200 KANSAS UNIVERSITY SCIENCE BULLETIN. 



relate strictly the stages of the germ-cells with those of ordinary 

 divisions. Upon this point I must again disagree with him. 

 It is impossible for any known modification of the prophase to 

 change the essential character of the anaphase, so as to make 

 it precede instead of follow the metaphase. This stage marks 

 the movements of the chromosomes from the equatorial plate 

 to the poles, and terminates when they are massed around the 

 centrosomes. How can the "synapsis" in the least affect the 

 duration or character of this process ? It is apparent enough, 

 I think, that Montgomery's subphases of the "anaphase" do 

 not belong to this portion of the mitotic cycle at all, but are 

 really portions of the telophase of the spermatogonia and pro- 

 phase of the first spermatocyte. - Further, it may be noted that, 

 even were these subphases properly included in the anaphase, 

 they would belong to the spermatogonia and not to the sperma- 

 tocytes. 



Montgomery himself seems to be rather uncertain of the posi- 

 tion of his "anaphase." In the first paper, upon EucMstus (12) , 

 it was put down as the anaphase of the first spermatocyte ; in 

 his later paper (14), upon Peripatus, it is recorded as the ana- 

 phase of the spermatogonia. Still more confusing is his use of 

 the "telophases," for in the article upon Peripatus (14) it is, 

 in the "Contents," placed as a substage of the spermatogonial 

 anaphase, and in the body of the work, page 307, as the telo- 

 phase of the spermatocyte ! Neither the anaphase nor the telo- 

 phase can, by any possible construction of their proper meanings, 

 be made to apply to the "growth period" of the germ cycle, as 

 Montgomery insists; they are the last stages of the "division 

 period," in reality. The prophase of the first spermatocyte is 

 the initial stage in the constructive process marking the growth 

 period. 



Montgomery's translocation of the terms makes the "synap- 

 sis" occur in the anaphase. This is manifestly an impossible 

 condition of the chromatin at this time, and his figures show 

 definitely enough that it is a prophase, or, at the earliest, a 

 spermatogonial telophase, that witnesses the contraction of the 

 chromatin. The objection urged in my earlier paper (17) to 

 the use of the term as a designation for the mere contracted con- 

 dition of the chromatin cannot apply to Montgomery's latest 

 use of it; for he here recognizes the justice of my contention 



