9 
346 BULLETIN : MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY. 
(the metamorphosing muscles of Anglas), or they may emigrate and form 
muscles elsewhere in the body (the degenerating muscles and the muscles 
of new formation of Anglas). 
No very important generalizations can be made from this review. 
The subject has reached a stage where it is evident that the muscular 
changes differ in the various groups of insects, and that not all of the 
muscles of the same insect undergo the same changes. Yet the impor- 
tance and significance of these differences are not known. Comparative 
researches are therefore needed. ‘Two of the investigators have already 
attempted such researches, but both attempts are unfortunate. De 
Bruyne’s results, both his observations and his interpretations of the 
phenomena observed, have already been shown by Berlese to be untrust- 
worthy. Berlese has given us an elaborate memoir full of interesting 
observations, and as accurate as could be expected when the phenomena 
observed are so complicated. His interpretations of these phenomena 
are not so fortunate, however. Judging from my observations on Cole- 
optera, as well as from personal observations on all of the groups of in- 
sects which he has studied, and from the numerous authors whose 
interpretations of phenomena he has contradicted, his fundamental idea 
of the formation of ‘“sarcocytes” from the larval muscle nuclei, and the 
development of imaginal ‘“‘ myocytes” from the ‘‘sarcocytes” is not true 
in many cases, if at all. The reasons for this statement, as far as Cole- 
optera are concerned, will be given in detail in discussing the results of 
the present paper, while the results of my comparative studies on other 
insects I hope to publish in the not far distant future. The fundamental 
correctness of the interpretations of the present paper, as contrasted with 
those of Berlese, is indicated by the fact that they are in complete accord 
with the statements of three (Rengel, Kriger, Karawaiew) of the seven 
authors who have previously mentioned these changes, while the results 
of Berlese are not in accord with those of any of the other investigators. 
Some confusion has arisen from the careless use of the word “ Korn- 
chenkugeln,” for which there is no really satisfactory English equivalent. 
Some authors have used it to signify any leucocyte containing solid 
bodies of whatever nature, or, worse yet, some have used it in cases 
where it does not appear that the cells in question are even leucocytes. 
The “ Kornchenkugeln” which Weismann found and so called are leu- 
cocytes containing fragments of muscle, either pieces of the contractile 
substance or occasionally muscle nuclei. As this is the generally accepted 
use of the word, carelessness in its use ought not to be permitted. With 
—-—_ 
