17.11.2013 Views

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 ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!