A Criticism of the Cell-Theory; being an Answer to Mr. Sedgwick's ...
A Criticism of the Cell-Theory; being an Answer to Mr. Sedgwick's ...
A Criticism of the Cell-Theory; being an Answer to Mr. Sedgwick's ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
A CRITICISM OF THE OELL-THEORT. 167<br />
Continuous cells, whose pro<strong>to</strong>plasm is fused but whose<br />
nuclei are separate, e.g. Myxomycetes, Cceloblastae,<br />
Opaliua.<br />
Conjunct cells, those which having a pro<strong>to</strong>plasmic body<br />
<strong>of</strong> definite outline are united inter se by fine bonds <strong>of</strong> pro<strong>to</strong>plasm,<br />
e. g. vegetable tissue cells, epi<strong>the</strong>lial cells <strong>of</strong> m<strong>an</strong>y<br />
<strong>an</strong>imals; meseuchyme cells, &c.<br />
Experience shows us that independent cells may, in process<br />
<strong>of</strong> growth, give rise <strong>to</strong> coherent cells, continuous cells, conjunct<br />
cells, or <strong>to</strong> all three <strong>to</strong>ge<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>an</strong>d that coherent, continuous,<br />
or conjunct cells may, <strong>an</strong>d in fact do, give rise <strong>to</strong><br />
independent cells. As thus stated, c<strong>an</strong> <strong>the</strong>re be a better<br />
illustration <strong>of</strong> von Sachs's principle that cell-formation is <strong>an</strong><br />
accomp<strong>an</strong>iment <strong>of</strong> growth ?<br />
It will be observed that, in adhering <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> present terminology,<br />
I am obliged <strong>to</strong> classify org<strong>an</strong>isms usually (though not<br />
always) called unicellular as multicellular. I have tried <strong>to</strong><br />
escape from this necessity, but <strong>the</strong> limitations <strong>of</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guage<br />
compel me <strong>to</strong> it. I should be grateful for a better <strong>an</strong>d more<br />
logical definition.<br />
The view <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mr</strong>. Sedgwick—if I do not misrepresent him—<br />
is this, that <strong>the</strong>re are no coherent cells; that all which I have<br />
classified as continuous <strong>an</strong>d conjunct cells are not cells, but<br />
tracts <strong>of</strong> pro<strong>to</strong>plasm; that <strong>the</strong> only cell, sensu stric<strong>to</strong>, is<br />
<strong>the</strong> independent cell, <strong>an</strong>d that morphologically <strong>an</strong>d physiologically<br />
it is <strong>of</strong> no consequence.<br />
I have already shown that <strong>the</strong>re are cells which we must<br />
regard as coherent. I c<strong>an</strong>not, for reasons which I will explain<br />
directly, consider <strong>the</strong> independent cell <strong>of</strong> no consequence, <strong>an</strong>d<br />
<strong>the</strong> difference between us as <strong>to</strong> conjunct cells is simply this ;<br />
Are <strong>the</strong>y <strong>to</strong> be regarded as one or m<strong>an</strong>y ? I c<strong>an</strong>, perhaps, best<br />
express this difference by <strong>an</strong> illustration.<br />
Is a house <strong>to</strong> be regarded as one room or composed <strong>of</strong><br />
separate rooms ? A room is a certain portion <strong>of</strong> space enclosed<br />
by walls, ceiling, <strong>an</strong>d floor; but it is also in connection, by<br />
me<strong>an</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> door, with o<strong>the</strong>r similar rooms. Is it, <strong>the</strong>n, not<br />
a separate room, but part <strong>of</strong> a larger room ? Or if I shut <strong>the</strong>