320 
EEVIEWS. 
44 not defined by continuous lines, but are broken by the granules 
44 irregularly disposed along them, so that they appear as if tom; 
44 and these granules, when the animal is in a state of activity, are in 
“ continued movement, passing along the pseudopodia from one ex- 
44 tremity to the other, or passing across the connecting threads from 
44 one pseudopodium to another, with considerable rapidity.” 
Quite recently, the distinguished embryologist, Professor [Reich¬ 
ert,* has denied the fact that the pseudopodia of the Foraminifera 
ever coalesce, while the apparent granular movement he regards as 
the result of a contractile process in a substance not viscid, according 
to the view of sarcode usually maintained. The pseudopodia are, 
in his opinion, distinct organs, which, however closely apposed or 
modified for a time by contraction, return finally to their original 
form. The essay in which these curious statements (and many 
others in support of them) are brought forward is in part polemical, 
directed against the 4 sarcode-theory,’ from which Professor Eeichert 
anticipates dangerous results, and in part practical, based on actual 
observations of living Foraminifera near Trieste. As yet it does not 
appear to have attracted much attention, but will doubtless before 
long lead to a further discussion of the really interesting questions 
which it has raised. 
In Lieberkulinia\ the sarcode-body is naked, or nearly so, but in 
the closely allied Gromia it is furnished with an ovoid, membranous 
4 test,’ having a rounded orifice at one extremity. These two forms 
of Foraminifera correspond, respectively, to the .genera Amoeba and 
Arcella , or Difflugia , in the order Amoebece ( Ilhizopoda lobosa ). 
44 Between the test of Gromia and that of Arcella , indeed, there is 
44 but little difference; but between the animals which form and in- 
44 habit these tests respectively, the difference is as wide as any that 
44 is known to exist in the whole Ehizopod series; and this difference 
44 has been clearly recognized by MM. Claparede and Lachmann.” 
In Gromia the test usually assumes a brownish yellow tint. 
44 With sugar and sulphuric acid it gives a red colour; whilst by 
44 iodine and sulphuric acid it is turned to a blackish hue with a tinge 
44 of violet.” Though soft, 44 it resists the action of boiling solutions 
44 of the caustic alkalies, and that of the concentrated mineral acids, 
44 even sulphuric.” Thus it has been found to differ from cellulose, 
44 and it would seem to have some relation to chitine and the sub- 
44 stance of the horny tissues.” For most of this knowledge we are 
indebted to the researches of Schultze. The same discoverer has 
also brought to light an apparently allied genus Lagynis , which Dr. 
Carpenter refers doubtfully to the Foraminifera, thinking its nearer 
affinities may rather be with Actinophrys , an opinion held also, it 
would appear, by Dr. Wallich.J 
* Ueber die Bewegungsercheinungen an den Scheinfiissen der Polythalamien, 
insbesondere liber die sogenannte Ivbrnchenbewegung und liber das angebliche 
Zusaminenfiieseen der Scheinfiisse. Monatsb. Akad. Berlin, Juni, 1862 . 
t See Natural History Review, 1861, p. 460. 
j A. N. H. June, 1863, p. 439. His classification of the Rhizopods differs from 
