THE NAMING OF SPIROCH^TES 85 



of the internal structure of his organism, while his 

 pictures also gave no detail. S. plicatilis had been 

 lost sight of for many years, but in 1910, an account 

 of the organism was given by Fraulein Zuelzer and 

 another by Professor Doflein, while the work of 

 Schaudinn (1905) contained yet another account of 

 S. plicatilis. But the accounts thus given by three 

 recent writers are so diverse from one another, and 

 their illustrations also differ so considerably, that one 

 is forced to the conclusion that the workers con- 

 cerned must surely have been dealing with different 

 organisms, while there is a possibility that neither 

 of them was really examining S. plicatilis. Conse- 

 quently any classification based on resemblances 

 with, or differences from, 5. plicatilis are necessarily 

 on an insecure foundation. 



Again, the founding of Cristispira based on an 

 incomplete knowledge of the organisms was very 

 unfortunate, for since the name was coined, a large 

 amount of evidence has accumulated which shows 

 plainly that the spirochsetes found in pond-water, 

 the spirochaetes found in the gut or crystalline style 

 of molluscs, the spirochsetes of insects, and the 

 spirochaetes inhabiting the blood of birds and of 

 mammals have the same life-cycle. Each form 

 produces ovoid bodies (spores), which are able to 

 elongate and grow into the typical spirochaetes, the 

 methods of multiplication by fission into two are 

 found in each case, while the internal structure is on 

 the same plan in each of the organisms concerned. 

 With the further details of the life-history and the 

 elucidation of the common plan running through all, 



