514 
PROTOZOA. 
Greepp notices (/. c.) a probably sexual mode of generation in an Amoeba 
from Poppelsdorf. The germs of the brood appear in the cavity of the 
nucleus, close to which the author found, in the same individual, several 
oval capsules containing hair-like bodies corresponding to those which we 
find in the nucleoli of Infusoria. Greeff suggests that probably such a 
sexual differentiation exists also in the Polythalaraia and Iladiolaria, reesta- 
blishing the claim of the Ehizopoda to be considered as true animals and not 
as ‘‘ Protista.” 
Difflugia ligata, sp. nov., Tatem (M. Micr. J. Dec. 1870, p. 313) ; D. hipeSy 
sp. nov.. Carter (Ann. N. H. May 1870, p. 323), Budleigh-Salterton. In 
both of these new species the body is fixed by three sarcodal filaments to 
the posterior part of the test. 
Amphizonella vestita, sp. nov.. Archer (Proc. R. Irish Ac. Dec. 12th, 1870), 
counties Westmeath and Tipperary. As Greeff, who established the genus, 
did not give any special diagnosis of it, the following is supplied by Mr. 
Archer: — Genus Amphizonella, Greeff. Rhizopod with a nucleated body- 
mass, enclosed in a distinct (and separable), more or less pellucid, elastic, 
and yielding investment, through which it temporarily protrudes a greater 
or less number of digitate or tapering short hyaline pseudopodia, upon the 
retraction of which the extemporized openings in the investment become 
effaced by virtue of its inherent fusibility. 
Arcuer describes (Proc. R. Irish Ac. Dec. 12th, 1870) a form, in two 
varietie.s, which he supposes may be identical with Plagiophrgs sphcerica, 
Clap. & I.iachm. He points out, however, the presence of a distinct test, 
of tree-like instead of Actinophryan pseudopodia, as figured b}*^ Claparede 
and Lachmann, and of a distinct internal nucleus.” 
Grenacher (1. 0 .) has observed in the centre of Aotinophrgs sol a little vesi- 
cular body about one-fourth to one-fifth of the diameter of the entire orga- 
nism, which he considers equivalent to the central capsule” of the marine 
Radiolaria ; indeed it would be quite the same structure were the microscope 
to demonstrate an unquestionable membrane for it. The central axes of the 
pseudopodia may be traced to the outer wall or surface of this vesicle. Re- 
garding the question of placing the Actinophryans among the Radiolaria, the 
author refers to the similar relations of the pseudopodia to the extracapsular 
sarcode, and to the resemblance of the spicular skeleton of Acanthocgstis to 
similar structures in Radiolaria. Even the want of a central capsule would 
not absolutely shut them out from Radiolaria, as Coccinosphara, Stuart, has 
none ; and the same is to be said as regards the absence of yellow cells,” as 
these are wanting in the Acanthometrida>. The contractile vacuole is the 
only veto ” against the union of Actinophrys sol with the Radiolaria. Re- 
garding this contractile vacuole, Grenacher is not inclined to accept it as an 
organ of special nature, but thinks rather that any vacuole at the surface 
may become contractile. The author likewise asks if the cells ” of Acti- 
nophrys (Actinosphcei'iu?n) eichhorni may not possibly be the homologues of the 
central capsule in A. sol. If so, then A. eichhorni is one of the Radiolaria 
Polyzoa. 
Archer likewise notices in a large green Actinophryan (species unde- 
termined) a clear spherical body occupying the centre of the body-mass^ 
which seems to be a veritable central capsule. He also witnessed the evolu- 
tion of minute biciliated greenish zoospores from the body of the Actino- 
