1 88 1. 39 Trans. N. Y. Ac. Sci. 



Klein.' Heitzmann discovered that what is true of the structure of 

 bioplasson in the amoeba, where a single small unit-mass of living 

 matter constitutes the entire individual, is true also of the structure of 

 bioplasson of all, even the highest, living organisms. 



To be sure, much had been previously known regarding protoplasm 

 or living matter, but the knowledge was fragmentary, until Heitzmann 

 demonstrated not only that membrane, nucleus, nucleolus, granules, 

 and threads are really the living contractile matter ; but dXso, first, that 

 this matter is arranged in a network, containing in its meshes the non- 

 contractile matter, which is transformed into the various kinds of basis- 

 substance, characterizing the different tissues of the body ; and secondly^ 

 that the tissue masses of bioplasson throughout the whole body are 

 interconnected by means of fine threads of the same living matter. 



Unless these two facts of Heitzmann's discovery are accepted, there 

 cannot be urged much against the continued use of the word " cell," 

 misnomer though it be. Ranke,^ after speaking of the " cell-wall," 

 "cell-nucleus," etc.. says: "of these component parts of the cell, one 

 or other may be wanting without the totality ceasing to be a cell. The 

 nucleoli, the cell-wall, or the nucleus may be wanting, and yet we must 

 designate the microscopic form a cell, or elementary organism." 

 Drysdale thus comments upon this quotation, viz. : " if any one 

 choose to describe a gun-barrel as a stockless gun without a lock, he 

 is free to do so; but what good purpose can it serve.' Or is there 

 even any fun in it.'' The truth is, this clinging to the mere name of 

 the cell-theory by the Germans seems to arise from a kind of perverted 

 idea of patriotism and of pietas toward Schwann and Schleiden." But 

 I think Tyson^ has the better of the argument, in saying : " the word 

 "cell" has become so intimately associated with histology, that it is 

 doubtful whether it will ever fall into disuse, nor does it much matter, 

 so long as correct notions of the elementary part are obtained." ]Sow% 

 if there were any separate and distinct " elementary part," it certainly 

 would matter little or nothing whether it were called " cell " or by any 

 other name, provided the name be properly defined and agreed upon. 

 It is not against the name but against the idea of any isolated individ- 

 ualized form-element that the objection lies. Virchow maintains, 

 " that the cell is really the ultimate morphological unit in which there 



^ "Observations on the Structure of Cells and Nuclei," Quarterly Journal of Micro- 

 scopical Science^ Jan., 1870, p. 128. " The intranuclear as well as the intracellular network 

 having, of course three dimensions, includes fibrils that lie in the two dimensions of the 

 plane of the field of the microscope, as well as tibrils placed vertically to it. The former 

 appear, of course, as fibrils; but, I should like to ask, as what do the latter appear, /. e., 

 those situated vertically. Clearly as dots, because they are seen endwise ; and for obvious 

 reasons most of them lie in the nodes of the network." 



^ The Cell-Doctrine ; its history and present state. Philadelphia, 1878, p. 12S. 



^ " Physiologie, 1872," quoted by Drysdale, loc, cil., p. 104. 



