82 THE CELL DOCTRINE. 



and do not start out with the belief that the nucleus 

 is there even though wo do not see it." Facts iu 

 justification of Briicke's doubt are adduced by 

 Strieker* in the discovery by Max Schultze,t in the 

 Adriatic Sea, of a non-nucleated amoeba (Amoeba 

 porrecta), by Hseckel,:]: in the Mediterranean, of a 

 non-nucleated protozoon (Protogenes primordialis), 

 and by Cienkowsky§ of two non-nucleated monads, 

 namely, Monas amyli and Protomonas ainyli. Hsec- 

 kel says of his Protogenes primordialis that it mul- 

 tiplies by division. Stricker's|| own observations on 

 the fecundated egg of the frog, which confirm those 

 of Von Baer, incline him to adopt the view of Briicke, 

 and to omit the nucleus in a theory of elementary 

 organization.Tf 



Such is the history of and such the properties of 

 the substance known as " protoplasm." But of late 



* Strieker, op. citat., p. 6. (German Ed.)' 



f Sehultzfe, Max, Organis. d. Polythalam. 185i. 

 J Hseckel, Zeitschr. f. w. Zoolog., 1865, Bd. xv. 



I Cienkowsky, Max Sehultze's Archiv, 18G5. 



II Strieker, op. citat.. New Sydenham Society's Translation, 

 vol. i, p. 8, London, 1870. See also Strieker's paper On the De- 

 velopment of the Simple Tissues, in vol. iii, London, 1873. 



][ Hseckel' also considers that by no phenomena is the correct- 

 ness of the " protoplasm theory" so thoroughly proved, and at the 

 same time in so simple and unassailable a manner, as by the vital 

 phenomena of the Monera, by the processes of their nourishment 

 and reproduction, sensitiveness and motion, which entirely pro- 

 ceed from one and the same very simple substance, a true " primi- 

 tive slime." 



* Heeckel, Ernst, Monograph on the Monera, and Kemarks on the Protoplasm 

 Theory. Q. Jour. Mic. Soi., N. S. vol. ix, 1869. 



