192 
C. H. MARTIN. 
will be adaiitted that the evidence for Jollos^s view of the 
division of the kinetonucleus by means of a mitotic spindle 
is by no means conclusive. I believe that as a definition 
of a kinetonucleus all we are at present justified in stating 
is that the kinetonucleus is a mass, staining darkly with 
chromatin stains, found near the base of the flagella in some 
flagellates. That this mass is necessarily homologous in all 
flagellates appears to me a doubtful assumption, and I believe 
that when the intestinal flagellates and the free-living Bodos 
are more closely examined we may And the kinetonucleus in 
forms for which it would be very difficult to establish a 
homology. 
Finally, it appears to me that the too ready acceptance of 
the view that the kinetonucleus is a true nucleus comparable 
to the trophonucleus has led numerous protozoologists of late 
years into a region of unjustifiable and unprofitable 
hypothesis. 
Literature. 
Alexeieff . — “ Les Flagelles Intestinaiix des Poissons Marine,” ‘ Arcliiv 
de Zool. Exp.,’ (5) VI, Notes et Revue, p. 491. 
“ Siir la revision du genre Bodo,” ‘ Arcli. f. Protistenk.,’ Bd. xxvi, 
1912. 
Apstein. — “Cyclopterus lumpus,” ‘Mitt, des Deutsclien Seef.-Ver.,’ 
Nr. 10, 1910. 
Biedermann. — Winterstein’s ‘Handbiich der Yergleiclienden Pliysio- 
logie,’ Bd. ii, 1911, Jena. 
Butschli. — “Protozoa,” Bronn’s ‘ Thier-Reick.,’ i, 1882-89. 
Doflein. — ‘ Lehrbuch der Protozoenkunde,’ Jena, 1911. 
Friedrich. — “ Uber Bau und Naturgeschichte des Trypanoplasma 
helicis,” Leidy, ‘Arch. f. Protistenk.,’ vol. xiv, 1909. 
Hartmann and Chagas. — “Flagellatenstudien,” ‘Memorias do Instituto 
Oswaldo Cruz. Rio de Janeiro,’ vol. i, 1910. 
and Jollos. — “Die Flagellatenordnung ‘Binucleata,’ ” ‘Arch. f. 
Protistenk.,’ Bd. xix, 1910. 
Jollos. — “Bau und Vermehrung von Trypanoplasma helicis,” 
‘ Arch. f. Protistenk.,’ Bd. xxi, 1910. 
