KUNSTLER'S OBSERVATIONS 185 



of Flagellata which he had studied closely. According to 

 his observations, it consists of numerous protoplasmic 

 spherules (" spherules protoplasmiques "), which, placed in 

 close apposition to one another, huild up the protoplasm, as 

 cells build up a cellular tissue. That an analogy of this kind 

 was of great significance for the origin of Ktinstler's con- 

 ception of protoplasm may be plainly seen in the descrip- 

 tion given by him. Every such protoplasmic spherule 

 is supposed to consist of an external dense and firm wall 

 with fluid contents ; it is therefore, properly speaking, a 

 vesicle. In consequence of this structure, protoplasm 

 frequently appears to be composed of closely packed 

 vacuoles of the minutest size, separated inter se by very 

 delicate partitions of a denser nature (1882, p. 86). 



Although this conception might well excite some surprise 

 at the outset, in the form, i.e., in which Kiinstler brought 

 it forward, and in combination with his peculiar views on 

 the anatomy and biology of the Flagellata, which would raise 

 these Protozoa to the rank of highly complicated beings, 

 still it appeared very probable, all things considered, that 

 observations upon the reticular structure of protoplasm had 

 led him to these peculiar interpretations of its nature. Hence 

 in 1883 (Protozoa, p. 681) I expressed myself to that effect. 

 More recent observations of my own upon certain Flagellata, 

 as well as the beautiful and in many respects important studies 

 which Kiinstler has recently (1889) devoted to this group, 

 place it beyond all doubt that I was perfectly in the right 

 when I gave this interpretation to the' statements made by 

 Kiinstler in 1882. In his last work Kiinstler gives a great 

 number of very good representations of the honeycomb 

 structure of the protoplasm, chromatophores, nuclei, etc., of 

 ^hese Protozoa — in fact, he believes, as formerly, that he can 

 observe signs of such a structure even in the flagella, which 

 I have never yet succeeded in doing. Thus, as regards 

 matters^ .of fact, there is a pleasing agreement between 

 Kiinstler au!| myself, except on one point, which I must say 

 I find in man^^jespects very difficult to explain. In 1882, 

 and again also iii 1889, Kiinstler states that the manner 

 in which he has d^^a,wn the honeycomb structure in his 



