104 CELL THEORY SINCE 1860. 



concluding that the general opinion now is that which 

 was first distinctly spoken out by Beale. Neverthe- 

 less, many still cling to the cell doctrine as a whole 

 in name, at least, if not in reality. At which we can 

 hardly wonder, indeed, if we accept this description of 

 it by Ranke : 



" Of these component parts of the cell [cell wall, 

 protoplasm, and nucleus], one or other may be wanting 

 without the totality ceasing to be a cell. The nucleoli, 

 the cell wall, or the nucleus, may be wanting, and yet 

 we must designate the microscopic form a cell, or ele- 

 mentary organism." We have seen also that Hackel, 

 in spite of his admission of cytods, or rather by his 

 bestowing that name on bodies which have nothing of 

 cell form, shows the same unwillingness to give up the 

 name. Now, if any one choose to describe a gun- 

 barrel as a stockless gun without a lock, he is free to 

 do so ; but what good purpose can it serve ? Or is 

 there even any fun in it ? The truth is, this clinging 

 to the mere name of the cell theory by the Germans 

 seems to arise from a kind of perverted idea of 

 patriotism and of pietas towards Schwann and 

 Schleiden. These feelings are no doubt commendable 

 and to be sympathized with to a certain extent, but 

 surely they are carried too far when we find Strieker 

 in 1870 taking no notice at all of Goodsir, and only 

 mentioning Beale once in the most cursory way. 



While we find the protoplasm generally admitted to 

 be the simplest form of living matter, and credited as 

 the agent of much vital action, and even as the ger- 

 minal substance from which all tissues proceed, ye tit 

 is far otherwise with the doctrine that it is the 



