90S 
JV.VU 
nes Muller, naturalists of recognised position who had busied 
themselves for months, and some of them for years, with the 
investigation of the Rhizopoda. And all these must have been 
most grossly deceived “ by a remarkable sport of nature !” 
In my article, “ Ueber den Sareodekorper der Rhizopoden,” 
I have clearly demonstrated the utter worthlessness of 
Reichert’s assertions, and the perversity of his misrepresenta- 
tions, and at the same time set forth the history of this strange 
controversy . 1 Nevertheless, Reichert has not been deterred 
from continuing his publications on this subject, and from 
metamorphosing it in a peculiar fashion in an article, “ Uber 
die contractile Substanz .” 2 By what mistakes and forced 
constructions this pretended vindication (but really altera- 
tion) of his former views is distinguished, has been already 
shown by Max Schultze in his article ‘ Reichert und die 
Gromien .” 3 
A comprehensive treatise of Reichert’s has just appeared, 
c Uber die contractile Substanz (Sarcode, Protoplasma) und 
ihre Bewegungs-Erscheinungen,’ which, while further deve- 
loping the argument of the last-mentioned publication, is one 
of the most astonishing productions of modern zoological 
literature . 4 On reading it, we seem to have retrograded 
about half a century. Among other things, the existence of 
the epithelial cells of the Coelenterata is contradicted ; and the 
two epithelial forms of integument (ectoderm and entoderm) 
from which, according to the unanimous observations of all 
modern naturalists, the Coelenterata are developed, are 
absolutely denied. The existence of naked membraneless 
cells is still persistently denied with the greatest obstinacy, 
although such numerous observations for so many years past 
have established their existence beyond dispute, so that the 
naked (nucleated) plasma-mass may be looked upon as the 
original state of nearly all cells, and the membrane always 
appears only as a secondary formation. Further on, the dis- 
course is incidentally of “ flint-formed creatures ” (perhaps 
Diatomaceee ?) , and so on. All these assertions do not con- 
cern us here, but only the method and manner in which 
Reichert treats his principal subject, and distorts the sarcode 
theory ; this necessarily requires a decisive settlement. I 
will cut it as short as possible, and set forth, in the first 
place, the principal points in dispute. 
In his above-mentioned paper, which was to “ make clear 
1 ‘ Zeitschrift fur wissensch. Zool.,’ Bd. xv, 1865, p. 342. 
‘ ‘ Monatsberichte der Berlin Akad.,’ 1865, p. 491. 
8 ‘ Archiv fur Mikrosk. Anat.,’ vol. ii, 1866, p. 140. 
4 ‘ Abkandl. der Berlin Akad.,’ 1867, pp. 151, 293. 
