The invincible obstinacy with which Ehrenberg maintained his preconceived opinion of the high organisation of the Radiolaria, and entirely ignored the contrary observations of other naturalists, is explained by the consistency with which he held to the end the "principle peculiar to himself of the universally equal development of the animal kingdom" (L. N. 16, p. 7). From the complicated arrangement of their siliceous shells he concluded that the animals inhabiting them must possess a structure correspondingly complex, and nearly related to that of the Echinodermata (Holothuria). Like all other animals the Radiolaria must possess systems of organs for locomotion, sensation, nutrition, circulation, and reproduction. Whilst Ehrenberg originally interpreted the Polycystina as siliceous Infusoria polygastrica, and regarded them as compound Arcellina, he afterwards classed them sometimes with the Echinodermata (Holothuria), sometimes with the Bryozoa, sometimes with the Oscillaria (see L. N. 41, p. 336). Although a decided opponent of the cell-theory he called them "multicellular animalcules" (Polycystina), interpreting the pores of the siliceous shell as cells. To-day the opposite term (Monocystina) might be adopted to express their unicellular organisation. It was a remarkable irony of fate that in the self-same year (1838) in which Schwann of Berlin made by his foundation of the cell theory the greatest advance in the whole {clxxxv}of Biological Science, that Ehrenberg, all his life the most zealous opponent of that theory, published his great work on the Infusoria, and at the same time established the "family of multicellular animalcules or Polycystina" (L. N. 16, p. 4). The "short systematic survey of the genera of cellular animalcules" given by Ehrenberg in 1875 (L. N. 25, p. 157), is only a new edition, increased by sixteen genera, of his first systematic arrangement of the Polycystina of 1847 (L. N. 4, p. 53). Since I have already given a full discussion of this in my Monograph (L. N. 16, pp. 214-219), I need only here remark that a correct understanding of his very inadequate generic diagnoses is only possible by the aid of his figures. Relying upon these I have retained almost all Ehrenberg's genera, although entirely new definitions of most of them have been necessary.