CHROMOSOMES AND ECTOPLASM 



The fact that in Roentgen therapy there is a difference 

 in the susceptibility of human cells does not vitiate the 

 argument. Among these cells those most highly endowed 

 with division and growth capacity are most susceptible — a 

 fact which does not prove that the rays are chromosome- 

 specific in their action. Rather, because of such division- 

 and growth-capacity, the cells have cytoplasm whose con- 

 dition renders them more susceptible to radiation than 

 other cells. 



As we have seen, the effect of the feebly penetrating 

 ultra-violet rays is a sharply localized ectoplasmic injury. 

 Hence, it is not the penetrating power of the rays and so 

 their power to reach the more deeply lying chromosomes 

 which is responsible for their effects. Even the more deeply 

 penetrating rays. Roentgen and radium, as Redfield has 

 shown, also affect the ectoplasm; we therefore can not 

 assume an effect of these radiations that is limited to chro- 

 mosomes only. 



Further, materials entering the cell — gases, water, etc. — 

 come into relationship first not with the nucleus but with 

 the ectoplasm. We may here reason from analogy. Take 

 oxygen consumption, for example. 



There was a time when biologists assumed the nucleus 

 to be the seat of cellular oxidations. The presence of iron 

 in the nucleus was postulated as part of the oxidation 

 mechanism. On a priori grounds one would assume that 

 oxygen entering the cell would combine with cellular constit- 

 uents lying in the cytoplasm between the cell boundary 

 and the nucleus. Now we know that this is at least nearer 

 the truth: oxygen consumption is a function of cytoplasmic 

 structure. Moreover, the attempt to demonstrate the 

 presence of iron in the nucleus of spermatozoa failed though 

 impeccable methods were used.^ What is true of oxygen is 



^ Cf. Lynch, ig22. 



349 



