494 EDWARD E. WILDMAN 
Thus the destiny of the refringent granules and vesicles, which 
have long been observed in the spermatocytes and spermatids 
of nematodes and of A. megalocephala in particular, is no longer 
a mystery. Every observer since the time of Munk (’58) has 
seen them, and many have been struck with the similarity be- 
tween the appearance of them and the refractive body, both in 
life and in fixed and stained material. Indeed, Nussbaum (’84) 
and Schneider (’02) suggested their true relationship, but neither 
saw any proof of it. Now, however, we have this proof, and the 
search for the true origin of the refractive body leads us to a 
study of the complete history of the refringent vesicles. 
THE REFRINGENT GRANULES AND VESICLES 
Technique 
These bodies are readily seen in unstained, living cells as 
spherical, shining granules or droplets scattered throughout the 
cytoplasm. No division has ever been observed in them, though 
if it occurred it could easily be seen. Such intra vitam stains as 
neutral red, methyl-green or methyl-blue are readily taken by 
them. But some of the nuclear structures also take these stains. 
They are fixed equally well by all the osmic fixatives and by most 
of the acetic mixtures. After fixation, as well as in life, the sim- 
ilarity of their staining reactions to those of certain nuclear 
structures is striking. Most of the stains in common use give ~ 
results which would lead one to conclude that these tefringent 
bodies are made of nuclear material escaped into the cytoplasm. 
Indeed Scheben (’05), Struckman, and Auerbach all agree with 
Munk (’58) in the belief that the refractive body exudes from the 
nucleus, reasoning only from the similar staining reactions of this 
body and the chromatin. ; 
Although it is upon such evidence that we must rely for our 
knowledge of the true relationship of the various structures in 
the cell, both nuclear and cytoplasmic, the accuracy of our con- 
clusions will depend entirely upon the selectiveness of the stain 
earlier workers considered the absence of the mature spermatozoon in the male to 
be the normal condition; and even if the rare case of its presence was observed it 
was probably interpreted as abnormal or the result of poor technique. 
