296 
Intestinal Protozoa in Termites 
Let us begin with, the comparative study of the most complicated and 
most peculiar organs in Trichonympha, Ter atony mpha, and Pseudotricho- 
nympha; namely, the structures in the nipple and those in connexion with 
the nucleus. It will be helpful to give here a brief review of the structures 
which I am going to consider. In Trichonympha, there is an axial core con¬ 
sisting of two parts, viz. the wall and its contents; the nucleus is held at the 
bottom of a corbule ; and there is also a columnar body hanging perpendicularly 
from the base of the axial core to the anterior pole of the nucleus. In Terato- 
nympha , the axial core is a solid cone, but is surrounded by a special layer 
of protoplasm, filling up the space between it and the tubular rind ; the nucleus 
is enveloped in a peculiar nuclear sac, which is closely connected with the body 
wall and the above-mentioned layer by means of its flange and its neck 
respectively. I conjecture that the protoplasm around the core is of the same 
substance as that of the nuclear sac. I conjecture also that the contents of 
the axial core of Trichonympha is homologous with the layer around the axial 
core in Teratonympha, and that the nuclear sac of Teratonympha is also 
homologous with the corbule and the columnar body in Trichonympha. The 
contents of the axial core of Trichonympha is granular, but the layer around 
the axia) core of Teratonympha is homogeneous. Thus it may seem unreasonable 
to take the two to be of the same substance; but I think the contents of the 
axial core of Trichonympha consists really of two substances, viz. a homo¬ 
geneous ground substance and granules embedded in it—the former being 
comparable with the protoplasm around the axial core in Teratonympha, 
while the granules are lacking in the latter. Thus I interpret these two genera 
to show a rather distinct similarity in organization, as regards the points 
discussed above; the differences being the relative position of the two com¬ 
ponents in the nipple, and the greater differentiation of the axial core in 
Teratonympha. 
Resemblances between Trichonympha and Pseudotrichonympha are distinct 
and easily recognizable. The axial core of Pseudotrichonympha is clearly 
comparable with that of Trichonympha. The structures in Pseudotricho¬ 
nympha, consisting of a tubule and a ball, may be safely taken to represent 
a type of structure quite similar to that of Teratonympha, and they may also 
be taken to show a further differentiation of the axial core, with its column 
and knob-like end, of Trichonympha. A difference, however, is recognizable 
between Trichonympha and Pseudotrichonympha: for neither a corbule, nor 
any structure corresponding to it, is distinguishable in Pseudotrichonympha. 
As regards the role played by the axial core of Trichonympha during the 
process of division, the observations of the Italian and American authors 
agree in essential points with my own. In this genus, the mitotic figures 
are not formed from the nucleus only, but the strand (“fuso esterno” of 
Foa, “ paradesmose ” of Kofoid and Swezy) and the division-centre are of 
extranuclear origin, being furnished by the nipple. Foa, and Kofoid and 
Swezy, agree in the view that the axial core plays the part of a division- 
