2O W. J. BAUMGARTNER. 



Montgomery meant to explain his position and correct the error, 

 when in his criticism of Haecker in the Zool. Anz. of June 14 he 

 said: " Indeed, my position is exactly that of Sutton who argued 

 that it would be purely a matter of chance as to which daughter 

 cell a particular chromosome would enter." 



As indicated above, a brief criticism of Voinov's (32) interpre- 

 tation of the double nucleinic body will be given. If his inter- 

 pretation were correct that the nucleolus contains all the con- 

 densed chromatic matter, he is wrong in claiming that this has 

 been described only in ovogenesis. I would refer him to Black- 

 man's (i and 2) works on Myriapods. 



But he is wrong in saying that the nucleolus and accessory 

 always approach each other in the later growth period. They 

 may be close together in the early part of the growth period, as 

 shown in Fig. 6. The nucleolus may become pale and disap- 

 pear far removed from the accessory. The latter does not dis- 

 appear. Voinov says, as Blackmail (i) has found in Myriopods, 

 that the nucleolus acts as a reservoir for the chromatin during the 

 rest stage. I doubt this for Gryllus, because the nucleolus is not 

 largest when the chromatin is least apparent in the spireme. 

 Voinov (32) was probably misled by his staining results. One 

 lot of my G. domesticns shows just such conditions that would 

 lead one to think the chromatin in the growth period is stored in 

 the nucleolus, but all my other lots refute this. 



In the "Observation" above I criticised Montgomery's (22) 

 description of synapsis. This is a criticism of the stage as he 

 described it in Pentatoma and by implication in Gryllus. I do 

 not find a massing as he described it in " Synapsis," but rather a 

 looping as described in " Post-synapsis." This is the stage that 

 Montgomery (25 and 26) has emphasized in his later papers. 

 The ovocytes in the Gryllidae show the loops crowded to one 

 pole of the nucleus, as Montgomery has described in Peripatus 

 and certain salamanders. The loops in the crickets are also 

 present in the reduced number and are probably formed, as 

 Montgomery has suggested, by the union of the parental chromo- 

 somes into pairs. He finds that the closer union is at the cen- 

 tral pole, but my material shows more free ends at the central 

 pole (see Fig. 36). I should conclude that the closer union is at 



