80 THE CELL DOCTKINE. 



t 



between their movements and the protoplasm streams 

 of vegetable cells.* 



Leydig,t in 1856, claimed for the contents of the 

 cell a higher dignity than for the membrane or cell- 

 wall. He claimed that a cell was but frotoptasm 

 (klumpchen-substanz) inclosing a nucleus. The cell 

 membrane, according to him, was simply the hard- 

 ened periphery of the substance of the cell. 



To Max Schultze, however, as already stated, be- 

 longs the credit of having fully overturned the vesic- 

 ular idea of cells. In 1861,:}: he insisted upon some 

 modification of prevailing views, respecting the rela- 

 tion of cell-wall to cell contents, and contended for a 

 higher position for that part of the cell correspond- 

 ing to the protoplasm of Von Mohl (that within the 

 so-called primordial utricle), and showed how a care- 

 ful study of the phenomena presented by the pseado- 

 podia, extended by the various Rhizopods, might aid 

 in clearing up the life of the elements of the cell. 



He also defined the cell as " protoplasm surround- 

 ing a nucleus." The importance of this definition, 

 as stated by Stricker,§ lay not so much in the fact 

 that many cells were denied a cell-wall, as that 

 the so-called cell contents could now be made to har- 

 monize with the animal primordial substance or sar- 

 code. Schultze illustrates his definition by the em- 



* Duffin, A. B., loo. citat., p. 262. 

 f Leydig, op. citat. 



% Schultze, Max, Ueber Muskelkorperchen, in Beichertand Du- 

 bois Eeymond's Archiv, 1861. 



g Strieker, op. citat., 5. (German Ed.) 



