554 Dobell, Some Remarks upon the „Autogamy" of Bodo lacertae (Grassi). 



1. My organism was, of course, observed in the frog, while 

 Prowazek's was in the lizard. I do not claim that they are 

 identical, but merely urge that similar forms exist in both. Pro- 

 wazek has himself recorded (1. c, p. 3), the presence of yeasts in 

 the lizard's gut, and I can confirm this observation. I have also 

 been able to observe*) — in the living organism — the deve- 

 lopment of 3^easts like those in the frog from very similar cysts. 

 These cysts bear a strong resemblance to round ed-off Bodos, being 

 about the same size. The „chromidia" are less refringent then 

 those in the frog's yeast. 



2. Prowazek gives no indication of the size of the „autogamy 

 cysts" of J3odo. I am therefore unable to say how far this is in 

 agrement with the cysts I have observed. These are, on an average, 

 between 4 ft and Q ju in diameter. 



3. The reason why the cysts occur together is to be found 

 by searching for them in the upper part of the frog's intestine. 

 Here the cysts are often to be found enclosed in an asc-like capsule. 

 This disappears when they reach the large intestine, only a trace 

 of the investment being there found (Fig. 2). How this capsule 

 originates, I am unable to say, having followed only a part of the 

 life-cycle of the organism. 



4. In the frog, there are at least two different species of yeast 

 — one with a thick cyst (Fig. 1, o), giving rise to thick-walled 

 yeasts, and one with a thin cyst (Fig. 1 rt), giving rise to thin-walled 

 yeasts^ Probably more than one kind of yeast also exists in the 

 lizard, 



5. Prowazek says that „Die Autogamiecysten kamen auch 

 meistens in der Vergesellschaftung mit den gametoiden Formen 

 vor" (]. c. p. 2n). Yet he figures a cyst with a different kind of 

 „chromidium" as belonging to the „gametoid" form (PL HI, fig. 67). 

 The subsequent history of these cysts is not given. I find it im- 

 possible to reconcile his statements. 



6. Finally, I may say that Prowazek's figures are not — to 

 me — entirely convincing. For example, the „dividing nuclei" in 

 figs. 71 and 73 (PI. HI) do not give me the impression of being 

 really nuclei. Again, figs. 68, 74 and 76 are, to my mind, all 

 similar conditions, in which the reserve material in collected about 

 the nucleus. Moreover, no figure is given in which the formation 

 of the second reduction nucleus is clearly shown — figs. 74 and 75 

 being somewhat doubtful. I may note, also, the remarkable diffe- 

 rence in size between the „gamete nuclei" in figs. In and 76. Fig. 80 

 and 81 are, I believe, degenerate forms (Cp. my fig. 1, pj which 

 shows the protoplasm shrunken from the cell-wall). 



4) In Lacerta muralis, both at Munich and Naples. 



