100 ZOOLOGY 



pancreas, liver and kidney. In most cases this repeats the work of 

 others, and demonstrates the presence of a vacuome in these cells. 

 Avel (1, 1a) made certain criticisms at this stage of the con- 

 troversy. He pointed out that a vacuome had not been proved 

 to exist in all animals, and questioned whether neutral red was 

 specific for the vacuome. Both these criticisms are theoretical, 

 and the first does not seem to hold good inasmuch as all tissues 

 examined do appear to have a vacuome. Gatenby accepts their 

 universality (35). The question of the specificity of neutral 

 red is much more open to question, and Avel does not attempt 

 to follow it up by any experiments. He says, however, that he 

 does not find that osmic deposits occur within animal cell 

 vacuoles as assumed by Parat and Painleve (see above). This is 

 corroborated by all workers. 



Parat and Painleve (108), in reply to Avel's criticism, again 

 define their position as regards the vacuome. It can be seen 

 without vital staining under good optical conditions if the general 

 topography is known. It varies in position with different kinds of 

 cells. Usually it is concentrated, but in neurons it is diffused. 

 It is frequently found around the nucleus and near the centrosome. 

 They reassert its affinity for neutral red and state that frequently 

 secretory granules may be found within. By far the most interest- 

 ing part of the paper is a series of drawings of the same type of 

 cell as seen after preparation by the methods of Dietrich, Da Fano, 

 and in neutral red respectively (Fig. 53). This does definitely 

 establish some sort of topographical relation between the vacuome 

 and the classical Golgi aj^paratus. Parat and Painleve use this as 

 evidence for the identity of the vacuome and the Golgi apparatus 

 — the classical figures of the latter being only artefacts or precipi- 

 tations on the true Golgi or vacuome. This cannot be accepted, 

 we think, as nothing more than the topographical relation is 

 indicated. It would appear that Parat is here confusing secretory 

 granules with the apparatus. It is at any rate worthy of remark 

 that nearly all his own data are collected from tissues of a very 

 definitely active secretory kind. 



Special mention should be made of the case of Helix aspersa. 

 The original description of the spermatogenesis of this animal by 



