[6] A term (from κάρυον, kernel) suggested by Flemming to replace Strasburger’s hybrid term “nucleoplasm” (1882). The earlier workers, e.g. Leydig, Schultze, Brücke, de Bary, &c., restricted the term protoplasm to the cell-body—the “Cytoplasm” of Strasburger, an example still followed by O. Hertwig.
[7] From linum, a thread, Schwarz, 1887.
[8] From χρῶμα, colour, Flemming, 1879.
[9] The formation of pseudopodia and accompanying changes in form of Amoeba were observed as early as 1755 by Raesel von Rosenhof, who named it on this account the “little Proteus.”
[10] “Sur les rapports des cils vibratiles avec les centrosomes,” Archives d’anatomie microscopique (1898).
[11] “Über Zentralkörper in männlichen Geschlechtszellen von Schmetterlingen” (Anat. Anz. Bd. xiv., 1897). Cf. also the papers of Lenhossek (Über Flimmerzellen, 1898), Karl Peter (Das Zentrum für die Flimm- und Giesselbewegung, 1899) and Verworn (Studien zur Physiologie der Flimmerbewegung, 1899).
[12] Cf., however, the present writer’s interpretation of this structure in the oocyte of Antedon. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. (1906), B. 249.
[13] Claude Bernard expressed the same conclusion in 1885. Rejecting both the view that vital phenomena were identical with chemico-physical phenomena, and that which regarded them as totally distinct, he suggested a third point of view: “l’élément ultime du phénomène est physique; l’arrangement est vital.”
[14] Many forms of response to stimulus involve no visible specialization, e.g. positive and negative heliotropism, chemiotropism, geotropism, &c., seen more especially in plants, but occurring also in the animal kingdom.
[15] Prominent among these are: Schleiden (1873), Fol (1873-1877), Auerbach (1874), Bütschli (1876), Strasburger (1875-1888), O. Hertwig (1875-1890), R. Hertwig (1875-1877); Flemming (1879-1891), van Beneden (1883-1887), Rabl (1889), Boveri (1887-1903).