Journal of Applied Microscopy. 565 



Returning to Englemann's fibrous spindle in the ciliated cell, the author 

 states that the only visible difference between what would be seen in a cross- 

 section of this pseudo-cone of fibrils, and one of Cohnheim's areas, would lie in 

 the greater uniformity of the former and its definite number of fibrils. If the 

 section should pass above that part of the intracellular fibers where dichotomous 

 division has occurred, the resemblance to muscle would be still stronger, as there 

 would be groups of fibrils representing divisions of the respective original fibers. 

 If it were possible to have a set of serial sections of this fibrous pseudo-cone 

 from the ciliated cell, it would show a complete analog}' to the gradual develop- 

 ment of the cross-section of muscle, from the elementary fibril to Cohnhein's 

 areas. 



Taking another set of cells far removed from those already considered, for 

 the sake of applying the explanation more widely, the author considers next the 

 plasma-structures of white blood corpuscles. Shortly, the difference in their struct- 

 ure lies in that the " Inotagmen " have been arranged, not in parallel rows, but 

 radiating from a center. We can consider that the spherical body of the leucocyte 

 is composed of many sectors, each one of which corresponds to one of Engelmann's 

 ciliary structures. The point of each fibrous disc lies in the centrosome, or is in 

 relation with it, but the fibers are infinitely finer than in muscle or epithelium. 

 Further delicacy of structure in other cases, as the red blood corpuscle, will 

 carry the fibrils below the limit of microscopic visibility, but they as certainly 

 exist as when clearly seen in the largest cell. This idea is continued to include 

 the much discussed polar radiation in mitosis. These Heidenhein considers 

 to be always present, but in many cases so small as to be below the limit of 

 microscopic vision. The cause for variation in size of fibrils is physiological, 

 and the author leaves it undiscussed. In every way the paper is most interest- 

 ing and suggestive. a. m. c. 



„..,.,,,, ,. ^ . , , » The author used three forms of amoebae 



Tsujitani, J. Ueber die Reincultur der Amce- 



ben. Centrlbl. f. Bact. 26: 666-670, for these experiments, a kind of amceba 

 1898. (Abst. in Zeit. f. wiss. Zool. 16: /^^,^^^^ obtained from hay infusion, a 

 65-67, 1899.) . •' 



second kind from dust, and a third 



from soil. They all grew in nutritive media at the room temperature, but body 

 heat was more favorable. They liquify gelatin. Since these amoebae sought and 

 ate different kinds of bacteria, the author endeavored to separate them from 

 resistant forms of bacteria, and to preserve with them non-resistant forms. The 

 cholera bacillus was used for this purpose. A mixture of finely cut straw (30g.), 

 Gigartina prolifera (lOg.), and water (lOOOg.), w^as boiled for an hour in a steam 

 sterilizer and filtered through clean cloth. After the addition of 1 to 1.5 per 

 cent, of agar, the mixture was made alkaline with soda solution in the proportion 

 of 1 to 100 parts. This mixture is again boiled for thirty to forty minutes, dis- 

 tributed, and sterilized. Finally, the condensation water of the nutritive medium 

 is inoculated with some of the material containing amoebae. After several days 

 amoebae and bacteria develop on the surface of the nutritive medium. Another 

 mixture used was an alkaline medium of 1 to 1.5 per cent, agar in ordinary 

 bouillon ("20g.), and (80g.) of water, filtered, sterilized, and hardened on a slant. 

 Later this is inoculated by a stroke with cholera bacillus, and in the condensation 



