/ \ 



/ \ 



-» i 



A 



\ 



B \ 



\ / 



\ / 



C 



D 





B" 



Figure 411. — A diagram in which relationships have been suggested for the different types of eosinophil 



A 

 B 



granules that liave been observed. 



A large homogeneous sphere seen during myelopoiesis. 

 A combination of sphere and small granules arranged 

 in a square (for example, see fig. 404). 

 The type of granule often seen in the eosinophil of the 

 chicken — four small granules in a square, joined by 

 lines (figs. 177, 178). The presence of a matrix around 

 them is questionable. 



D 



and B" From the type of granule in either B or C 

 elongation of the square into either a rod or oval shap, 

 can be produced (fig. 405). The rod and oval forme 

 can be confused easily with the rods of heterophils bus 

 have no relationship. 



A transition stage leading to E, a reticulum carrying 

 small granules at the interstices (fig. 402). 



Figures 406-410 illustrate the granulocytes 

 found in turkeys. The rods in the heterophil 

 (fig. 406) can be identified readily for what they 

 are, but if they are much thinner than shown in 

 this cell, they take on the effect of a reticulum — 

 an effect that may cause them to resemble the 

 fine-granule type of eosinophil. Actually, there 

 was no confusion in the identification of hetero- 

 phils and eosinophils on the slide from which 

 figures 406 and 407 were taken because the eosin- 

 ophil (407) was so strikingly different from the 

 heterophil in both color and structure. This 

 again emphasizes the fact that among various 

 species the tinctorial qualities of cells of the same 

 type are not always alike; for example, the rods 

 of the heterophil (fig. 403) are colored about the 

 same hue as are the granules of the eosinophil 

 (fig. 407) and neither of these are greatly dif- 

 ferent from the dark-magenta bodies of the baso- 

 phil (fig. 408). 



Duplicate smears were made of blood taken 

 from some of the species listed in table 11. One 

 was fixed dry and the other in Petrunkevitch No. 

 2 and stained with May-Griinwald Giemsa. By 



the latter method the nuclear lobes were clearly 

 shown and were used for Arneth counts. In 

 the chicken heterophil (fig. 203) the rods were 

 completely dissolved and only the protoplasmic 

 network remained. The same picture has been 

 seen in the turkey (fig. 409) . This technic, how- 

 ever, produced different effects on the eosinophils 

 of these two species. In the chicken (fig. 215) 

 tlie eosinophil granules are well presei-ved, but 

 in the turkey (fig. 410) they are completely dis- 

 solved, with the result that heterophils and eosin- 

 ophils appear quite similar in this species; a close 

 examination of the two cell types in turkeys does 

 reveal a difference. The protoplasmic frame- 

 work around the eosinophil granules is sharp and 

 definite and the size of the spaces is equivalent to 

 the area of the large granules that fill them (fig. 

 407). The spaces within the heterophil vary in 

 size and are irregular in shape, and the proto- 

 plasmic network is not sharply defined. Once 

 these differences are recognized there should be 

 no difficulty in the separation of heterophils and 

 eosinophils when making Arneth counts in the 

 turkey. 



209 



