274 
POPULAE SCIENCE EEVIEW. 
nuclei beneath this membrane, a bundle of any fine nen^e-fibres, ha'V'in g 
reached the sarcolemma, ramifies freely over its surface, and is not connected 
with the nuclei beneath, which are probably only concerned in the foniiatio n 
of the contractile tissue.” — Vide The Quarterly Journal of Microscopical 
Science, October, 1864. 
The Circulation in the Vorticellidce. — The appearance of the “ contractile 
vesicle” in this family is thus described by Mr. Wdliam Handsell Griffiths. 
Viewing this organ under the miscroscope, he observed, first : “ On certain 
movements of the reflector, the vesicle entirely disappeared ; but in subse- 
quent alterations of the position of the reflector, I obsewed its re-appearance. 
I am^inchned to think that any subsequent contraction-like appearance of 
the vesicle was due to the fact of its having been removed from the line of 
focus by the movements of the living animal ; to the same cause I also attri- 
bute an expansion-like appearance of the vesicle. Hence the characteristic (!) 
term contractile vesicle is iuappropriate, unreasonable, and unfounded ; the 
plain word vesicle being truthful. Secondly : I have never witnessed the 
processes proceeding from the vesicle, stated by Lachmann to have been 
observed by him. I believe that what he thought to be processes or branches 
of the vesicle, were merely occasional interpositions of the cilia of the disk 
between the object and the miscroscope ; I believe that the delusion some- 
times assumes an almost convincing aspect, not of two distinct processes as 
Lachmann has observed, but of branches to and from the vesicle, indefinite in 
their position and number.” . . . . “ I acknowledge that there is a vesicle of 
unknown use in the vorticeUidae ; I deny the existence of a contractile vesicle 
acting as a heart. I acknowledge the presence of cdia ; I deny that of 
vesicular branches or vessels. Hence I infer that the statement that there is 
a circulating apparatus is without foundation, and may only be regarded as a 
picture painted by a vivid imagination, or an hypothesis promulgated for a 
selfish purpose.” Certainly the concluding remarks are strong, and we confess 
we hardly think Mr. Griffiths is justified in making so very decided an asser- 
tion in regard to the views of others. As concerns his observations, of 
course, time will alone decide t/ieir acccuracy. — Vide Microscopical Journal, 
October. 
