80 CYTOPLASMIC STRUCTURES IN THE SEMINAL EPITHELIUM OF THE OPOSSUM. 



In older cells the apparatus may lose its connections with the cellular centers; 

 for instance, in certain epithelial cells, the lutein cells, cartilage cells during the 

 process of ossification (for literature see Duesberg, 1914, pages 40-41, and Ramon 

 y Cajal, 1914), and finally (if we do not accept Monti's interpretation) in the nerve- 

 cells. Then, instead of being localized at one pole of the nucleus, the apparatus 

 surrounds this body more or less completely. 



The nomenclature of these cytoplasmic constituents is unfortunately exceed- 

 ingly complicated. As to the chondriosomes, I have already explained why I con- 

 sider the term "mitochondria," taken in a general sense, as illogical and confusing 

 (1917, pp. 469-470). The mass of differentiated protoplasm which in many 

 resting cells (young ovocytes, seminal cells, cells of the connective tissue, cartilage 

 cells, etc.) incloses the centrioles, constitutes another object of confusion. How 

 little some appreciate the difference between this mass and the original "sphere 

 attractive" of van Beneden, is best illustrated by the following quotation from a 

 recent paper by Shaffer (1917, p. 416) : 



"There is no essential difference between the 'attraction sphere' of van Beneden, the 

 'centrosphere' of Strasburger, and the 'astrosphere' of Fol and Boveri; and so far as I 

 have been able to ascertain, there is no fundamental difference between these last-named 

 structures and the 'idiozome' of Meves. One thing is clear that these structures all 

 refer to the achromatic substance of the spindle, situated at the poles and usually inclosing 

 the central corpuscles." 



This is, of course, entirely incorrect. The idiozome has nothing to do with the 

 "achromatic substance of the spindle situated at the poles." The necessity of dis- 

 tinguishing between the mass of protoplasm which surrounds the centrioles in many 

 resting cells (idiozome or centrotheca) on one side, and the attraction sphere of 

 van Beneden on the other, has been emphasized long ago by von Erlanger and by 

 Meves. (For literature see Meves, 1897 and 1914, 1). What term, then, should 

 we use? I agree with those authors who believe that the term "sphere" should be 

 rejected in order to avoid any confusion with the "attraction sphere" or "astro- 

 sphere" of the dividing cell. To avoid this confusion Meves has proposed the term 

 idiozome, and later, in order to emphasize the relationship of the body with the 

 centrioles, the term centrotheca. To the first term Regaud has objected (the same 

 objection could be made to "centrotheca") for the reason that the relationship 

 with the centers does not persist during mitosis nor (in seminal cells) during sper- 

 miogenesis. He proposes the term idiosome, which Stockard and Papanicolaou 

 have adopted. There is no doubt that this name, although rather vague (or per- 

 haps because of this), has much in its favor, if only investigators could agree upon 

 it. It should be added that the term "centrosome" is also used in a very loose 

 manner, and a great number of authors unfortunately take it as a synonym for 

 "centrioles," Shaffer, for instance. 



Still more complicated and confused is the nomenclature of that body which 

 surrounds the idiozome. It is now well established that it corresponds to what was 

 formerly called "Nebenkern" in the seminal cells of Helix, by Platner (Hermann's 

 "Archoplasmaschleifen"), to some of Van der Stricht's "pseudochromosomes," to 



