421 
branched, brown, flattened, striated production drawn attention to 
by him at the Club Meeting of December, 1865, would take the 
opportunity to say that he had little doubt but that it was one and 
the same thing with the organism named Aporea ambigua by Bailey, 
in his ‘Microscopical Observations made in South Carolina, Georgia, 
and Florida,’ p. 42, pi. iii, fig. 3. This, he confessed, should not 
have escaped him on that occasion, as he had even then Bailey’s 
paper in his possession. The present examples were, however, 
brought forward for the purpose of exhibiting to those of the meet- 
ing, who might take any interest in a thing so common (though not 
often met in this lively condition), the motion of the somewhat long 
fhigella emanating from the broadened summit of the branches, and 
w aving about with some energy. Bailey, without having seen any- 
thing like animal life or motion in connection with this not uncom- 
mon production, very shrewdly, however, suggested that it might be 
the stripes of some attached infusorian, though temporarily or pro- 
visionally described as an alga. But it perhaps almost becomes a 
query, though he makes no mention of flagella or cilia of any kind, 
whether he means the little fine wavy or zigzag line at the summit 
of one of the branches in his figure (I. c.) as the expression of any 
fibrous prolongation or flagellum-like structure seen by him, or 
whether it may be simply a slip of the engraver’s hand ? As 
regards this production, which, for the present, as Mr. Archer 
thought, ought to be called Aporea ambigua (Bail.), he had nothing 
to add to what lie had mentioned in the minutes referred to, save 
that the flagella seemed sometimes apparently to emanate from the 
summits of the branches in tufts or pencils of a few together, and 
sometimes, though by no means always, a somewhat definitely 
but not sharply-bounded consolidation of the granular matter ter- 
minating the branches, appeared to exist — that is to say, somewhat 
monad-like, and to some extent resembling the “ monads ” of 
Monas consociata (Fresenins), but these bodies not at all so clearly 
marked as in that organism. 
Mr. Archer showed a good example of a rhizopod forming, he 
thought, a second species in the genus lie had proposed for the form 
named Cystophrys Haeckeliana. In this the pseudopodia were very 
fine and long, the central cells reddish, each furnished with a bright 
dot (nucleus ?), very numerous, and sometimes slightly flattened by 
mutual pressure. The motions of this form are, when freshly 
taken, often lively and somewhat rapid for a rhizopod; and it is 
further sometimes addicted to the pastime of tearing itself into two, 
each half throwing out pseudopodia, and setting up in the world 
on its own account. This form he had drawn attention to very 
•briefly some time ago, but he thought it justifiable to exhibit so 
good a specimen, and he hoped to be able to publish a figure he had 
made. (This appears in the last number of this Journal (vol. ix, 
N.S., p. 265), under the name of Cystophrys ocalea.) 
Mr. Archer further showed some fine examples of a noble form 
of Actinophrys, which he had lately met with in one or two places. 
This comparatively large form usually, though not always, presents 
