OVARY AND OVARIAN EGG OF ANOPHELES 427 
Zelle, yon welcher derselben Nihrsubstanz zugefiihrt wird, 
die Umlagerung des Kernes mit einer von fern her angezogenen 
Nihrmasse,—diese Vorginge konnten einzig und allein als 
eine Kinflussnahme des Kernes auf die ernihrende Thitigkeit 
der Zelle gedeutet werden.’ Also Doncaster (5), in his recent 
work, makes the following assertion: ‘The nucleus—in some 
way controls the metabolic activities of the cell, and its peculiar 
behaviour in the growing oocyte can only be ascribed to its 
activities ir this connexion.’ 
Chubb (4), on the other hand, denies that the oocyte nucleus 
takes an active part in yolk formation. Thus he says, ‘ The 
actual formation of the yolk spherules must therefore be 
regarded as an automatic process, which commences as soon 
as the accumulated materials in the cytoplasm attain the 
requisite degree of concentration, and which does not entail 
either increased nutrition of the ovum or increased activity of 
the nucleus’. The amoeboid movements of the germinal 
vesicle described by various authors, e.g. Bambeke (1), which 
are considered as an indication of nuclear activity, Chubb 
regards as probably being artefacts due to fixation. He 
observed oocyte nuclei in Antedon which were apparently 
amoeboid, but he shows that these are purely artefacts as 
‘In the first place the nuclear irregularity shows no spatial 
relation whatever, either to the other cell structures, to com- 
mencing yolk formation or to the position of the nucleus in 
the cell. In the second place it is only in radial section that the 
nuclear irregularity presents the appearance of Pseudopodia; 
in tangential sections these nuclear ‘“‘ processes ’’ are found to 
invariably resolve themselves into a coarse wrinkling of the 
nuclear membrane. Finally, the artificial nature of the nuclear 
irregularity is strongly indicated by the variable behaviour of 
the nucleus with varying fixation.’ 
It is very probable that this explanation does apply to many 
cases where amoeboid structure has been described, but it 
certainly does not apply to the oocyte nucleus of A. maculi- 
pennis. The high degree of branching of the nucleus in this 
ease could not possibly be regarded as an artefact due to 
