490 C. CLIFFOED DOBELL. 



proceeds (p. 443) — '^Eine Bestatigang- diesei* Befunde ist bis 

 jetzt uuv von DobelP eiugelaufen, utid zwar insofei'n, als er 

 bei Bae. flexilis zain Tell ahiiliche Bilder voi-gefunden hat. 

 Er bestreitet indes die D-.natungen Sehaudinns, weil ev die von 

 diesem Forsclier geschilderten uud seine Deutung eigeutlich 

 bedino"enden Plasmastromungen iiielit beobacliten konnte." 

 And further (p. 445) — "Vielleicht ist der negative BeFund 

 Dobeils damit za erkliiren, dass er ohne vitale Fiirbung 

 iintersuclit hat." 



Now if Dr. Ruzicka had taken the trouble to read my first 

 paper, he wouki have found that my results were essentially 

 the same as Schaudiun's; that I accepted then Schaudinn's 

 interpretation that the phenoinenon was probably a sexual 

 one; and tliat I did employ intra-vitam staining methods, 

 and was unable to convince myself that streaming of the 

 granules occurred in the living organisms on account of 

 tlieir motility.- It is in my second paper (1909) — which Dr. 

 Ruzicka completely ignores — that I have given Avhat is, I 

 believe, a definite proof that no sexual process occurs during 

 spore-formation in the disporic Bacteria. There is very 

 strong evidence that the "sexual" phenomena are due 

 simply to a suppressed cell-division. I should like to point 

 out that Dr. Ruzicka's own observations, recorded in tin's 

 paper, support my view. The " sexual act " which he invoked 

 by growing his Bactei-ia upon abnormal aud innutritions 

 media may be quite simply explained by the fact — which he 

 himself records — that the organisms divided imperfectly and 

 then proceeded to form spores without developing typical 

 colonies. Dr. Ruzicka^s incomplete observations and figures 

 of the formation of disporic individuals add nothing to the 

 facts observed and recorded by Schaudinn and myself. 

 Disporic, or coupled monosporic, individuals have already 

 been observed in many different Bacteria by man}" workei-s. 



' Here follows a reference to my 1908 paper. 



- But I have never used tliis as an argument against the sexual inter- 

 pretation of the phenomenon. That some of the granules do pass to 

 the ends of the cells I have, I think, hel^jed to prove. 



