CHROMIDIA AND THE BINUCLEARITY HYPOTHESES. 301 
vations, we must inquire, “ What is this chromidial apparatus?” 
The evidence that it is chromatin from the nucleus is not—to 
me—convincing, but it has been widely accepted. The most 
important evidence yet brought forward in opposition to 
Goldschmidt is that of Vejdovsky (07). This investigator— 
and his opinion is of special weight, owing to his long experi- 
ence in matters of vermian cytology—has examined another 
species of Ascaris (A. ensicaudata) with this result. He 
finds! remarkable fibrillar structures, which “must be 
regarded as only a supporting framework” of the cell. He 
believes that Goldschmidt’s ‘‘ chromidia”’ are merely broken 
Trxt-Fic. 19. 
Musele-cell of Ascaris lumbricoides, showing structure of 
cytoplasm in a fixed and stained cell. (Original.) 
up parts of this fibrillar system—in reality artifacts due to 
the methods employed. (Cf. fig. 18.) Ashe himself concisely 
expresses it, “‘The chromidial apparatus described by Gold- 
schmidt represents the strands of the ‘normal’ fibrillar frame- 
work—much damaged and torn as a result of the violent 
action of the reagents employed—which is probably derived 
from the original ray-system of tne centroplasm.” (Vejdovsky, 
°07, p. 89, and cf. Fig. 19.) With regard to the staining 
reactions of these fibrils, Vejdovsky further adds that the 
strands of the “ primary centroplasm” in Fridericia also 
1 These supporting fibrils have been long known to cytologists—in- 
cluding, of course, Goldschmidt. 
