REVIEWS 721 



acquaintance with the literature relating to cells. It is also clear that he has 

 never seen a properly prepared cytological specimen under appropriate con- 

 ditions, for he says, "when a cell is stained and fixed, it appears as if the nucleus 

 is a mass of chromatin" (p. 149). His wholesale condemnation of fixed and 

 stained specimens shows that he is not aware that the effects of reagents have 

 been constantly in the minds of observers and that observations upon such 

 specimens have frequently been checked by comparisons with the living cells. 

 Further examples are unnecessary to show that Mr. Ross has not taken sufficient 

 trouble in finding out what had been done before he began to make investigations 

 upon his own account. He has also either read carelessly or failed to understand 

 the few authors whose writings he quotes, even with regard to cancer. He 

 quotes Farmer, Moore and Walker on more than one occasion. According 

 to him, the great point made by these authors was that " asymetrical maiotic 

 mitoses" were found in cancer cells (p. 135). Apart from any consideration 

 of the observations of Farmer, Moore and Walker, their whole point was the 

 occurrence of " symetrical " reduced mitoses in cancer cells, in addition to the 

 asymetrical divisions previously described by Klebs, von Hansemann and Galeotti. 

 The author defines a " mutation," emphasising the fact that the word is used 

 in the technical sense, as " an acquired characteristic suddenly becoming 

 hereditary for all succeeding generations " (p. 245), the context showing that 

 he uses " acquired " as opposed to inborn. Such mistakes are almost as numerous 

 as his quotations. 



Mr. Ross makes general statements with regard to cancer which, though they 

 agree with his theory, will not be readily accepted. For instance, he says that 

 scirrhus of the breast is commoner in women who have had children than in those 

 who have not. Statistics show exactly the contrary. The only recognisable 

 illustration given as a section of a malignant growth is evidently chronically 

 inflamed skin, and he has labelled it scirrhus of the breast. 



It is evident, therefore, that though Mr. Ross began his investigations with an 

 open mind, untrammelled by any preconceived ideas, he was also at a considerable 

 disadvantage. The gamekeeper can see a hen-pheasant sitting on her nest 

 which is invisible to the town-bred man with equally good eyesight. So it is 

 with all kinds of observations and though Mr. Ross deserves credit for finding 

 out for himself that the nucleus is spherical and not flat, his observations cannot 

 be accepted as readily as those of men whose previous observations have been 

 confirmed by trained investigators. That he did not know how to use his 

 microscope to the best advantage is suggested by the fact that he employed an 

 eye-piece unsuitable for use with an apochromatic objective. This also accounts 

 for the badness of his photographs. 



To put it briefly, Mr. Ross has produced certain changes in dying leucocytes 

 which he interprets as mitoses. Granules in the cytoplasm of the cells which he 

 identifies as "Altmann's granules," he says form the chromosomes. This is not 

 the place to discuss what name should be applied to these cytoplasmic structures. 

 Whether they are called Ehrlich's or Altmann's granules or microsomes, chondrio- 

 somes or mitochondria, is immaterial— it is quite certain that they are not what 

 Mr. Ross says they are, for they can be demonstrated in a dividing cell with its 

 full complement of chromosomes. Under the conditions of the author's experi- 

 ments the leucocytes are placed in media which vary to a greater or lesser 

 degree from the isotonic and this in itself would be sufficient to account for the 

 crowding together of the granules, for alterations in the shapes of the cells and 

 of their nuclei and for other appearances which would surprise the untrained 



47 



