The spermatozoon, when within a very short distance of the egg-cell, is attracted by it. Of the nature of this attractive force we have no certain knowledge, though we would seem to have a pregnant hint in Loeb’s discovery that, in the neighbourhood of other substances, such even as a fragment, or bead, of glass, the spermatozoon undergoes a similar attraction. But, whatever the force may be, it is one acting normally to the surface of the ovum, and accordingly, after entry, the sperm-nucleus points straight towards the centre of the egg; from the fact that other spermatozoa, subsequent to the first, fail to effect an entry, we may safely conclude that an immediate consequence of the entry of the spermatozoon is an increase in the surface-tension of the egg[252]. Somewhere or other, near or far away, within the egg, lies its own nuclear body, the so-called female pronucleus, and we find after a while that this has fused with the head of the spermatozoon (or male pronucleus), and that the body resulting from their fusion has come to occupy the centre of the egg. This must be due (as Whitman pointed out long ago) to a force of attraction acting between the two bodies, and another force acting upon one or other or both in the direction of the centre of the cell. Did we know the magnitude of these several forces, it would be a very easy task to calculate the precise path which the two pronuclei would follow, leading to conjugation and the central {194} position. As we do not know the magnitude, but only the direction, of these forces we can only make a general statement: (1) the paths of both moving bodies will lie wholly within a plane triangle drawn between the two bodies and the centre of the cell; (2) unless the two bodies happen to lie, to begin with, precisely on a diameter of the cell, their paths until they meet one another will be curved paths, the convexity of the curve being towards the straight line joining the two bodies; (3) the two bodies will meet a little before they reach the centre; and, having met and fused, will travel on to reach the centre in a straight line. The actual study and observation of the path followed is not very easy, owing to the fact that what we usually see is not the path itself, but only a projection of the path upon the plane of the microscope; but the curved path is particularly well seen in the frog’s egg, where the path of the spermatozoon is marked by a little streak of brown pigment, and the fact of the meeting of the pronuclei before reaching the centre has been repeatedly seen by many observers.
The problem is nothing else than a particular case of the famous problem of three bodies, which has so occupied the astronomers; and it is obvious that the foregoing brief description is very far from including all possible cases. Many of these are particularly described in the works of Fol, Roux, Whitman and others[253].
The intracellular phenomena of which we have now spoken have assumed immense importance in biological literature and discussion during the last forty years; but it is open to us to doubt whether they will be found in the end to possess more than a remote and secondary biological significance. Most, if not all of them, would seem to follow immediately and inevitably from very simple assumptions as to the physical constitution of the cell, and from an extremely simple distribution of polarised forces within it. We have already seen that how a thing grows, and what it grows into, is a dynamic and not a merely material problem; so far as the material substance is concerned, it is so only by reason {195} of the chemical, electrical or other forces which are associated with it. But there is another consideration which would lead us to suspect that many features in the structure and configuration of the cell are of very secondary biological importance; and that is, the great variation to which these phenomena are subject in similar or closely related organisms, and the apparent impossibility of correlating them with the peculiarities of the organism as a whole. “Comparative study has shewn that almost every detail of the processes (of mitosis) described above is subject to variation in different forms of cells[254].” A multitude of cells divide to the accompaniment of caryokinetic phenomena; but others do so without any visible caryokinesis at all. Sometimes the polarised field of force is within, sometimes it is adjacent to, and at other times it lies remote from the nucleus. The distribution of potential is very often symmetrical and bipolar, as in the case described; but a less symmetrical distribution often occurs, with the result that we have, for a time at least, numerous centres of force, instead of the two main correlated poles: this is the simple explanation of the numerous stellate figures, or “Strahlungen,” which have been described in certain eggs, such as those of Chaetopterus. In one and the same species of worm (Ascaris megalocephala), one group or two groups of chromosomes may be present. And remarkably constant, in general, as the number of chromosomes in any one species undoubtedly is, yet we must not forget that, in plants and animals alike, the whole range of observed numbers is but a small one; for (as regards the germ-nuclei) few organisms have less than six chromosomes, and fewer still have more than sixteen[255]. In closely related animals, such as various species of Copepods, and even in the same species of worm or insect, the form of the chromosomes, and their arrangement in relation to the nuclear spindle, have been found to differ in the various ways alluded to above. In short, there seem to be strong grounds for believing that these and many similar phenomena are in no way specifically related to the particular organism in which they have {196} been observed, and are not even specially and indisputably connected with the organism as such. They include such manifestations of the physical forces, in their various permutations and combinations, as may also be witnessed, under appropriate conditions, in non-living things.
