618 THE AMERICAN NATURALIST.  [VOu. XXXIII. 
single sperm sac, which is evaginated from the anterior septum of 
somite X into the ninth somite, from which it extends backward to 
the twelfth or thirteenth somite ; and the ovisac, which extends back- 
ward from the twelfth somite instead of from the eleventh, as is more 
usually the case. 
Hatai has experienced the difficulties so common in the prepara- 
tion of purely technical papers of eliminating errors from the text, 
and we find the ovaries described as being located in somite X, while 
they are figured in somite XI. The latter position is undoubtedly 
the correct one; again, the sperm ducts are described as having the 
funnels in the ninth somite, while the main parts of the ducts are in 
the tenth somite, on the ventral side of which they open to the 
exterior. In the figure, which is more probably correct, they are 
represented as being situated one somite farther back. It is stated 
that there is a pair of ovisacs in the thirteenth somite, “formed 
by the backward bulging out, on the left dorsal side, of the anterior 
septum.” As elsewhere in the text, reference is made in each case 
to “the ovisac,” and as it seems improbable that both members of 
the pair should arise on the same side of the worm, it seems more 
reasonable to suppose that there is but one ovisac. F. SMITH. 
Strange Protoplasmic Budding in Epithelial Cells. — Every spe- 
cialist is familiar with the occurrence of various vesicles and drop- 
like extrusions that may be found upon preserved epithelium, as if 
excreted. The formation of such “artefacts’”’ has not been studied. 
Recently Martin Heidenhain, in the Archiv. f. Mik. Anatomie, Vol. 
LIV, pp. 59-67, has, however, described and figured peculiar finger- 
like protrusions from the cells of the epithelium of the uterus of a 
pregnant rabbit, and interpreted them as the first stages in the 
making of such “artefacts.” 
The material was hardened in corrosive sublimate, and the author 
conceives that this penetrating in molecular dilution acted as a stim- 
ulus to call forth a physiological, though pathological, response in 
the form of those protoplasmic protrusions, or pseudopodia. 
How these protuberances later form the real artefacts, the vesicles, 
etc., that lie free from the cells, is not considered, since the chief 
thesis is that peculiar dark-staining bodies in each protuberance are 
centrosomes. The author advances much in favor of this view, and 
we seem to have here another case where motion of the protoplasm, 
in rising up to make protrusions of the surface matter, is localized 
about staining centers, or “ centrosomes.” cA A. 
