1897] CELL OR CORPUSCLE? 395 
existence of protoplasm and nuclei. Hansen cannot maintain that 
the fibres and inorganic parts of a bone are not ‘ secondary’ in im- 
portance when placed side by side with bone corpuscles, and yet 
the whole form and existence, nay, the whole use of the bone, 
depends upon their presence. 
Another, and perhaps even more analogous case, is furnished by 
the elastic fibres of certain ligaments (Ligamentum nuchae): the 
whole existence of these bands is justified by the elastic fibres they 
contain, and yet when valued against the protoplasmic corpuscles 
upon which their origin depends, these fibres must be relegated to a 
‘secondary ’ place. 
The white connective tissue fibres, the elastic fibres, and the 
vegetable membranes are all of enormous importance in the phylo- 
genetic development of the organism ; without them neither animals 
nor plants would ever have been able to rise above the state of mere 
flabby masses of protoplasm of limited size, but that which stands 
higher than race development, the existence of life is interwoven 
with the protoplasm and its nucleus. It is only compared with this 
high standard that we dare speak of the membrane of plants as 
‘unessential’ or ‘secondary.’ When Hansen, however, a few lines 
further on, indicates that those who use these two words when 
speaking of the cell-wall do so alternatively with the expression of 
‘no importance,’ he altogether misunderstands their position. 
The next few pages are occupied with a criticism, more or less 
destructive, of Sachs’ views on energids ; this is followed by a pro- 
posed improvement. The word energid shall be dropped; in such 
cases as the Siphoneae the separation of energids is artificial, and 
therefore to be avoided ; in its place the whole contents of a single 
membrane, or the whole mass of a membraneless organism, shall be 
named a ‘ biophor, whether this be uni- or multi-nuclear. When a 
‘hiophor’ is enclosed by a wall it becomes a cell. “The cell,” he 
adds, “consists always of a biophor and a membrane.” When, 
therefore, a few lines further, he says that with the adoption of this 
nomenclature there is no reason why the elements of wood or cork 
should not be named cells—cells that have lost their biophors — 
certain inconsistencies of statement become apparent. Dr Hansen 
himself points out that the name biophor has already been used by 
Weismann in quite another sense. I cannot think that it would 
be wise therefore to employ it in this new relation, as even suppos- 
ing Weissmann’s biophors do not prove all that was hoped of them, 
they certainly will take a permanent historical value, and fresh 
troubles will appear on the horizon in consequence. 
Although the last eight pages of Hansen’s pamphlet seem to me 
to be open to criticism, the fifty foregoing pages can only give 
pleasure and satisfaction to those who read them. 
