88 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. 
the mass of internal protoplasm would represent the residual nucleus (nucleo di 
reliquat) of the spore. The homology is demonstrated with all the greater proba- 
bility, inasmuch as, a8 in the gregarine and coccidian spores, the number of the 
falciform bodies is constant with the species, so also in the Myxosporidia 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 constant) or to the unsatisfactory inter- 
pretations of Biitschli. Wecan thus see in the spore of the Myzxosporidia all the 
parts that are encountered in that of the typical Sporozoa (the Gregarines and Coc- 
cidia), and in this way more easily discover the zoologic link which connects these 
groups with the Myxosporidia. 
Perugia! accepts the Leuckart-Biitschli theory that the filaments 
are organs of fixation. Hecompares them to the long filaments of the 
eggs of parasitic Trematodes. This writer has, however, followed 
Mingazzini’s error, and confounded the ribbonettes (described by Bal- 
bianiin Myxobolus ellipsoides, 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 them to organs of dissemination such as the elaters of the Equiseti. 
Having afterward observed that sometimes this filament is coiled around another spore he 
saw in them an organ of copulation. Lhélohan 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 productions(!) [Italics my own for errors. ] 
Pfeiffer® regards the filaments as organs of mevement 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 Myzxosporidia and 
Sarcosporidia are, according to his representation, not at all so widely 
different from one another. Further, inthe 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, x11, p. 137. 
2?Thélohan has recently pointed out Perugia’s error (Bull. Soc. philomat. Paris, 1892, 
Iv, p. 167). 
3 Die Protozoen als Krankheitserreger, 1 ed., 1890, p. 47; 2 ed., 1891, pp. 17, 132. 
4Ibid.,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 iz 
buestion. See also pl. 7, fig. 5. 
