ,” and calls by that name, 
notwithstanding that, in his most interesting paper he is not 
satisfied to regard a process quite so simple as a reproductive 
one in any other form. 1 What he describes for his form seems 
to be nothing more than an accidental fission into two, and 
cannot be regarded in either his or the present form as a 
reproductive act. Examples of what I assume to be doubtless 
the Protamoeba primitica are met with in many puddles, and 
I would have imagined them to have been but undeveloped 
conditions of Amoeba itself. In Cystophnjs oculea, as well as 
C Haeckel iana, it is possible that the central cells may sub- 
serve to reproduction. 
Heterophrys Fockii (PI. XVI, fig. 3), and Heterophrys 
myriopoda, gen. et sp. nov. (PI. XVII, fig. 4.) 
Had it not been for the ‘ yellow-cell’-like structures 
appertaining to the two preceding rhizopods, allocated by me 
to the new genus Cystophrys — thus, perhaps, bringing them 
in that regard somewhat close to the marine Radiolaria — I 
should have preferred taking up the two forms here placed 
under a new genus, Heterophrys, immediately after Raphi- 
diophrys. For although these latter have neither spicules 
nor any organization that might be assumed as comparable 
to ‘ yellow-cells,’ they yet seem to me, apart from the 
spicules, to come pretty close in other respects to Raphi- 
diophrys. Still, the important character of the presence of 
the spicules in that genus, and their absence here, would 
forbid their being ever united in one genus. The two forms 
now under consideration, each, however, in a diverse manner, 
present characters in their structure which reduce them both 
to a single type, at the same time offering an amount of 
1 Ernst Haeckel, “Monographic der Moueren,” in the ‘ Jeuaische Zeit- 
schrift fiir Medicin und Naturwissenchaft/ Band iv, Heft i, p. 107. (Trans- 
lated ante in this Journal.) 
VOL. IX. — NEW SER. 
S 
