Q 



96 NATURAL SCIENCE [December 



The historical account of the cell theory is one of the best that 

 has been written for a very long time, and the frequent apt quota- 

 tions from and references to the original memoirs breathe a spirit of 

 life into the story which one only seldom finds in these retrospective 



writings. 



Before leaving the subject of reform by change in the name of 

 • protoplasm plus nucleus ' it may be mentioned that if a new term 

 is to be given to these parts, a more justifiable one than energid is 

 that of ' corpuscle.' It is a name which is already used in this 

 sense by the zoologist: he speaks of the white blood corpuscle, the 

 bone corpuscle, etc., and its introduction into botany would be far 

 from insurmountable. To speak of a swarmspore as a ' corpuscle ' 

 would be both common sense and simple. The membrane which 

 this ' corpuscle ' manufactures might be termed a ' cell,' and we 

 should be speaking both logically and intelligibly when we spoke of 

 the ' corpuscle ' which lies within the ' cell ' when we dealt with an 

 element of the cambium, or if we spoke of an aggregate of corpuscles 

 lying within the cell when we treated of Vauchcria. When the 

 elements of cork came into view they would be cells pure and 

 simple. 



If a collective name for the living contents of a cell be required 

 we might resort to the terminology which has already been employed 

 by Professor Strasburger. A corpuscle, in the above sense, might be 

 described as consisting of cytoplasm and nucleus, and the name 

 protoplasm be applied to the cytoplasm or the nucleus, or both 

 together, whether one nucleus or many, or none, were associated 

 with the cytoplasm. 



In what has been written above I only wish to throw out a 

 few rough suggestions which may perhaps help the cytologist in a 

 small degree as he gropes in the darkness for the right path. 



It is either the wall of the cell or the living contents of the cell 

 which must be re-named. , If it be the former the difficulty will 

 fall upon the shoulders of the botanist but leave the zoologist 

 unharmed ; if the latter, much depends upon the nature of the 

 alteration. 



If we radically change things by bringing into use a new name' 

 (energid, biophor) endless perplexities will undoubtedly arise, but 

 if we resort to a word like that of ' corpuscle,' and employ it in the 

 way indicated, the troubles may be smoothed over. It is a word 

 that the animal histologist has already often used, and one that is 

 not really difficult for the botanist to adopt; it is one that is com- 

 mon sense, and which likewise would allow the term cell to be 

 brought into the same category. 



I will leave matters here, however, for others to judge and to- 

 criticise. Kudolf Beer. 



