98 
Notes on Recent Literature. 
as grains, being usually more or less elongated and mostly coiled 
smooth filaments of uniform thickness throughout their length. 
Meves termed these homogeneous filaments “ chondriokonten,” 
in order to distinguish them from filaments (“ chondromiten ”) 
consisting of rows of mitochondria. Both types of structure— 
mitochondria and chondriokonten—Meves comprised under the 
collective term “ chondriosomes,” but the majority of later writers 
have continued to use “chondriosomes” and “ mitochondria ” as 
synonymous terms. 
Meves repeated and elaborated his views in his later papers, 
suggesting that the chondriosomes form the material (“ Anlage- 
substanz”) for the various processes of differentiation which the 
tissues undergo in the course of development from the fertilised egg. 
He expressly states that he does not regard these bodies as the 
inheritance carriers to the exclusion of the nucleus, but he considers 
that while the nuclear qualities are conveyed by the chromosomes, 
those of the cytoplasm are carried by the chondriosomes. He 
claimed (1910) to have observed the mitochondria of the sperm of 
Ascaris fuse with those of the egg. In a more recent paper (1911) 
he points out that the chondriosome theory harmonises the views 
of Flemming (1882) and of Altmann (1890) regarding cytoplasmic 
structure—the former considering it as filamentous and the latter 
as granular 1 —and suggests the general term “ plastosomen ” for 
these bodies, terming them “ plastokonten ” if filamentous, “ plasto- 
chondrien ” if granular: “Die Chondriokonten oder Plastokonten 
sind mit den Fila Flemming’s von 1882, die Mitochondrien oder 
Plastochondrien with den Kornern Altmann’s identisch.” Perroncito 
(1910, 1911), however, considered that the mitochondria are homo¬ 
logous neither with Altmann’s “granula” nor with Flemming’s 
“ Filarwatte,” and suggested that a distinction should be drawn 
between Meves’s “chondriokonten” (to which Perroncito limits the 
term chondriosomes) and Benda’s mitochondria ; the first point is of 
course a purely controversial one, and as regards the second it may 
be stated that observers of both animal and plant chondriosomes 
have traced every transition stage between homogeneous filaments, 
moniliform filaments and isolated mitochondria. 
Various later writers—Duesberg, Van der Stricht, Giglio-Tos, 
Granata, Lams, Regaud, Faure-Fremiet, Hoven and others—have 
confirmed the observations of Benda and Meves, and some have 
also supported the view that the chondriosomes play an important 
part as carriers of cytoplasm in the fertilisation process. Against 
those writers who have combatted his views and have upheld the 
theory that the nucleus alone is concerned in fertilisation and 
inheritance, Meves (1908) argues very reasonably that on his 
view a single minute mitochondrium might suffice to convey the 
characters of the paternal cytoplasm into the egg. 
1 This somewhat bald statement may be amplified by remarking that 
Flemming rejected the view regarding the constitution of cytoplasm advocated 
by Frohmann—that there is a reticulum embedded in a homogeneous ground 
substance—and, denying the existence of a reticulum, laid stress on the 
presence of a fibrillar structure, the fibrils or filar elements being threads 
embedded in a more fluid inter-filar mass ; while Altmann insisted on the 
importance of certain granules (“ bioblasts ’’) which form essential constituents 
of the cytoplasm, as distinguished from others which have been formed by 
the cytoplasm and are more or less accidental inclusions in it. 
