198 CHARLES L. PARMENTER 



only in order to learn whether they constitute a series which 

 would indicate that they belong to one cell. Only one set of 

 measurements was made. Consequently, the figures are not so 

 accurate as those of the other cells. Pairs 1 and 2 are readily 

 recognized because they are well separated from each other and 

 adjacent pairs. Pair 8 which stood out clearly in figures 33, 34, 

 and 36, occupies a similar position here, but its homologues 

 according to these less correct measurements differ about 4 mm. 

 in length. The relative positions of the pairs practically dupli- 

 cate those of the other cells, I have not attempted to make 

 corrections for foreshortenings, but as nearly as I can judge, the 

 chromosomes of pair 1, if corrected for foreshortening, would 

 differ in length a little more, homologues of pair 2 would differ 

 less in length, and the homologues of pair 8 are foreshortened 

 about equally. Approximately the same condition exists in the 

 other pairs, so that the matching as indicated would not be 

 disturbed sufficiently to alter the grouping of the pairs. In 

 this cell chromosomes of pair 12 differ by approximately 10 mm., 

 which recalls a second time the condition in pair 9 of figure 33. 



Further consideration of the form of the chromosomes in all 

 these figures furnishes additional strong evidence that the chro- 

 matin is definitely organized. As indicated in anaphases, the 

 general form of the chromosomes in the metaphase of these 

 somatic mitoses is determined by the point of spindle fiber 

 attachment. The complexes represented in figures 27 to 32 are 

 early metaphases, and the final form which the chromosomes will 

 take is quite apparent, although in some cases (e.g., pair 8, 

 fig. 27) it is not entirely clear. 



In all of these figures, as pre\dously mentioned, the form of 

 the homologues of each pair is practically the same, even in 

 cases where the final form has not been reached. Only three 

 pairs (5, fig. 29; 7, fig. 30; 5, fig. 31) are exceptions, and this may 

 be expected as indicated by a like condition in the heteromorphic 

 pairs of certain Orthoptera (Carothers, '17). A comparison of 

 several complexes from the same individual would probably 

 show this condition constant for the individual as in the Or- 

 thoptera. A further comparison of each pair in any figure with 



