396 NATURAL SCIENCE [December 
The historical account of the cell theory is one of the best that 
has been written for a very long time, and the frequent apt quota- 
tions from and references to the original memoirs breathe a spirit of 
life into the story which one only seldom finds in these retrospective 
writings. 
Before leaving the subject of reform by change in the name of 
‘protoplasm plus nucleus’ it may be mentioned that if a new term 
is to be given to these parts, a more justifiable one than energid is 
that of ‘corpuscle. It is a name which is already used in this 
sense by the zoologist: he speaks of the white blood corpuscle, the 
bone corpuscle, etc., and its introduction into botany would be far 
from insurmountable. To speak of a swarmspore as a ‘corpuscle’ 
would be both common sense and simple. The membrane which 
this ‘corpuscle’ manufactures might be termed a ‘cell, and we 
should be speaking both logically and intelligibly when we spoke of 
the ‘corpuscle’ which les within the ‘cell’ when we dealt with an 
element of the cambium, or if we spoke of an aggregate of corpuscles 
lying within the cell when we treated of Vaucheria. When the 
elements of cork came into view they would be cells pure and 
simple. 
If a collective name for the living contents of a cell be required 
we might resort to the terminology which has already been employed 
by Professor Strasburger. A corpuscle, in the above sense, might be 
described as consisting of cytoplasm and nucleus, and the name 
protoplasm be applied to the cytoplasm or the nucleus, or both 
together, whether one nucleus or many, or none, were associated 
with the cytoplasm. 
In what has been written above I only wish to throw out a 
few rough suggestions which may perhaps help the cytologist in a 
small degree as he gropes in the darkness for the right path. 
It is either the wall of the cell or the living contents of the cell 
which must be re-named. If it be the former the difficulty will 
fall upon the shoulders of the botanist but leave the zoologist 
unharmed ; if the latter, much depends upon the nature of the 
alteration. 
If we radically change things by bringing into use a new name 
(energid, biophor) endless perplexities will undoubtedly arise, but 
if we resort to a word like that of ‘ corpuscle, and employ it in the 
way indicated, the troubles may be smoothed over. It is a word 
that the animal histologist has already often used, and one that is 
not really difficult for the botanist to adopt; it is one that is com- 
mon sense, and which likewise would allow the term cell to be 
brought into the same category. 
I will leave matters here, however, for others to judge and to 
criticise. RUDOLF BEER. 
