122 PROTOPLASM 



As I believe that by means of the foregoing ex'pos& I 

 have sufficiently refuted and characterised Fischer's objec- 

 tions, I consider it unnecessary to enter closer into the 

 further attacks which he directs against my interpretation of 

 the smaller Bacteria as central bodies deficient in protoplasm, 

 or at least very poor in it.^ Since my line of argument is in 

 effect a simple consequence from the results which followed 

 from the investigation of the large Bacteria and GyanophycecB', 

 it may rightly be persisted in, if the objections raised by 

 Fischer against the correctness of these observations are 

 shown to be erroneous and unwarranted. That this, however, 

 is the case will, I hope, have become sufficiently clear. 



3. Some Observations on the Streaming Protoplasm of 

 Vegetable Cells 



Without having gone deeply into this subject, I have 

 nevertheless investigated casually some of the well-known 

 objects which show well the so-called rotational streaming 

 of the protoplasm, such as the hairs on the stamens of 

 Tradescantia virginica, the stinging hairs of Urtica urens, and 

 hairs of a Malva sp. The results were essentially the same 

 throughout. Almost always a very beautiful structure as of 

 longitudinal fibrillse can be observed in th'e long drawn out 



' I seize the opportunity of correcting an error which has slipped into my 

 work on Bacteria. On p. 34 the remark was made, that earlier observers 

 had already occasionally compared Bacteria to the nuclei of higher 

 organisms on account of their intense tingibility, and this was done, to 

 my knowledge, by Klebs {AUgem. Pathologic, 1887, Bd. i. pp. 75, 76) more 

 especially. Professor Hiippe had the kindness to point out to me that it was 

 he himself who at a somewhat earlier date had already enunciated this com- 

 parison (Hiippe, Die Formen der Bacterien, Wiesbaden, 1886, pp. 94, 95), a, 

 correction which I here gladly make. As I was only able to give a short 

 preliminary account of my studies on Bacteria, by reason of the work which 

 forms the subject of the present -wTitings, I lacked time to search carefully 

 through the so extensive literature of Bacteria. I therefore followed Ernst in 

 the statement in question, who made the same remark on p. 44 of his work. 

 Besides, this historical question has no very important bearing, since both 

 Hiippe and Klebs considered the relations indicated by them of the Bacteria 

 to the nuclei of true cells, as quite uncertain, and did not ascribe to them 

 any very great significance. 



