1897] CELL OR CORPUSCLE ? 395 



existence of protoplasm and nuclei. Hansen cannot maintain that 

 the fibres and inorganic parts of a bone are not ' secondary ' in im- 

 portance when placed side by side with bone corpuscles, and yet 

 the whole form and existence, nay, the whole use of the bone, 

 depends upon their presence. 



Another, and perhaps even more analogous case, is furnished by 

 the elastic fibres of certain ligaments (Ligamentum nuchae) : the 

 whole existence of these bands is justified by the elastic fibres they 

 contain, and yet when valued against the protoplasmic corpuscles 

 upon which their origin depends, these fibres must be relegated to a 

 ' secondary ' place. 



The white connective tissue fibres, the elastic fibres, and the 

 vegetable membranes are all of enormous importance in the phylo- 

 genetic development of the organism ; without them neither animals 

 nor plants would ever have been able to rise above the state of mere 

 flabby masses of protoplasm of limited size, but that which stands 

 higher than race development, the existence of life is interwoven 

 with the protoplasm and its nucleus. It is only compared with this 

 high standard that we dare speak of the membrane of plants as 

 ' unessential ' or ' secondary.' When Hansen, however, a few lines 

 further on, indicates that those who use these two words when 

 speaking of the cell-wall do so alternatively with the expression of 

 ' no importance,' he altogether misunderstands their position. 



The next few pages are occupied with a criticism, more or less 

 destructive, of Sachs' views on energids ; this is followed by a pro- 

 posed improvement. The word energid shall be dropped ; in such 

 cases as the Siphoneae the separation of energids is artificial, and 

 therefore to be avoided ; in its place the whole contents of a single 

 membrane, or the whole mass of a membraneless organism, shall be 

 named a ' biophpr,' whether this be uni- or multi-nuclear. "When a 

 * biophor ' is enclosed by a wall it becomes a cell. " The cell," he 

 adds, " consists always of a biophor and a membrane." When, 

 therefore, a few lines further, he says that with the adoption of this 

 nomenclature there is no reason why the elements of wood or cork 

 should not be named cells — cells that have lost their biophors — 

 certain inconsistencies of statement become apparent. Dr Hansen 

 himself points out that the name biophor has already been used by 

 Weismann in quite another sense. I cannot think that it would 

 be wise therefore to employ it in this new relation, as even suppos- 

 ing Weissmann's biophors do not prove all that was hoped of them, 

 they certainly will take a permanent historical value, and fresh 

 troubles will appear on the horizon in consequence. 



Although the last eight pages of Hansen's pamphlet seem to me 

 to be open to criticism, the fifty foregoing pages can only give 

 pleasure and satisfaction to those who read them. 



