The Morphology of Functional Activity in the Ganglion Cells etc. 535 
the Purkinje cell does not take place witliin the nuclear ineinbrane wlien 
it is not formed in inimediate excess, as is tlie case also in the crayfish 
cells throughout the process. But this is not conceived in the light given 
by the other to inake any necessary difference in tlie connection of the 
nucleus therewith — the nucleus furnislies sirailar substances in the 
same way as will be further elaborated. Nor does it make any difference 
in regard to the mechanics of forniation to be describcd that it be niodified 
chemically after or even before its discharge, which Goldschmidt (1909) 
conceded and which v. Kemnitz says tlie chromatin discharge presup- 
poses. WliUe the evidence from staining of course proves nothing re- 
garding its exact Chemical nature, the difference in tinctorial reaction 
is so raarked, for example, between the beginning and tlie end of the 
process as to point strongly to differences in composition or quality of 
this substance considered by itself. Hence if it is originally niodified chro- 
matin, as seems indeed most likely, exhaiistive activity produces greater 
modifications. On the other haiid, 1 shoiild like to know the resiilts at 
the hands of a competent micro-chemist of the comparison between the 
intra- and extra-nuclear chromatin diiring the initial stages of hyper- 
chromatism, when the prodiict is at its best and when part of it being 
within the nuclear membrane is conventionally chromatin. 
May it be understood that I have laid very littlc dependence upon 
the staining reaction, much less upon a specific chroniatin stain by itself 
and have regarded it as entirely secondary to the morphological and 
experimental evidence and only corroborative in so far as it shows an 
aUied substance. But that there are indications from another point of 
view of fundamental Chemical differences iinderlying the qiiestion of 
chromatin in general will be taken iip later in a more appropriate place. 
There is just one point in regard to the work of v. Kemnitz that 
even without any first hand knowledge of his material one cannot pass 
over. In addition to the metachromatic fUanients, he describes for certaiu 
body muscle cells “prochromatin” granules oiitside of the nucleus but 
in its vicinity whose identity with chromatin he does not question. His 
interpretation of these is that, qiiite reversely to a nuclear discharge, a 
chromidial forniation in the sense of Goldsciimidt, they represent a 
chromatin synthesis from the plasnia destined for the nucleus and on 
their way to nuclear absorption. As a possible mechanism for this ab- 
sorption, he connects, thoiigh with reserve, certaiu peciiliar hood-shaped 
appearances of the supportive peri-niiclear reticiiliim as a process of 
formation of a new nuclear membrane. At any rate, he thinks a new 
nuclear membrane is formed which incliides the old nucleus together with 
