315 



Note on Specialisation in Cytology. 

 By G. C. Karop, M.RC.S., F.R.M.S. 



Long ago, somebody, I think it was 0. W. Holmes, in dis- 

 coursing on progress, stated or quoted to the effect that formerly 

 a naturalist might justly claim to be conversant with the whole 

 body of science. Then he became either a zoologist or a botanist, 

 and later on he was forced to confine himself to one section in 

 either. Finally, he could not properl}^ style himself a coleopterist, 

 for instance, but only a scarabseist ! Specialism has, however, 

 deviated into still narrower paths since the above was enunciated, 

 as I was forcibly reminded on reading an elaborate monograph 

 on the structure of some American Hirudinea in the " Nova 

 Acta." * In discussing the anatomy of the nephridia the learned 

 author, Dr. Arnold Graf, since deceased unfortunately, objects to 

 the term ' Cytology ' as far too general. He says : t Cytology is 

 the doctrine of the cell, and is concerned with the total attributes 

 of the same, and it is improper, for purely anatomical observations 

 such as the description of cell-structures, to choose a title which 

 in itself includes both morphology and physiology. 



He therefore proposes the following elaborate plan for dividing 

 up the science of Cytology : — 



CYTOLOGY. 



The doctrine of the attributes of the cell as a whole. 



A. Cytomorphology. 

 The doctrine of the external form and size of the cell. 



B. Cytoanatomy. 



The doctrine of the intimate structure of the cell ; the organisa- 

 tion of the cell. 



* Xova Acta Acad. Leopold. Carol. Nat. Cur., T5and 72, 1S99 

 t Tom. cit., pp. 279-80. 



