222 Unirersity of California Puhlirations in Zoology [Vol. 16 



and amoeboid changes in the body-form are entirely lacking. Gelei 

 (1913, pi. 7, figs. 28, 29, 31, 32) has also described a process of longi- 

 tudinal division in T. horreli as well as the transverse one shown here, 

 but his figures do not bear out his interpretation. 



The chief point of difference in the two structures here compared 

 is found in their relative positions. In Polymastix bufonis the para- 

 basal body has migrated posteriorily to a position immediately sur- 



Figs. 51-57. Polymastix bufonis (Dobell). X 2066. • Fig. 51. The same stage 

 as in Fig. 50. Fig. 52. Early telophase; parabasal body still undivided. Figs. 

 53, 54. Telophase. Fig. 55. Telophase; constriction of parabasal body. Fig. 

 56. The same stage. Fig. 57. Telophase; organelles completely divided. 



rounding the nucleus, and remains connected with the blepharoplast 

 by a fibril, while in Trypanoplasma it is connected directly with the 

 blepharoplast, or by a very short fibril only, and its long axis coin- 

 cides with the long axis of the cell, the reverse of which is true in 

 Polymastix. The relative positions of this organelle with reference to 

 the nucleus and blepharoplast are by no means constant in Trypano- 

 plasma, as the figures of Gelei (1913) abundantly prove. His plate 

 7, figure 7, shows the blepharoplast and parabasal body occupying 

 opposite ends of the cell with the nucleus between them. This is an 

 extreme ease, but various intermediate stages are also figured. 



