3.21 
riopoda, and hoped to give a figure and description of it ere long 
in the ‘ Microscopical Journal.’ 
Mr. Archer further presented examples of another, not less 
remarkable, Freshwater Bhizopod. This large and fine form was 
loosely coated with foreign heterogeneous particles, and differed 
from every other form by presenting two characters of pseudo- 
podia, emanating from different portions of one and the same 
sarcode body. The general form is egg-shaped, covered loosely by 
an aggregation of foreign arenaceous particles, diatom aceous 
fragments and frustules, seemingly dead protococcoid structures, 
and bits of fibrous-looking matter, earthy-looking particles, &c. 
From the anterior end projects an almost hemispherical elevation, 
whence emanates a dense cluster of variable, often inordinately 
long, hyaline, branched pseudopodia ; and from the general surface 
of the body elsewhere, and projecting through the outer loosely 
aggregated covering, there proceeds a dense quantity (looking at the 
margin like a fringe) of hyaline, short pseudopodia, nearly uniform 
in appearance, thickness, and length. The frontal eminence 
showed a marginal pulsating vacuole, like Actinophrys, and the 
central mass a large “ nucleus.” This could not at all be con- 
sidered, even apart from the border of nearly equal short processes, 
as like a Gromia — that is, such as the typical Gromia jluviatilis, 
though it may have some closer affinity to the form called Gromia 
Dujardinii by Schultze ; that form, however, appears pretty 
clearly cannot be correctly regarded as a Gromia at all. Mr. 
Archer felt sure that those who had seen a living Gromia must 
acknowledge the great difference in character of the pseudopodia, 
apart from the test being membranous in that genus, and the 
presence of the fringe-like border of processes in this form. In 
character of pseudopodia there is more resemblance to certain 
forms, possibly referable to Pleurophrys (Clap, et Lachm.), which 
Mr. Archer showed, but which he had doubtfully ere now ima- 
gined may have been (some one of them) the type of Schlum- 
berger’s Pseudodifflugia. Mr. Archer intended ere long to 
publish a figure of this fine form as the type of a distinct genus, 
which he named Diaphoropodon. 
Mr. Archer exhibited, on the part of Mr. Walter W. Beeves, of 
London, some specimens, kindly forwarded by that gentleman, of 
a form of Cothurnia from Victoria Docks, London, which appeared 
to be new and strikingly characterised by the possession of a 
closely fitting operculum attached to the neck portion of the 
animal, and by which, upon withdrawal into its case, it could 
securely close the mouth of the latter as with an accurately 
adapted lid. It was likewise characterised by an exceedingly 
long and slender stipes. This remarkably beautiful object, which 
Mr. Beeves informed Mr. Archer would immediately be figured 
and described by Mr. Kent, was accompanied by numerous other 
elegant things — forms of Carchesium, Acineta, various rotatoria, 
<£c., and amongst these a conspicuous Vaginicola, with a eam- 
panulate case, in several examples of which could be readily seen 
