The Morphology of Functional Activity in the Cianglion Cells etc. 
543 
tioii. However, the principles induced are bascd upoii such fundamental 
factors in intracellular coordination, factors which are not pcculiar to 
the nerve ceU so far as relates to the side of the elaboration of energy^ 
that the subsidiary and correlated nature of possible organelles, peculiar 
to tlie nerve cell or to limited types of cells, seems assurcd. Certainly 
they have not been given dignity sufficient to stand in the way of an 
interpretation to their exclusion. 
To return now to the discussion of the nature of the chroniidial 
apparatus, the relation of the size changes of the nucleus • — its functional 
hypertrophy — to the enlargement of the plasma and to the renewal of 
chromatin, if it be correctly conceivcd, throws new light upon the genesis 
of such substances, at least in the nerve cell, which is above and beyond 
dependence upon chromatin morphology alone. In nerve cells, the nu- 
cleus takes an active contributory share in the genesis of a plasmatic 
constituent. Its enlargement, not merely to take something in, but 
that it may give something out seems the more rational and offers not 
only an explanation of its functional growth but of chromidial formation 
as well where it has a functional purpose. In which connection, a point 
made by Schaxel (1910) is most pertinent: »Man kann, um unbefangen 
vorzugehen, nicht anders verfahren, als daß man alles das Chromatin 
nennt, wofür sich deutliche, besonders genetische Beziehungen zum Kern 
nachweisen lassen, und was das charakteristische tinktoriell-morpholo- 
gische Verhalten zeigt.« As I interpret his mode of expression, the use 
of the Word “tinktoricll” implies a reserve of latitnde in the exact Chemical 
nature of chromatin. At any rate, with a latitnde in this regard, the 
Kissl substance conforms unequivocally to Schaxel’s genetic, tinctorial 
and morphologic prerequisites. But in the existence of variations of 
Chemical composition the morphology of nerve cell activity and its phylo- 
genetic comparison lead one to believe without prejudice and that evi- 
dence of actual differences in its derivatives would be found would be 
cxpectcd from this side alone. The union upon a common ground in 
regard to this question, it seems to me, depends upon the expectation 
and hence the searcli of a common basal Chemical composition underly- 
ing the variations and differences in chromatin and chromatin derivatives, 
not only among different types of ceUs but in the same type at different 
stages of its functional activity, rather than upon emphasizing these 
differences by themselves. For all nerve cells in theu' chromatin and 
its derivatives have something fundamentally essential in common, as 
displayed by its functional role, but it has a wide ränge in stability and 
complexity. 
