ABSTRACT
It is not surprising that, after devoting their efforts for so long to the study of the nucleus, botanists should again turn their attention to the cell wall and its relation to the protoplasm. It was only to be expected that by the application of those accurate methods of study, elaborated during investigations of the nucleus, to the formation and origin of the cell wall, new results would be obtained. Such expectation has been amply justified by the works of Dippel, Schmitz, and Strasburger. The mode of increase of substance of cell walls by apposition, and more especially the mode of formation of walls in the first instance in cell division by the lateral coalescence of “microsomata,” leads naturally to the supposition that if there be such a genetic connection between the cell wall and the protoplasmic body, it would also be possible to demonstrate that the physical connection between them is very close. Further, the idea that cells may be connected with one another by delicate threads of protoplasm, which keep up a protoplasmic continuity through their cell walls, also presents itself as a natural corollary on these observations.2 Such continuity has actually been observed by Tangl1 in the endosperm of certain seeds, and by Gardiner2 in the pitted cells of the pulvinus of Mimosa, Robinia, and Amicia. Again, Fromman3 states that he has been able to observe, in various cases, a continuous network extending from the protoplasm into the cell wall.
Strasburger, ‘Ueber den Bau und das Wacbsthum der Zellhaüte,’ p. 174.
Cf., Strasburger, 1. c., p. 246.
Pringsh., ‘Jahrb.,’ vol. xii, p. 170.
‘Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci.,’ Oct., 1882 ; ‘Roy. Soc. Proc.,’ Nov. 11,1882.
‘Beob. üiber Structur und Beweg. d. Protoplasnia der Pflanzenzellen.’ Jena, 1880.
‘Unters, fiber die Mechanischen Ursachen der Zellstreckung.’ Leipzig, 1877.
V. Mohl, ‘Vegetable Cell,’ English translation, p. 37.
‘Ban und Bildung der Piianzenzelle,’ 1854.
From his description and figures, I conclude that Pringsheim has only seen the coarser strings to be described below. As I there point out, however, the difference between these and the finer strings, which appear to have escaped his observation, is only one of degree.
‘Die Pflanzenzelle,’ 1867.
‘Unters. iiber die Mechanischen Ursachen der Zellstreckung.’ Leipzig; 1877.
The matter seems to have been entirely overlooked by Pfeffer in his ‘Osmotische Untersuchungen,’ and in his ‘Pflanzenphysiologie.’
‘Quart. Journ. Mier. Sei.,’ 1882.
Compare Pringsheim’s fig. 16, Taf. iii, 1. c.
The method adopted was as follows: after plasmolysis with 3 per-cent salt solution treat with a solution containing 3 per cent, salt and I per-cent, gold chloride, then wash with water and expose to the light in very dilute acetic acid. on the movement of the nodal swellings from the main mass of protoplasm. It may then be inferred that fresh substance is derived from the main mass of protoplasm after the original plasmolytic contraction.
