CYTOPLASMIC INCLUSIONS OF THE GERM-CELLS. 411 
Henneguy, who, apart from his original work upon the 
germ-cells of Lepidoptera (3), has given a good review of the 
literature of the subject in that admirable text-book ‘ Les 
Insectes,’ says, concerning the metamorphosis of spermatid 
into spermatozoon, “ Le noyau de la spermatide subit, comme 
les elements cytoplasmiques, pendant la formation du sperma- 
tozoide, des modifications importantes qui n’ ont pas ete encore 
suffisamment etudiees.” That this remark is correct is con- 
firmed by the difficulty one has in reconciling the statements 
of the various authors. The whole question of the correct 
homology of the bodies present in the spermatogonium aud 
metamorphosing spermatid is in a confused state. Meves 
identifies in the spermatid, a mitochondrial mass, two centro- 
somes, an idiosome, and a “ spindelrestkorper.” 
In Text- tig. 1 are drawn Meves’ figures to illustrate his 
view. I incline to the opinion that the archoplasmic idiosome 
does not exist as such in the spermatogonium of moths, and 
that the “ spindelrestkorper ” is of transitory nature. I also 
consider that the “ spindelrestkorper ” is absent in the 
spermatid about to metamorphose, and that there is no con- 
nection between the bodies marked J. and S. in the sperma- 
togonium and spermatid respectively. Moreover, Meves has 
tailed to account for a characteristic body in the Lepidopterous 
spermatid, and he has also overlooked the second centrosome 
in all his diagrams of the spermatogenesis of the Lepidoptera. 
My statements, be it noted, are derived from the Lepidoptera 
alone, and I cannot reconcile Meves’ sketch in Text-figs. 1, II 
with anything I have seen in my sections. This question is 
dealt with more fully in the discussion. 
For reasons which will be clear later on, Meves’ figures 
and description of the behaviour of the mitochondria during 
the later stages of spermatogenesis are not altogether correct. 
He leaves a great gap in the description of the behaviour 
of the centrosomes and quite overlooks the micromitosome. 
(He, however, figures it in one place, but does not mention 
it in the text.) Some of Platner’s ( 4 ) figures, executed 
nearly thirty years ago, give a remarkably true picture of 
