No. 522] 



X< > Ti:> AXD LITER . 



MM 



other classes, but also upon the relationships of the Mastigophora 

 to the Bacteria. This relationship is traced by Doflein through 

 the Spirocha-tes which he names also l'rofiagellat a. to Spirillum 

 and like forms. The suggestion is made that the Bacteria are 

 the equivalents of postulated Monera of Haeckel. though they 

 are far from resembling the forms actually described by him as 

 Monera, and that bacteria other than Spirillum should be in like 

 manner attached to other groups of protists to which they may 

 be related. Attention is called to the wide-spread occurrence 

 among Protists of ehromidial cells, that is those seemingly with- 

 out nucleus but having finely divided and distributed chromatin 

 as seen in Bacteria, Oscillaria, Xostoc and Trtrawitus and to 

 the appearance of this same type of distribution of chromatin 

 throughout the cell body among Protozoa at certain stages of 

 life history, especially in gametngenesis. though also in hunger- 

 stages and in pathological conditions. He wisely sounds a note 

 of warning against the domination in protozoology of the 

 morphological conception based upon the Metazoan cell, and a 

 note of caution against the possible interpretation of minute 



th owe Ira and of somatic chromatin as seen in the macronucleus 

 of the ciliates, he regards as only a convenient morphological 

 schema not justified by either the comparative morphology or the 

 physiology of the Protozoa as a whole. He inclines rather to 

 Uertwig's view of the unity of the chromatin substance. 



Dr. Doflein acknowledges the great service which the theory 

 of Hertwig regarding the proportions of nucleus and cytoplasm 

 has rendered to science in the stimulation of research, but looks 



the generative chromidia of the 

 membrane substance of Acan- 



