ZOOLOGY AND BOTANY, MICROSCOPY, ETC. 
613 
there may be some connection between the bulk of nuclear matter and 
the bulk of protoplasm connected with it ; it is pointed out that all 
these nuclei occupy 1/60 of the total bulk of the organism, and that the 
same proportion holds in the mammalian ovum. 
Other contents of the organism are small globular refractive bodies, 
which appear to be of a fatty nature, and food-debris. 
In conclusion the author directs attention to the views of the late 
Dr. Gulliver, published in a paper in our * Transactions.’ * Dr. Gulliver 
believed that the exoplasm was permanently differentiated from the 
endoplasm, and that the latter was composed of a number of cells. 
Though not accepting these views, Prof. Bourne allows that Pelo- 
myxa may exhibit appearances which justify them. The phenome- 
non of the breaking away of the exoplasm is a mere accident in the 
hardening process. The appearance of several cells may be due to an 
accidental rounding off of portions of protoplasm, which takes place 
during the hardening process. 
Unfortunately the author is unable to throw any light on the repro- 
ductive processes which may obtain in Pelomyxa. 
Foraminifera of Hammerfest-t — Mr. E. W. Burgess gives a list of 
fifty-one species of Foraminifera found in mud from the bottom of 
Hammerfest Harbour ; some are very rare, such as Cassidulina crassa , 
Lagena striato-punctata, Lagrina dimorpha, and Spirillina limbata. 
New Monocystidea.J — Sig. P. Mingazzini describes from the Gulf 
of Naples — CytomorpJia Diazonse g. et sp. n. from Diazona violacea, 
Lecudina (g. n.) pellucida Koll. from Nereis cultrifer , Lecudina Leuckartii 
sp. n. from Sagitta , Kollikeria Staurocephali g. et sp. n. from Stanro- 
cephalus Budolphi , LobiancJiella beloneides g. et sp. n. from Alciope , 
Ophioidina elongata g. et sp. n. from Lumbriconereis, Ophioidina Hseckelii 
sp. n. from Sapphirina , Oph. heterocephala sp. n. from Nephthys scolopen- 
droides , and Oph. Discocelides from Discoscelis tigrina. 
Tudor Specimen of Eozoon.§ — Mr. J. W. Gregory has had the 
opportunity of making a close examination of the so-called “ Tudor 
specimen of Eozoon.” The importance of this specimen lay in the fact 
that the opponents of the organic nature of Eozoon argued in favour of 
the mineral origin of specimens from the fact that the appearances of 
organic structure were seen only in serpentinous limestones, whereas 
the Tudor specimen was found in pure carbonate of lime. It has always 
been agreed that this example, therefore, was of great value as a crucial 
test. 
Mr. Gregory finds himself unable to recognize any trace of the 
“ proper wall,” “ canals,” or “ stolon passages ” which are claimed to 
occur in Eozoon , or any reasons for regarding the calcite bands as the 
“ intermediate skeleton ” of a foraminifer. The bands in the specimen 
appear to be of secondary origin. Other authorities who have had an 
opportunity of seeing this specimen appear to all agree that the “ Tudor 
specimen of Eozoon ” at any rate is not of organic origin. 
* See this Journal, 1888, p. 11. f Midland Naturalist, xiv. (1891) pp. 153-8. 
% Atti R. Accad. Lincei — Rend., vii. (1891) pp. 467-74. 
§ Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. Lond., xlvii. (1891) pp. 348-55 (1 pi.). 

2 x 
1891. 
