NOt 2UDGUL, OF THE TERRESTRIAL L[SOPODS. 95 
van Bambeke’s deformed nuclei were not produced by the 
mechanical insults to which he subjected the tissue, but were 
already present in the living intestine. It is true that highly 
deformed nuclei are frequently found where in a preparation 
there has been a slight laceration of the walls of the intestine, 
—indeed, I have found the most extensive deformations only in 
such situations; and granting, as there is reason to do, the vis- 
cous character which van Bambeke assigns to the nuclear con- 
tents, there is no reason for doubting that deformations may 
be caused by rough treatment. But on the other hand the facts 
which I have stated above seem to me to show that in the Iso- 
pod ‘midgut’ we have to do with nuclei capable of extensive 
alterations of shape. 
These alterations in shape naturally produce in many cases 
constriction of the nucleus, and with the proof of the occurrence 
of amitotic division the supposition became admissible that 
constricted nuclei were nuclei in process of amitosis. Carnoy 
(85) devotes a brief section to the amitosis of the intestinal 
cells of the Isopods, but unfortunately he gives no detailed 
account of the nuclei on which he bases his conclusions as to 
the occurrence of the phenomenon, but simply refers the reader 
to figures of cells from the testis which “représentent exacte- 
ment ce qui se voit dans le noyau des cellules intestinales quant 
au phénoménes de la division.”’ Though I have examined many 
preparations of the intestine of the land Isopods, I have never 
seen any nuclei which I could say were exactly similar to Car- 
noy’s figures; and though I have found many constricted nuclei, 
I have never been able to satisfy myself that normal amitosis 
actually occurred. Ziegler and vom Rath (91) also maintain 
the occurrence of amitosis in the Isopod “ midgut,’’ but do not 
give any detailed evidence in support of their contention. 
When I first began the study of the Isopod intestine I inter- 
preted the lobed and constricted: nuclei which I saw as stages 
of amitotic division, but further observation brought doubts as 
to the correctness of such an interpretation. The extreme 
variety of form which occurred seemed to point rather to amae- 
boid alterations of shape than to division; and the fact that, 
notwithstanding the enormous number of constricted nuclei 
