METHOD OF CELL DIVISION IX MOXIEZIA. 289 



of direct division was a deception or an artifact, or that it lay 

 within the limits of observational error, as Richards asserts 

 for all apparent cases of the sort observed by him. 



It would lc of interest to kno\v how far Richard- i- familiar 

 with the appearance of amito-i- in forms and ti--ue- \\here it is 

 jencrallv admitted to occur. I have spent considerable time 

 familiarizing myself with such material and I find many cases of 

 apparently dividing nuclei in .Uo/nYcM which -eem tn me to be 

 id i -ntii -a I in .i|)|iearance with l - \ di\ i-ion in such ti -ue-. 



And linalK . K'i.'hard- admit-- finding mniienm- " paired 

 nuclei" and nuclei l.etueeii \\hich no lavcr of cytoplasm could 

 he di-iin^iii-hed: it i- of intere-t incidentally to note that hi- 

 statement- OM thi- point concerning the duct- and vitell.iria 

 an- much less caution- than tho-c concerning the <>\arian pri- 

 mordium it-elf. And although lioih he and I have oli-cr\ed 

 inito-i-. in tin- duct-, he i- \\illin^ to .idmit concrrnini; them that 

 then- is "no certain evidence I'or amito-i-^ and th.it for miio-i- i-, 

 jierhap-. in-ultn icnt to :nt for the Drouth \\liich ha- taken 



pi.. : And on, ruling the \itellaria he -a\-. "if 



mito-i- i- not <lratl\ pto\,-,| as the -uUiciriit CaUS o| ( ,-H niill- 

 ti|>li< ation, amitOSlS i- c.-itainU lc iceinin^ tlu- 



o\ . ilium piinioidiuni hi- -talemeiit- arc much more guarded. 

 I I- ic the influence of < \ io|( ,-j. .il In polhe-c- appear-. Mo-i 

 author- are \\ illi' dmit the occurrence of a mito-i- in -oinai it- 



cell-, though thc\ \\oiilt! 1 as rank heiv-v the a--ertioii 



that it OCClirs in the i^ern; cell-. ( Vrt.iinly Mmi!i-~i,i allonl- 

 no lia-i- lor -nth a di-lim lion ami [ trd- main" other forms 

 \\e have not the -lijjite-t e\ii|ence ihat the verm cell- in earl\ 

 Stages an ditlcicnt ill an\ \\a\ from -omatic cells. The mo-t 

 that ol.-erxaiioii , ,m n-ll u- on tin- point i- that in -oine forms 

 tlu-\- appear earlv. in other- late. 



\- to \\hat con-titute- e\itlence for amito-i- Kichanl- does 

 not -eem to !> eniireK clear. A- regard- the \itellaria lie says 



"Inn for amito-i. there i- only iu-^ati\e evidence" i|>. 147 . 



\et iii the -ame paragraph he admit- that "the arrangement 

 tit nuclei in [i.iii- i-. pcrhap-, more in e\ idence here and in<lented 

 nuclei are -omeuhat more numeroii-." These oli-er\ei| facts 

 reprc-cnt condition- \\hich we should expect to tmd pre-eiit it 



