494 ('. ir. MAinix. 



(lie der urspruug-liclieu vordereii Geissel l)eiiaclibiirte zur 

 uiidiiliereude Membrau des neueu Tieres wird.'^ 



It would be seen from the above tbat there is hardly a 

 siij^'le point of agreement between the division of Trypano- 

 plasma cougori and 'J'ry pauopl asma helicis, and it 

 would seem ahnost doubtful whetlier the two forms can be 

 profitably united in the single genus. It would, I feel^ be 

 ])reni;i-ture to enter here into a discussion ou the comparative 

 uior])hology ol Tr^-panoplasni a congeri and the trypano- 

 somes jDroper until the rather complicated changes leading 

 up to the resting-stage in the former have been more fully 

 worked out. This I hope to do in a succeeding paper. 



Results. 



In the division of the active elongate Try panoplasma 

 congeri the following features are to be noted : 



(1) The basal granule divides. This is followed imme- 

 diately b}' a splitting of the anterior Hngelluni, and. later, by 

 the splitting of the posterior Hagellum and membrane. 



(2) The trophonucleus in the first stage enlarges, the 

 intra-nuclear chromatin condensing on the karyosome. The 

 tro|)li()nncleus assumes first a spindle and later a dumb-bell 

 shape, which persists to quite a late stage in division. The 

 karyosome appears to act as an internal division centre, and 

 no trace of individual chromosomes can be seen at any 

 st.ige of division. 



(3) The kinetonuclens increases in size and divides by a 

 simple transverse constriction. From its behaviour during 

 division it is, I think, abundantly clear that, at any rate as 

 far as Trypanoplasma. congeri is concerned, the kineto- 

 nuclens cannut be reuarded as a centrosome. 



Literature. 

 Brmiipt. E. — "• Trypanosomes et Trypanosomoses," • Rev. Scient.,' vol. 



iv. 1908. 

 Doflein, F. — • Lehrliucli der Protozoenknude," Jena. 1909. 



