35 I0 



absolute extinction of this argument still, all the Ger- 

 man physiologists do not accept even the protoplasm- 

 cell. Rindfleisch, for example, in his recently-published 

 * Lehrbuch der pathologischen Gewebelehre,' speaks of 

 the cell very much as we understand Virchow to have 

 spoken of it. To him there is in the cell not only pro- 

 toplasm but nucleus, and perhaps membrane as well. 

 To him, too, the cell propagates itself quite as we have 

 been hitherto fancying it to do, by division of the nu- 

 cleus, increase of the protoplasm, and ultimate parti- 

 tion of the cell itself. Yet he knows withal of the 

 opinions of others, and accepts them in a manner. He 

 mentions Kiihne's account of the membrane as at first 

 but a mere physical limit of two fluids a mere pe- 

 ripheral film or curdling ; still he assumes a formal and 

 decided membrane at last. Even Leydig and Schultze, 

 who shall be the express eliminators of the membrane 

 the one by initiation and the other by consummation- 

 confess that, as regards the cells of certain tissues, they 

 have never been able to detect in them the absence t of 

 a membrane. 



As regards the nucleus again, the case is very much 

 stronger. When we have admitted with Briicke that 

 certain cryptogam cells, with Haeckel that certain pro- 

 tists, with Cienkowsky that two monads, and with 

 Schultze that one amoeba, are without nucleus when 

 we have admitted that division of the cell may take 

 place without implicating that of the nucleus that the 

 movements of the nucleus may be passive and due to 

 those of the protoplasm that Baer and Strieker dem- 

 onstrate the disappearance of the original nucleus in 

 the impregnated egg, when we have admitted this, we 

 have admitted also all that can be said in degradation 



