M 'CLUNG : SPERMATOCYTE DIVISIONS OF THE LOCUSTID.E. 199 



certainty of this partial distribution in the transforming sper- 

 matozoa, I am rendered positive by the most careful and pains- 

 taking study. This is valuable corroboration of the observed 

 fact that the accessory chromosome remains undivided in one 

 of the spermatocyte mitoses. 



V. COMPARISONS AND CONCLUSIONS. 



The literature relating to the spermatocytes of insects was 

 reviewed at some length in my previous paper upon the history 

 of these cells in the Acrididse (17). It is not my purpose to 

 go over this same ground again except in so far as increased 

 knowledge makes it necessary. More recent papers by Mont- 

 gomery, Wilcox and others will., however, be discussed in detail. 

 The policy previously announced, of restricting comparisons to 

 results derived from insects, will again be adhered to. I be- 

 lieve that the main features of the maturation divisions are 

 essentially the same in all insects, and I desire to see this be- 

 lief either well established or overthrown. If it can be demon- 

 strated that so large a class as the insects are characterized by 

 a common process, it will be a firm basis upon which to con- 

 duct further comparative studies into more comprehensive 

 groups. On the contrary, if it is shown that there is no type, 

 even in the class, then it is useless to seek agreements between 

 widely removed species. 



(a) Nomenclature. 



A necessary basis for any comparative work is a common 

 terminology. Confusion inevitably follows the loose applica- 

 tion of names to the structures compared. This is perhaps 

 unavoidable in the early stages of an investigation, but should 

 be overcome as soon as possible. There is surely no reason for 

 continuing uncertainty after terms have received general ac- 

 ceptance. Believing this, I feel called upon to repeat my criti- 

 cisms of Montgomery's application of the well-accepted terms 

 "prophase," "metaphase," "anaphase," and "telophase." 



In reply to my previous objection directed against this part 

 of his work, Montgomery acknowledges the validity of the criti- 

 cism so far as it relates to the metaphase, but denies the appli- 

 cation to the other phases, particularly to the anaphase. He 

 alleges in support of his position that the introduction of an 

 unusual condition, the "synapsis," makes it impossible to cor- 



14-Kan. Univ. Sci. Bull., No. 8, Vol. I. 



