12 THOs. H. MoMooMEKY, IK. 



Tlii- .urn- with the fact that eggs \\hich h,i\c given off both 

 pol.tr bodic- and an- m>t Icrt ili/ed -i\c ri-e to males, as in the 

 Rotatoria i \\'hit nc\ i and -oinc Hymenoptera. 1 Ho\\ever, this 

 does not nece--arily imply that particular chromosomes are sex- 

 detcrminative even quantitatively, hut that tin- mass of all chro- 

 mosomes collectively may lie determinate e. 



8. The hypothesis neglects the part that other substances, 

 such as the cstopta-m and the mitochondria, may have in sex 

 determination. 



9. The strongest objection to the hypothesis of particular 

 chromosomes being specially sex-de!erminative remains to be 

 discussed, and it max equally well lie made against certain current 

 explanations of heredity in general. There can belittle question, 

 at least in the present state of our understanding, that chromo- 

 somes are of great importance in cellular metabolism, and even 

 evidence that they are in part enzyme masses. But these chro-. 

 niosomes, while preserving their continuity from generation to 

 generation, \\hich I hold to be abundantly established, are in no 

 sense independent units, but parts of a larger whole, the "nuclear 

 element," composed of the sum of the chromatin and linin. 

 Further, this nuclear element is not an independent unit, but 

 only a part, even if it be the most important part, of the cell 

 whole. Thus the idea is erroneous to speak of the chromosome- 

 as automatic units, for they are but parts of the cell or cell com- 

 plex. The whole, as Whitman (1893) argued, cannot be the 

 single cells or parts of them, but the entire inclusive organization. 

 For the organism acts as a whole, not simply as the sum of main- 

 parts; it is the interrelation of the activities of the many parts, 

 added to these, that constitutes tin- behavior of this major unit. 



Now to assume that particular chromosomes alone- are --ex- 

 determinant- is to disregard this complex inter-activity. At the 



-.\ taiilv \\-ll r-talilNhcd tli.u dronea "i tin- honey-bee, hornet, \\a-p 



and am all ; the n-clinvd numl-i "t i In .mio-oim^. and tlu'irii.ic mu<t have- 



ted IK-HI unl'ci lili/rd i-.y.i;^ lli.it llild piodllcrd two piil.il liodir-. "lhr\Milk 



Mcves (1907, IQOS), Mark and ( opi-l.md ">"<, i<}"~). Lain- I Srlik-ip 



(1908) is thoroughly corroborative t tin- conclusion. But this docs not prove 

 that in th<- Ilyini noptcia all uniVi tili/rd r^- x\\-<- rise to nuilrs, ioi there seem to 



ilished records oi icinal'-- i< -lilting from nnlfitilixi-d CKK^. \vhi'-h 

 ve been coll. , i,-d t,,, m tin- lit.-iatuir l.v \\ lu-eler (1903) and Slmll M 



