6 Prot , XYIII, PROTOZOA. [1905] 
Holland, Schlumberger, Schubert, Silvestri, Squinabol, Wojoik, 
Wright and others. 
The Systematic description of Gymnomyxa is a subject upon which, as 
may be supposed, Penard has plenty to say ; in (334, 337 & 338) he adds 
to our knowledge of lacustrine Rhizopods, and in (336) decides that there 
is a true genus Amoeba , well-characterized, if difficult to diagnose. Cash 
& Hopkjnson (63) publish the first volume of a complete enumeration, 
with descriptions and good illustrations, of British fresh-water Rhizopods 
and Heliozoa. Among Foraminiferan memoirs calling for remark, two 
(359 & 360) represent Prever’s further contributions to our knowledge of 
the Nximmulitidce . With Silvestri, this author also considers (361) the 
constitution and relationships of the Orbitolince. The last papers of 
Schlumberger — whose additions to the Foraminifera are tabulated by 
Silvestri (455) in his obituary notice — relate to the Miliolidce (411), and 
to certain new genera, Choffatella (409) and, with Douvill^, Lituonella 
(413). Silvestri (449) offers some critical observations on the genus 
Baculogypsina and the Orbitoidece , on the debated form Chapmania 
gassinensis ( = Dictyoconus wgyptiensis, ) (451, 453, and, with Prever, 361), 
and in (452) engages in a somewhat heated discussion with Schubert 
(421), regarding the exact systematic value of two forms of Cyclammina. 
Teardi in Airaghi (246) describes fully the genus Rupertia and its 
species, and Checchia-Rispoh (84) does the same for Alveolina. Forna- 
sini (145) reports on Adriatio Textidaridce and in (142, 143, 146 & 147) 
continues his useful occupation of “editing” d’Orbigny’s species of 
Foraminifera and bringing his unpublished figures into the light of day. 
Among other papers notable from a Systematic standpoint are those of 
Chapman & Howchin (79), Jensen (199), and Sidebottom (442 & 443). 
As usual, the Radiolarian fauna grows apace. Hacker, in his valuable 
memoirs above referred to (169 & 170), diagnoses several new species of 
Tripylaria ; but it is to the untiring Squinabol (463), ably supported by 
J0RGENSEN (203 & 204), that the task of supplying names for new 
Radiolaria has chiefly fallen. The first of J0rgensen’s papers, it may be 
mentioned, is an earlier one, which appears to have been overlooked. As 
the result of his researches on the colonial forms Sphcerozoea ), Brandt 
(40) is now in a position to characterize and classify the constituent 
genera. 
Fewer Systematic contributions to the remaining classes of Protozoa 
require mention. Crawley (94) discusses the inter-relationships of the 
Sporozoa, and Laveran (240) reclassifies the “ Ha3inocytozoa,” by the 
simple, though not necessarily the best, method of reducing the number 
and grade of forms regarded as distinct. The arrangement and classifica- 
tion! of the Haplosporidia have been taken in hand with considerable 
success by Caullery & Mesnil (71), who have also observed certain new 
fqrms (67 & 68), Needless to say, many new Trypanosomes have been 
made known by different workers ; when, howover, as in the case of 
Novy & MacNeal’s different “types” (323), the diagnoses are largely 
based on “cultural” characters, they cannot be regarded with much 
confidence. The scanty number of Rhynchoflagellate genera has received 
two conspicuous additions in Craspedotella , described by Kofoid (215) 
and RadiozQum> by Mingazzini (299) ; and, among the Ciliates, Kofoid’s 
account (216) of new Tintinnids should be noted. 
