The On/tiHixni <in<l its Protoplasm 



But the most vital point at which the teachings of the 

 essay are contravened b\ the dogma that protoplasm is the 

 physical basis of life; that is, that "all life is one" and that 

 its basis, protoplasm, is "essentially identical" in all living 

 beings, involves quite another matter than that of the rela- 

 tion between nucleus and protoplasm. That what Schultze 

 actually says comes far from implying such identity I shall 

 now point out. The crucial part of his discussion of the 

 relation between plant protoplasm and animal sarcode is 

 introduced by a brief reference to his studies, previously 

 published, on rhi/opods. This reference he thinks important 

 as a starting point for the comparison, in that the rhizo- 

 pods furnish a solution to the "question of what in reality 

 the unformed contractile substance of the Protozoa is." 

 He remarks that Sarcode, brought into prominence by Du- 

 jardin, had become discredited because given too wide and 

 indefinite an application. The term as used by Dujardin 

 was intended to apply to a "contractile substance which 

 can not be resolved into cells* and which does not contain 

 other contractile form-elements, as fibers and so on." 1D But, 

 Schult/e contends, a substance of this sort is exactly what 

 we find the protoplasm of cells to be, and supports his con- 

 tention by instancing the contents of many plant and animal 

 cells, especially where, as in the cells of the hairs of Trades- 

 cfuitia, protoplasmic movements within the cell can be wit- 

 nessed. Concerning the substance of these cells, he says 

 there can hardly be a doubt that "we have to do here with 

 a contractile substance in the same sense as it constitutes 

 the body of many rhi/opods." Since, then, Schultze rea- 

 sons, the term Sarcode was employed originally to designate 

 a substance which is now brought into the same category as 

 Protoplasm, "Sarcode" should be dropped. 



