462 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [JUNE 
ihre Verastelung nach der Schlauchmembran zu. Die iiber dieses Organ 
gemachten Beobachtungen sind folgende: Durch Einwirkung von Weingeist 
und kochendem Wasser wird das lingliche Organ ganz kugelrund. Auch 
wird es kugelrund, wenn die Pflanze ihren individuellen Lebenslauf vollendet 
hat und sich aufzuldsen anschickt, alsdann reissen die Fasern allmalich sémmt- 
lich entzwei, und das Organ selbst fallt aus der Mitte zur Seite, und nach 
Eréffnung der Zelle, durch Faulniss, tritt es selbst zur Zelle hinaus. au 
dieser Zeit erscheint in jeder kugelférmigen Zelle, wozu sich jenes langliche 
rgan umgewandelt hat, ein langliches Infusorium, dessen Gestalt wir bei 
der schon angefiihrten Abhandlung abgebildet haben. Nach Ausbildung des 
Infusoriums 6ffnet sich nimlich die kugelférmige Zelle, und das neue Thier 
tritt heraus. : 
Figures supporting the description accompany the paper in Lin- 
naea. The earlier paper distinguishes more sharply than the quoted 
paragraph between observation and interpretation when it comes to the 
metamorphosis of the organ in question into an infusorium, the author 
concluding his observations with “So weit meine Beobachtungen, 
and then proceeds to show that probably the infusoria found about 
decaying Spirogyra originate in the organ described. In view of the 
prevalence at the time of the doctrine that infusoria take origin if a 
metamorphosis of decaying plant parts, the attempt to find a connection 
between the newly discovered organ and the formation of infusoria does 
not detract from the value of MEvEN’s contribution. Nor is the fact 
that he speaks of the organ as a “‘cell” of significance, the term being 
freely used at the time to designate in a general way any globular oF 
vesicular structure, as well as in the more restricted sense. 
It is a curious fact that this work of MEYEN’s has dropped so com> 
pletely out of the current of citation. In 1830 he reprinted the account, 
unchanged in essentials, in his Phytotomie, under the heading Thee 
bildung im Zellensaft.”3 In the section of his Physiology discussing 
the nucleus, he does not refer to this work, but later on*® he devotes 
several pages to it. He has become skeptical whether this organ ae 
rise to infusoria, but, notwithstanding considerable further study, 2¢ 
was unable to come to a conclusion regarding its nature. SCHLEIDEN 
had just attracted increased attention to BRown’s work on the nucleus 
by the important réle he ascribed to it in his Phytogenesis. MEYEN; 
attacking his rival’s theory, used as one of his arguments that the nucleus 
is lacking in many tissues. Consistent with this line of thought, mini- 
3 Phytotomie, Berlin, 1830, p. 16s. 
4 Neues System der Pflanzen Physiologie 1: 207. 1837. 
5 Op. cit. 32418. 1839. 
