E. MARSHALL!. — ARCIIiEOCYTES. 171 



liim nothing else than tlie archseocyte congeries. That writer 

 did not find the same bodies in Semperella, Euplectella and 

 HoUenia ; probably in the specimens he had of these genera they 

 were, considering the metliods lie pursued in his study, simply 

 not sufficiently developed to attract his attention. 



F. E. Sciiulze's Challenger-Report contains but little matter 

 which seems to be referable to the archaeocytes. And yet un- 

 doubtedly to be considered as these are the groups of small cells 

 figured by him as lying upon the chamber-wall of an undeter- 

 mined ?Crateromorphid (/. c, pi. LXir^ figs. 7 & 8). Referring 

 to these cells the text simpl}^ says : ' Small groups of round cells 

 occasionally occur, but their import is not known ' (/. c, p. 24). 

 Again, Schulze must have had before him the same cell-groups 

 as he made the following mention under Farrea occa {I. c, p. 285) : 

 ' In many cases the external surface of the chamber-wall exhibits 

 numerous groups of small, crowded cells, with nuclei which stain 

 with special readiness. It is possible that these groups of six to 

 twelve cells are concerned with reproduction ; I have at least 

 remarked their total absence in several specimens which contained 

 numerous sperm balls at various stages.' The ' sperm ball,' or 

 ' sperm mass,' heieiu mentioned and found also in E. aspergillum 

 (I. c, pp. 24, 67) — at least in its young stage or as shown in 

 /. c, pi. IV, tig. 6 — is, I think, still another thing which is 

 identical with my arclneocyte-congeries. However, I do not mean 

 to deny the possibility of some of the congeries being a stage in 

 the spermatogenesis (see anon, under Reproductive Elements). 



I liave before dwelt at length upon the probability of the 

 archaeocytes being represented among the larger and the more 

 oval-shaped of the nuclei regarded by Schitlze to belong to the 

 connective-tissue in both E. asperc/illum and Schaudinnia arclica 



