Untitled

GROUPS PROTISTA AND MONERA. 45of the pre-existing single one. The Protista, however, as a group separatefrom both the animal and vegetable kingdoms, has no real existence,there not being, with the exception of the Diatomaceae, a single family orgeneric type included in Haeckel's tabular view of his new kingdom thatcannot with tolerable, if not absolute certainty, be referred to the former ofthese two sections.As a subordinate group of the Protista, Professor Haeckel has furtherproposed to found the class of the " Monera " for the reception of allthosetypes, externally corresponding with ordinary Rhizopoda and Radiolaria,in which as yet the possession of a distinct endoplast or nucleus hasnot been demonstrated, and which are consequently regarded by him asexhibiting an essentially lower type of structure. The progress of modernscientific discovery has, however, so curtailed the boundaries of thissupposed Moneran class, that further exploration in the same directionbids fair to deprive its illustrious founder of all interest in it beyondthat of an empty title. Up to a very recent date the members of theextensive and important order of the Foraminifera were presumed to exhibitthis specially simple structural type, and were in consequence relegatedby Haeckel to, and formed the most important constituent of, his classMonera. Following Haeckel's lead, such a position among the so-calledMonera is allotted to the Foraminifera in Professor Huxley's 'Anatomy ofthe Invertebrata,' though in a supplement to the same work (p. 658), thediscovery of distinct nuclei in many genera of this order by the independentinvestigations of Schultze and Biitschli is alluded to as carrying with it thenecessity of their withdrawal from this position.* A similar demonstrationof the possession of nucleolar structures in the few remaining organismsrelegated to this group will not improbably result from their further carefulexamination, with the assistance of the special treatment resorted to in thecase of the Foraminifera. Finally, it is altogether questionable whether thepresence or absence of a nucleus or endoplast can be accepted as furnishinga distinct and reliable character even for specific diagnosis. This structure,as shown at greater length in the chapter devoted to the organization ofthe Infusoria, is evidently in many instances an accompaniment only of thematured and reproductive phase.Dismissing as entirely unnecessary and untenable, the proposed substitutionby Professor Haeckel of an intervening kingdom of the Protista,it has been elected here to fall back upon the old lines, and to indicate asnearly as may be, the most salient features of distinction adopted, thoughperhaps somewhat arbitrarily, in this volume for the separation of theanimal and vegetable series. The purpose of this treatise being thedescription and exposition of the structure and life-historyof those* The presence of nucleus-like bodies in the Foraminiferal type Halyphysema Tumanowiczii,Bwbk. (Squamulina scapula, Carter) has likewise been noted and figured by the present author in anarticle on the nature and affinities of this 'species, published in the Annals and Magazine of NaturalHistory ' for July 1878 ;such discovery being confirmed by Professor E. Ray Lankester's subsequentinvestigation of this form reported in the ' Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science ' for October1879.