. INTRODUCTION. 
Prot. 3 
INTRODUCTION. 
The Protozoa Record for 1905 is indeed a “ record,” containing no fewer 
than 522 Titles ; this is an increase of quite 40 per cent, upon last 
year, and surpasses the previous best year (1902) by about 60 titles. And 
while of course, as is usual, a certain number belong actually to preceding 
years (chiefly to 1904), the Recorder does not find that the proportion of 
such in the present Record is so great as he .anticipated would be the case 
a year ago. 
Analysis of the Titles shews that this considerable increase is — as 
hitherto — largely due to the never-ceasing growth of the literature dealing 
with parasitic Protozoa and their relation to disease. In connection with 
this subject, the Recorder would like to remark that he is sure no other 
Recorder can have so much trouble and difficulty in deciding what papers 
to include and what to leave out, as falls to his lot. If he Compares his 
list with the Titles given, say, in the Zool. Jahresbericht, he finds his Own 
is much longer ; if, on the other hand, he compares it with the literaturC- 
lists (relating solely to Protozoa and “ Pseudo- Protozoa”) published in the 
Arch. Protistenkitnde, he notes dozens of medico-biological papers which 
he has not included. To take one instance only : that of the “ Spirochceta” 
of syphilis. Upon the answer to the question whether this organism is or 
is not a Protozoan, ought to depend the inclusion or non -inclusion of — 
well, of how many papers, the Recorder does not care to estimate ! For 
this year, at all events, it has been considered best to leave them practically 
out of account, pending further discoveries ; though the Recorder is by no 
means oblivious of Krzysztalowicz & Siedlecki’s remarkable account 
(223), in which alleged trypaniform (Flagellate) phases of this parasite are 
described. Apart from this work, only Schaudinn & Hoffmann’s note 
regarding the discovery (406), and one or two notes (Yuillemin [498], 
Schaudinn [403 & 404]) bearing principally upon the nomenclature, are 
included. 
So far as Morphology and Life-History are concerned, 1905 has 
proved a less exciting year than the previous one, though nevertheless 
fairly productive. Among the Gymndtnyxa (or Sarcodina) ? an outstanding 
feature is the discovery by Schulze (431), as the result of his investigations 
upon certain families of Haeckel’s deep-sea Ceratosa, that they are not 
Sponges but plasmodium-forming Protozoa, which he erects into a special 
group, the Xenophyophora , allied to the Rhizopods and characterized by 
their utilisation of extrinsic foreign bodies (e.g. sponge spicules) to form 
a skeleton. A good deal of work has been done upon various species of 
Amoeba , chiefly by Neresheimer (312), Penard (335), Schubotz (427) and 
Vahlkampf (492). Lister (267) continues his valuable research upon 
dimorphism in the Foraminifera, treating in this paper of the relation in 
size of the megalosphere to that of the microspheric and megalospheric 
tests in Nummulites ; and Douvill^ (110) offers an interesting note 'on 
the structure of Orbitolina. In the morphology of the arenaceous Fora- 
minifera Kemna has a wide field over which to range, — of which he avails 
himself (207) ; it may also be remarked that variety of topic is no obstacle 
to this versatile writer. An admirable example of the combination of a- 
morphological with a biological study is furnished by Hacker’s work 
(169 & 170) on the comparative structure of the Tripylarian skeleton in 
relation to function and environmental conditions. Another important 
Radiolarian memoir is. that of Brandt (39) who has Continued his study, 
of the Collidce , supplying this time additional information regarding the 
structure and life-history of the Thalassicollce . . 
