
266 THE NORTHERN MICROSCOPIST. 


servations made, although of great interest and value, were not, on 
account of fewness of specimens and, probably, want of knowledge 
of the life-conditions of the animal, competent to even indicate its 
life-history. Yet, to an observer in quest of support for a theory, 
there was much that was curious and “suggestive.” In fact, the 
organism was simply seen in the main to break up into amceboid 
and actinophrys-like masses of protoplasm. Fig. 2 is a form of 
Fig. 1, in the first stage of “breaking up,” where, indeed, in the 
course of time, changes had been superinduced in the normal or- 
ganism. In one instance, in about five days, one in an apparently 
healthy state had passed from the normal condition (Fig. 1) into 
that seen in Fig. 3, which was a merely spherical shape with con- 
strictions. In two anda half hours more it had again assumed 
the form shown in Fig. 2, and by the end of less than two days 
more it had broken into four parts, as in Fig. 4, which poured out 
anastomosing sarcode, as in Fig. 5, but this ultimately contracted 
into one principal mass ; and from this, minute amceboid particles, 
and actinophrys-like bodies, as seen in Figs. 7, 8, which really were 
offshoots of the sarcode of the mass, as seen in Fig. 6. 
Even this too brief summary of the results obtained by these 
observations show how interesting they are, and lead to a desire 
for their early re-prosecution and completion. But in their present 
form, does their author endeavour to establish the doctrine of 
transformations by showing that Shepheardella becomes amceba 
and actinophrys? No; but he, as a careful naturalist, says, 
“From the foregoing account it will be gathered that little beyond 
the dissolution of Shepheardella into amceboid particles has yet 
been quite satisfactorily traced. No attempt at fission, encystation, 
or anything approaching to either, and no development of special 
reproductive bodies . . . has yet been observed. ‘The loss of 
the specimen possessing three nuclei was a matter of much regret, 
as I had hoped, judging from what has been noticed in other 
simple organisms having more than one nucleus, that it might 
ultimately divide into three distinct individuals, and, by so doing, 
give conclusive evidence of at least one process of reproduction. 
As it at present stands, the life-history of Shepheardella may be 
looked upon as a chain, a few links of which are here presented, 
the major portion being still missing.”* 
In conclusion, let it be remembered that the facts of nature are 
the only court of final appeal in science. Theories must always be 
either destroyed and cast away, or immortalised, by facts alone. 
Twenty years in the future will doubtless do for scientific know- 
ledge in all directions what twenty years in the past have done— 
that is, modify much that is now rigidly held. But the broader 
epee a 
* Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, p. 137. 

