2. There is considerable disagreement among the investigators of the nuclear phenomena of amebas as to the actual events occurring during the division process. Cf. Dobell (’14) and Hartmann (’14) _in re Amoeba lacertae_; Nägler (’09), Gläser (’12) and Wilson (’16) on the presence of a centriole in amebas; etc. The work of Schardinger (’99), Wherry (’13) and Wilson (’16) on the nuclear stages of amebas was done with care, yet Wilson (’16) still remains in doubt as to whether or not these investigators all worked on the same species. 3. Awerinzew (’04, ’06) found that the nuclear changes in _Amoeba proteus_ are similar to those in the heliozoan _Actinosphaerium_; there being thus greater correspondence in the nuclear changes between species belonging to different orders than there is between species in the same genus. Logically therefore _Actinosphaerium_ would have to be placed in the same genus with _Amoeba proteus_. 4. There is the great practical objection that in many of the larger species it is extremely difficult to find suitable division stages even though thousands of individuals are at hand, and the search is continued for days and weeks by an experienced investigator (Dobell, ’10). Experimental work, which is usually done with one of the larger species, would thus be greatly handicapped because of the great difficulty in determining the nature of the organism employed. From these considerations it appears that the attempt to classify the amebas on the basis of the nuclear changes is highly artificial and exceptional, and if we may judge from past attempts to classify organisms on the basis of a single character, is foredoomed to failure. This conclusion does not apply, however, to very minute amebas in which no specific cytoplasmic characters have yet been established, chiefly because of their very minuteness; such amebas could be given specific names for reference but they could not be classified in a natural system excepting perhaps as a group.