88 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. 



the mass of internal protoplasm wonkl represent the residual nucleus (niicleo di 

 reliquai) of the spore. The homology is deiuoustrated with all the greater proba- 

 bility, inasmuch as, aB in the gregarine and coccidian spores, the nninber of the 

 falciform bodies is constant with the species, ao also in the Mi/.rosporidia the number 

 of the polar bodies is constant in the did'erent species, and the residual nucleuB 

 would serve to feed them within the spore and perhaps to determine their exit at 

 maturity. There would thus be explained what was seen by Balbiani, viz, the exit 

 of the i)olar bodies at maturity without having recurrence to the forced interpreta- 

 tion of fecundation (which would not be constant) or to the unsatisfactory inter- 

 pretations of liiitschli. We can thus see in the spore of the Miixosporidia all the 

 parts that are encountered in that of the typical Kporozoa (the Gregarines and Coc- 

 ciVZirt), and in this waj' more easily discover the zuologic link which connects these 

 groups with the Myxosporidia. 



Perugia* accepts the Leuckart-Biitsclili tlioory that the fihiments 

 are organs of iixatioii. He compares them to the long filaments of the 

 eggs of parasitic Trcmatodes. This writer has, however, followed 

 ]\Iingazzini\s error, and confounded the ribbonettes (described b}^ Bal- 

 biani in My.roholus elli^jsoides, p. 223) with the capsular filaments.^ It is 

 necessary to direct special attention to tiiis error or we sliall soon find 

 an elaborate table of structural synonymy a necessity. He says: 



Baroiani compares them to organs of dissemination such as the elaters of the Equiseti. 

 Having afterward observed that sometimes this filament is coiled around another spore he 

 saw in them an organ of cojiulation. Thclohan asserts that he has observed that many 

 spores are destiliite of such a filament and eviiiccs an inclination to regard the filamentous 

 organs as accidental productionH{!) [Italics my own for errors.] 



Pfeiffer^ regards the filaments as organs of movement or attachment, 

 saying: 



Probably this organ is no thread-cell, but serves for i>rogression or attachment. 



He'' asserts that these structures also occur with the falciform germs 

 of Miescher's tubes, and says that the spores of the Myxosporidia and 

 Sarcosporidia are, according to his representation, not at all so widely 

 different from one another. Further, in the description of fig. Y, he says : 



A well-developed falciform corpuscle; to the right the large colorable nucleus; to 

 the left a noncolorable indefinite body with a beak-like process at the left pole 

 (thread-cell?). 



Thus, in spite of the unqualified statement in the text, there appears 

 to be no certainty as to the nature of the structure in question. Turn- 

 ing to the figure, all that can be said is that it is entirely too indefinite 

 to sustain the weight of the assertion of its capsular nature, against 

 which view the verdict of " not proven " must be placed. 



' Boll. Scientif., Pavia, 1890, xir, p. 137. 



-Th^lohanhas recently jiointedout Perugia's error (IJull. Soc. philomat. Paris, 1892, 

 IV, p. 167). 



3])ie I'rotozoen als Kranklieitserreger, 1 cd., 1890, ]>. 47; 2 ed., 1891, pp. 17, 132. 



*Jbid.,l ed., pp. 47 (and footnote), 99, plate, (ig. v; 2 ed., p. 183. It will be noted 

 that Pfeifi'er says nothing of, nor do his lignres show, any extruded lilaments. 

 Nothing short of this could be accepted to prove the capsular nature of the body iu 

 buestion. See also pi. 7, tig. 5. 



