480 
PROFESSOR J. STEPHENSON AND DR BAINI PRASHAD ON 
Beddard, au cours d’une etude sur les Eudrilides, s’etait refuse d’admettre la nature 
epith^liale des glandes de Morren, et voulait y voir des ‘ glandes vasculaires 
sanguines.’ . . This is misleading. Beddard (l) speaks of the glands of the 
Eudrilidae as being homologous with the ordinary calciferous glands, and as consisting 
of a mass of cells in which is a small lumen communicating with the oesophagus ; 
the mass of cells is probably peritoneal in origin, and has increased in amount pari 
passu with the reduction of the glandular secreting surface. These glands must 
“be referred to the same category as the calciferous glands of other Oligochseta ” ; 
though their structure “seems to be irreconcilable with any other theory than 
that the glands in question have some secreting function in relation to the blood 
or eliminate effete matters from the blood ; we have in fact a gland originally 
performing a function connected with alimentation converted into a quite different 
physiological path, and one which must bear some relation to the vascular system.” 
Beddard had no doubt whatever - of the origin of Morren’s glands (the calciferous 
glands of the Lumbricidse) or of any other calciferous glands from the oesophageal 
epithelium ; though with overgrowth of the peritoneal covering the glands of the 
Eudrilidse have now, apparently, taken on a different function from the original one. 
Harrington’s statement that the disintegrated cells are replaced by nuclei with 
a thin protoplasmic film, which make their way into the epithelial layer from the 
blood sinus, is rejected by Combatjlt. The latter author never found, in “ quelques 
milliers de preparations,” appearances recalling those figured by Harrington, 
though he did observe diapedesis, due to irritation resulting from a too acid diet. 
(Harrington had fed some of his worms on acid starch, or had kept them in water 
acidulated with lemon juice.) The definiteness of Harrington’s statements, the 
number of his figures, and the evident care with which they have been drawn, are 
such that we do not think we are entitled to reject his account of the replacement of 
the cells forthwith. Somewhat similar cases of wandering nuclei are not unknown. 
Rohde (22) finds nuclei of neuroglial origin within the ganglion cells of a number 
of Invertebrates, and refers to their having been recognised also in Vertebrates 
(Delphinus delphis) ; many cases of the fusion of follicle cells with growing ova are 
known — though here it is whole cells rather than nuclei that enter and fuse ; the 
entry of supernumerary spermatozoa with, in many cases, the persistence of the 
additional male pronuclei, and the exchange of nuclei in the conjugation of Infusoria, 
are interesting analogies. Rohde concludes : “ Wahrscheinlich kommen in Tierreich 
gleich selbstandig sich bewegende und wirkende Kerne, wie es die von mir beschrie- 
benen Kerne der grossen Neurogliasyncytien sind, viel haufiger vor, als allgemein 
angenommen wird. Bekannt ist, dass junge Leucocyten selbst bei starker Ver- 
grosserung einen Protoplasmaleib nicht erkennen lassen.” Though Harrington 
speaks of a thin protoplasmic film in these wandering cells, he usually calls them 
migratory nuclei ; in the figures they are designated as such, and the protoplasmic 
film is absent or at least extremely delicate. 
