294 OG. CLIFFORD DOBELL. 
a net (text-fig. 11). The ‘‘chromidia” in these two forms are in 
part ingested food material and in part appearances due to 
imperfect fixation—artifacts. As I have already discussed 
the matter elsewhere I will say no more about it here. 
The only other case of chromidia which need be considered 
in this group is that of Cryptochilum. It is stated by 
Russo and Di Mauro (05a) that there is a chromidial net in 
the posterior region of this holotrichous infusorian. But they 
have also described (’05) the fragmentation and digestion of 
the macro-nucleus in the same region. Is the “chromidium” 
merely the degenerated and broken-up macronucleus? It is 
impossible to say from their account. Further, they have 
described (’05b) the conjugation of this animal, but without 
Text-FiG. 11. 
Chromidina elegans, an infusorian having its nuclear appa- 
ratus in the form of a network. (Original.) 
enlightening us as to the réle of the chromidium—which is 
neither mentioned nor figured. It may be that it is either 
a worn-out remnant of the macronucleus, or possibly a mass of 
ingested food bodies. It is useless to attempt to argue about 
it before we have more definite data. 
(9) Sporozoa.—There are some good examples of 
chromidia formation in this class of Protozoa. I select the 
following. In Himeria schubergi (Schaudinn, ’00) the 
nucleus of the micro-gametocyte undergoes an analysis into 
chromidia, which become aggregated at various points at the 
periphery of the organism and so synthesise the chromatin 
microgametes. A similar process takes place in Adelea 
(Dobell, 707) (text-fig. 12), but here a chromidial network is 
formed. In this form also, formation of macromerozoites 
from a macroschizont is accompanied by a series of nuclear 
changes analogous to those just noticed in HK. schubergi 
(Siedlecki, 799, Dobell, 07). 