When we attempt to separate our purely morphological or “purely embryological” studies from physiological and physical investigations, we tend ipso facto to regard each particular structure and configuration as an attribute, or a particular “character,” of this or that particular organism. From this assumption we are apt to go on to the drawing of new conclusions or the framing of new theories as to the ancestral history, the classificatory position, the natural affinities of the several organisms: in fact, to apply our embryological knowledge mainly, and at times exclusively, to the study of phylogeny. When we find, as we are not long of finding, that our phylogenetic hypotheses, as drawn from embryology, become complex and unwieldy, we are nevertheless reluctant to admit that the whole method, with its fundamental postulates, is at fault. And yet nothing short of this would seem to be the case, in regard to the earlier phases at least of embryonic development. All the evidence at hand goes, as it seems to me, to shew that embryological data, prior to and even long after the epoch of segmentation, are essentially a subject for physiological and physical investigation and have but the very slightest link with the problems of systematic or zoological classification. Comparative embryology has its own facts to classify, and its own methods and principles of classification. Thus we may classify eggs according to the presence or absence, the paucity or abundance, of their associated food-yolk, the chromosomes according to their form and their number, the segmentation according to its various “types,” radial, bilateral, spiral, and so forth. But we have little right to expect, and in point of fact we shall very seldom and (as it were) only accidentally find, that these embryological categories coincide with the lines of “natural” or “phylogenetic” classification which have been arrived at by the systematic zoologist.
The cell, which Goodsir spoke of as a “centre of force,” is in {197} reality a “sphere of action” of certain more or less localised forces; and of these, surface-tension is the particular force which is especially responsible for giving to the cell its outline and its morphological individuality. The partially segmented differs from the totally segmented egg, the unicellular Infusorian from the minute multicellular Turbellarian, in the intensity and the range of those surface-tensions which in the one case succeed and in the other fail to form a visible separation between the “cells.” Adam Sedgwick used to call attention to the fact that very often, even in eggs that appear to be totally segmented, it is yet impossible to discover an actual separation or cleavage, through and through between the cells which on the surface of the egg are so clearly delimited; so far and no farther have the physical forces effectuated a visible “cleavage.” The vacuolation of the protoplasm in Actinophrys or Actinosphaerium is due to localised surface-tensions, quite irrespective of the multinuclear nature of the latter organism. In short, the boundary walls due to surface-tension may be present or may be absent with or without the delimination of the other specific fields of force which are usually correlated with these boundaries and with the independent individuality of the cells. What we may safely admit, however, is that one effect of these circumscribed fields of force is usually such a separation or segregation of the protoplasmic constituents, the more fluid from the less fluid and so forth, as to give a field where surface-tension may do its work and bring a visible boundary into being. When the formation of a “surface” is once effected, its physical condition, or phase, will be bound to differ notably from that of the interior of the cell, and under appropriate chemical conditions the formation of an actual cell-wall, cellulose or other, is easily intelligible. To this subject we shall return again, in another chapter.
From the moment that we enter on a dynamical conception of the cell, we perceive that the old debates were in vain as to what visible portions of the cell were active or passive, living or non-living. For the manifestations of force can only be due to the interaction of the various parts, to the transference of energy from one to another. Certain properties may be manifested, certain functions may be carried on, by the protoplasm apart {198} from the nucleus; but the interaction of the two is necessary, that other and more important properties or functions may be manifested. We know, for instance, that portions of an Infusorian are incapable of regenerating lost parts in the absence of a nucleus, while nucleated pieces soon regain the specific form of the organism: and we are told that reproduction by fission cannot be initiated, though apparently all its later steps can be carried on, independently of nuclear action. Nor, as Verworn pointed out, can the nucleus possibly be regarded as the “sole vehicle of inheritance,” since only in the conjunction of cell and nucleus do we find the essentials of cell-life. “Kern und Protoplasma sind nur vereint lebensfähig,” as Nussbaum said. Indeed we may, with E. B. Wilson, go further, and say that “the terms ‘nucleus’ and ‘cell-body’ should probably be regarded as only topographical expressions denoting two differentiated areas in a common structural basis.”
Endless discussion has taken place regarding the centrosome, some holding that it is a specific and essential structure, a permanent corpuscle derived from a similar pre-existing corpuscle, a “fertilising element” in the spermatozoon, a special “organ of cell-division,” a material “dynamic centre” of the cell (as Van Beneden and Boveri call it); while on the other hand, it is pointed out that many cells live and multiply without any visible centrosomes, that a centrosome may disappear and be created anew, and even that under artificial conditions abnormal chemical stimuli may lead to the formation of new centrosomes. We may safely take it that the centrosome, or the “attraction sphere,” is essentially a “centre of force,” and that this dynamic centre may or may not be constituted by (but will be very apt to produce) a concrete and visible concentration of matter.
It is far from correct to say, as is often done, that the cell-wall, or cell-membrane, belongs “to the passive products of protoplasm rather than to the living cell itself”; or to say that in the animal cell, the cell-wall, because it is “slightly developed,” is relatively unimportant compared with the important role which it assumes in plants. On the contrary, it is quite certain that, whether visibly differentiated into a semi-permeable membrane, or merely constituted by a liquid film, the surface of the cell is the seat of {199} important forces, capillary and electrical, which play an essential part in the dynamics of the cell. Even in the thickened, largely solidified cellulose wall of the plant-cell, apart from the mechanical resistances which it affords, the osmotic forces developed in connection with it are of essential importance.