576.3 



"' 9 2 [December 



III 



Cell or Corpuscle ? 



/^~\NE of the youngest and most vigorous among the sciences is 

 ^S that which has been named Cytology. 



Its strength, in all probability, is due to the fact that it has 

 sprung from a broad foundation, and that it still rests, not upon one r 

 but many pillars of support. The botanist, the zoologist, the physi- 

 ologist, divergent from one another as their daily walks unfortunately 

 are, yet agree to join hands over the common basis of their sciences 

 — the organic cell. 



With such splendid results already gathered into its encompass 

 and with the hope and promise of such a brilliant future before it, it 

 is all the more to be regretted that the language of Cytology is not 

 only in contradiction to common sense, but such that it must assuredly 

 lead to endless perplexities. 



The word cell, the very watchword of the science, is one that in 

 this mouth means one thing, in that quite another. 



Dealing with the lower plants, the botanist will speak of the 

 ' swarmspores ' as cells, whilst when he turns to the phanerogams 

 he will apply the same term to the elements of cork or sclerenchyma, 

 notwithstanding the fact that the former consist of protoplasm and 

 nucleus without a cell wall, whilst the latter are composed of cell 

 walls without either protoplasm or nucleus. 



Such inexactitude as this, such a want of definite expression, 

 must hang as a burden around the neck of the science, impeding its 

 progress at every turn. 



More especially is it from the side of the student of vegetable 

 life that this confusion is felt, the zoologist, although he uses the 

 word cell in a sense which stands in flat contradiction to its every- 

 day meaning, yet attaches a significance to it which is clear and 

 precise in his own mind. 



However desirable, therefore, it may be for a more common sense 

 terminology to be introduced into zoology as well as botany, it is not 

 absolutely essential for scientific advance. When it is remembered 

 also that any change of nomenclature in this respect must involve 

 with difficulties the immense mass of zoological literature which has 

 gathered together since 1839, it should make us pause before we 

 suggest giving up the word cell, in the zoological sense, in favour of 

 energid or biophor. 



