856 
MR. W. GARDINER ON THE CONTINUITY OF THE 
acid. There are two mistakes in that statement. First I should have said “ treating 
plasmolysed sections and what is of more importance, I am inclined to believe 
that my observations were not perfectly trustworthy. I had two particularly plain 
instances of an apparent passage of protoplasm through the cell-wall, one of which I 
have represented in Plate 70, fig. 38. Although it still seems perfectly clear and 
plain, I am almost convinced that some abnormal appearance has been produced, either 
by distortion of the section, or owing to the fact that, intersecting the two coloured 
protoplasmic threads, are thin pit membranes which I cannot resolve. 
As regards plasmolysis, numerous tissues w 7 ere examined, and in all the same 
occurrence of strings was observed. Both Bower and myself believe that the 
phenomenon is universal. As definite instances where actual observations were made 
I may mention the pulvini of Mimosa, Phaseolus, Rhynasia, Oxalis, Biophytum, 
Apios, Desmodium, Maranta and Marattia; various roots, e.g., Beta; petioles, e.g., 
Primula and Ficus; leaves, e.g., Primula ; young endosperm cells, e.g., Rhopalostylis, 
Sobol, and Ancuba. Stems and other structures examined from time to time gave 
the same results. These results, taken in conjunction with those of Bower, make it 
extremely probable that the same phenomenon is displayed by every living cell 
whatsoever. 
In attempting to explain these appearances which accompany plasmolysis one has 
only hypothesis to offer. Bower* suggests two views—(1) that the main mass of 
protoplasm on retreating may leave the cell-wall still comjfietely lined with a thin 
film of protoplasm; (2) that the peripheral part of the protoplasm being entangled 
as a network among the deposited microsomata may, on the contraction of the main 
mass, be drawn out at the points of entanglement into fine strings like those observed; 
while the surface of the wall is left free, and not covered by a film of protoplasm. 
But it seems to me that all the above phenomena may be explained from the mere 
fact that the cell-wall is so perfectly wetted (to use a physical phrase) by the 
protoplasm ; for as Strasburger’s t results show, the connexion between the cell-wall 
and the protoplasm is one of the most intimate description, even if any direct 
perforation of the cell-wall by protoplasmic filaments be left out of the question. 
The very same effects may be obtained with stringy mucus adhering to a glass 
tumbler. My results have certainly shown that the connexion between protoplasm 
and cell-wall is much closer than was imagined to be the case; but I am inclined to 
doubt whether the existence of protoplasmic threads in the cell-wall at all influences the 
phenomenon of plasmolysis, for they are equally well displayed over the whole surface 
of the wall, and bear no relation even to such pits as those occurring in the young 
endosperm cells of Archontophcenix and Rhopalostylis, where well pronounced 
continuity is known to occur. But I am bound to admit that it is a question of 
hypothesis against hypothesis, and I look forward with interest to the results of 
* Loc. cit. 
t ' Bau und Wachstum,’ p. 246. 
