26.12.2013 Views

Nuclear Transplantation in Amoebae. I. - Journal of Cell Science

Nuclear Transplantation in Amoebae. I. - Journal of Cell Science

Nuclear Transplantation in Amoebae. I. - Journal of Cell Science

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Lorch and Danielli—<strong>Nuclear</strong> <strong>Transplantation</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Amoebae</strong>. I 451<br />

specimens and were asked to place the unlabelled draw<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong>to four groups.<br />

The number <strong>of</strong> draw<strong>in</strong>gs placed <strong>in</strong> each group was recorded. Fig. 2 shows<br />

a graphical representation <strong>of</strong> the sort<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> draw<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> 18 specimens <strong>of</strong><br />

A. proteus and 17 <strong>of</strong> A. discoides. The draw<strong>in</strong>gs were sorted five times on<br />

different days by the same observer (J. F. D.). A similar graph was obta<strong>in</strong>ed<br />

when four different observers sorted the same batch <strong>of</strong> draw<strong>in</strong>gs. 69 per cent,<br />

<strong>of</strong> the amoebae were classified correctly as 'typical P' and 'typical D' respectively,<br />

and 25 per cent, were placed <strong>in</strong> each <strong>of</strong> the categories 'like P' and 'like<br />

FIG. 2. Graphical presentation <strong>of</strong> the results <strong>of</strong> repeated sort<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> 35 outl<strong>in</strong>e draw<strong>in</strong>gs. The<br />

percentage <strong>of</strong> draw<strong>in</strong>gs placed <strong>in</strong> each category is plotted. For explanation see text.<br />

D'. For each group some amoebae were classified outside the species: 6 per<br />

cent, <strong>of</strong> A. proteus draw<strong>in</strong>gs were classified as 'like D' and 6 per cent, <strong>of</strong><br />

A. discoides draw<strong>in</strong>gs as 'typical P'. Thus it seems that, although the method<br />

<strong>of</strong> shape-sort<strong>in</strong>g gives a clear-cut separation <strong>of</strong> the two species when cultures<br />

are exam<strong>in</strong>ed, there are always some <strong>in</strong>dividual amoebae which are atypical <strong>in</strong><br />

this respect.<br />

Schaeffer (1916) states that the mode <strong>of</strong> formation <strong>of</strong> pseudopods is different<br />

<strong>in</strong> A. proteus and A. discoides, and that 'the most dist<strong>in</strong>ctive morphological<br />

characteristic <strong>of</strong> A. proteus is the possession <strong>of</strong> longitud<strong>in</strong>al grooves on the<br />

surface when <strong>in</strong> locomotion'. These grooves are said to be 'never absent except<br />

<strong>in</strong> such <strong>in</strong>dividuals as have not divided for many days'. Whereas we agree<br />

that such 'grooves' are usually (though not always) seen <strong>in</strong> active specimens<br />

<strong>of</strong> A. proteus, we cannot agree that they are never present <strong>in</strong> A. discoides.<br />

They therefore cannot be used as an absolute dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g mark <strong>of</strong> A. proteus.<br />

The same may be said <strong>of</strong> the other dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g features <strong>in</strong> the cytoplasm<br />

<strong>of</strong> the two species as described by Schaeffer, e.g. shape, size, and number <strong>of</strong><br />

crystals present, number <strong>of</strong> refractile 'nutrition' spheres, speed <strong>of</strong> stream<strong>in</strong>g,

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!