316 Prof. M. Schultze on the Organization 



spectacle in the world. The mass of protoplasm, which we will 

 suppose to be of the size of a pea, soon spreads over the glass in 

 the form of a membrane, emits processes which unite like a net, 

 and in the course of a short time covers a surface of several square 

 inches with a network which forms coarse meshes in one place, 

 in another afincfiHgree, and fills the observer with astonishment 

 as it slowly but constantly changes. In this way the mass of 

 pi'otoplasm creeps along spontaneously from the place assigned 

 to it. ' Then particular parts of the network again coalesce to 

 form thicker balls, and separate themselves entirely, to com- 

 mence the spectacle again on their own account. Or if they 

 be divided artificially, even this does not disturb the move- 

 ments if the instrument be carefully managed and the sub- 

 stance lively. 



As has already been stated by De Bary, distinct ^thalia often 

 coalesce. This may be observed in small watch-glasses. At a 

 certain period of life this coalescence occurs on a particularly 

 large scale, namely when the formation of spores is about to 

 take place, for which purpose very large masses of protoplasm 

 are usually employed. 



Now, although, as may be proved directly in jEtJialium, such 

 masses of protoplasm are not produced by the enlargement of 

 a single cell, but by the coalescence of many, I assert that we 

 must not say they consist of cells. They have been produced 

 from cells, but they nov>^ consist only of protoplasm. Potentid 

 the mass contains cells, inasmuch as the nuclei, which persist in 

 it, may at any time cause the division of the protoplasm into 

 truly separate cells (as in jEthalium during slow desiccation) ; 

 but re vera no cells can be distinguished in the protoplasm, 

 for its granules may wander from nucleus a to nucleus b, and, 

 further, to nuclei x, y, and 2, without being bound to any deter- 

 minate nucleus, as, however, must be the case if we would speak 

 of cells as constituent structures in the mass in question. 



Such, in my opinion, is also the condition of the protoplasmic 

 substance of the Rhizopoda. It has hitherto been denominated 

 sarcode, and, in fact, the above statements show that it has much 

 of what constituted Dujardin's notion of this substance. In pro- 

 posing, however, to call it protoplasm in future, I believe I may 

 reckon on the acquiescence of those acquainted with the subject. 

 The word " sarcode " stood from the first so completely in opposi- 

 tion to the cell-theory, that, although we must regard it as cha- 

 racteristic, and not ill-chosen for the substance of the Rhizopoda, 

 we shall nevertheless willingly exchange it for another, in which 

 the triumph of the cell-theory even in these lowest organic 

 structures is expressed. It is true that the name is of little con- 

 sequence ; but when we can select it so that it involves a deep 



