1881. 39 Trans. IV. Y. Ac. Sez. 
Klein.!. Heitzmann discovered that what is true of the structure of 
bioplasson in the amoeba, where a single small unit-mass of living 
matter constitutes the entire individual, is true also of the structure of 
bioplasson of all, even the highest, living organisms. 
To be sure, much had been previously known regarding protoplasm 
or living matter, but the knowledge was fragmentary, until Heitzmann 
demonstrated not only that membrane, nucleus, nucleolus, granules, 
and threads are really the living contractile matter; but also, frs¢, that 
this matter is arranged in a network, containing in its meshes the non- 
contractile matter, which is transformed into the various kinds of basis= 
substance, characterizing the different tissues of the body ; and secondly, 
that the tissue masses of bioplasson throughout the whole body are 
interconnected by means of fine threads of the same living matter. 
Unless these two facts of Heitzmann’s discovery are accepted, there 
cannot be urged much against the continued use of the word “cell,’’ 
misnomer though it be. Ranke,’ after speaking of the “cell-wall,” 
“cell-nucleus,” etc.. says: ‘of these component parts of the cell, one 
or other may be wanting without the totality ceasing to beacell. The 
nucleoli, the cell-wall, or the nucleus may be wanting, and yet we must 
designate the microscopic form a cell. or elementary organism.” 
Drysdale thus comments upon this quotation, viz.: “if any one 
choose to describe a gun-barrel as a stockless gun without a lock, he 
is free to do so; but what good purpose can it serve? Or is there 
even any fun in it? The truth is, this clinging to the mere name of 
the cell-theory by the Germans seems to arise from a kind of perverted 
idea of patriotism and of fzefas toward Schwann and Schleiden.”’ But 
I think Tyson? has the better of the argument, in saying: “the word 
“cell’’ has become so intimately associated with histology, that it is 
doubtful whether it will ever fall into disuse, nor does it much matter, 
so long as correct notions of the elementary part are obtained.” Now, 
if there were any separate and distinct ‘‘ elementary part,” it certainly 
would matter little or nothing whether it were called “cell ’’ or by any 
other name, provided the name be properly defined and agreed upon. 
It is not against the name but against the idea of any isolated individ- 
ualized form-element that the objection lies. Virchow maintains, 
“that the cell is really the ultimate morphological unit in which there 
1 ‘** Observations on the Structure of Cells and Nuclei,’ Quarterly Yournal of Micro- 
scopical Science, Jan., 1879, p. 128. ‘* The intranuclear as well as the intracellular network 
having, of course three dimensions, includes fibrils that lie in the two dimensions of the 
plane of the field of the microscope, as well as fibrils placed vertically to it. The former 
appear, of course, as fibrils; but, I should like to ask, as what do the latter appear, 7. ¢., 
those situated vertically. Clearly as dots, because they are seen endwise; and for obvious 
reasons most of them lie in the nodes of the network.” 
2 The Cell-Doctrine ; its history and present state. Philadelphia, 1878, p. 128. 
3 ‘* Physiologie, 1872,’’ quoted by Drysdale, Zoc. c7t., p. 104. 
