88 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. 



the mass of interaal protoplasm would represent the residual nucleus (nucleo di 

 reliqiiat) of the spore. The homology is denion.stiated with all the greater proba- 

 bility, inasmuch as, as in the gregarine and coccidian spores, the number of the 

 falciform bodies is constant with the species, so also in the Miixosporidia the number 

 of the polar bodies is constant in the different species, and the residual nucleus 

 would serve to feed them within the spore and perhaps to determine their exit at 

 maturity. There would thus be explained what was seen by Balbiani, viz, the exit 

 of the polar bodies at maturity without having recurrence to the forced interpreta- 

 tion of fecundation (which would not be coustant) or to the unsatisfactory inter- 

 pretations of Biitsclili. We can thus see in the spore of the Myxosporidia all the 

 parts that are encountered in that of the typical Sporozoa (the Gregarines and Coc- 

 eidia), and in this way more easily discover the zoologic link which connects these 

 groups with the Myxosporidia. 



Perugia^ accepts the Leuckart-Biitsclili theory that the filaments 

 are organs of iixation. He compares them to the long filaments of the 

 eggs of parasitic Trematodes. This writer has, however, followed 

 Mingazziui's error, and confounded the ribbonettes (described by Bal- 

 biani in Myxohohis elli])soi(lcs, p. 223) with the capsular filaments.^ It is 

 necessary to direct special attention to this error or we shall soon find 

 an elaborate table of structural synonymy a necessity. He says: 



Balbiani compares tliem to oryans of dissemination such as the elaters of the Equiseii. 

 Having afterward observed that sometimes tlris jiUimcnt is coiled around another sjjorehe 

 saw in them an organ of copulation. Thelohan asserts that he has observed that many 

 spores are destitute of such a filament and evinces an inclination to regard the filamentous 

 organs as accidental prodactiona^!) [Italics ray own for errors.] 



Pfeiffer^ regards the filaments as organs of movement or attachment, 

 saying: 

 Probably this organ is no thread-cell, but serves for progression or attachment. 



He* asserts that these structures also occur with the falciform germs 

 of Miescher's tubes, and says that the spores of the Myxosporidia and 

 Sarcosporidia are, according to his rei^resentation, not at all so widely 

 different from one another. Further, in the description of fig. v, he says : 



A well-developed falciform corpuscle; to the right the large colorable nucleus; to 

 the left a noncolorable indefinite body with a beak-like process at the left pole 

 (thread-cell?). 



Thus, in spite of the unqualified statement in the text, there appears 

 to be no certainty as to the nature of the structure in question. Turn- 

 ing to the figure, all that can be said is that it is entirely too indefinite 

 to sustain the weight of the assertion of its capsular nature, against 

 which view the verdict of " not proven " must be placed. 



1 Boll. Scientif., Pavia, 1890, xii, p. 137. 



■■* Thelohan has recently pointed out Perugia's error (Bull. Soc. pliilomat. Paris, 1892, 

 IV, p. 167). 



3 Die Protozoen als Krankbeitserreger, 1 ed., 1890, p. 47; 2 ed., 1891, pp. 17, 132. 



*Ibid., 1 ed., pp. 47 (and footnote), 99, plate, fig. v; 2 ed., p. 183. It will be noted 

 that Pfeiffer says nothing of, nor do his figures show, any extruded filaments. 

 Nothing short of this could be accepted to prove the capsular nature of the body in 

 buestion. See also pi. 7, fig. 5. 



