Microscopical morphology of the animal body in health and disease / by C. Heitzmann. With 380 original engravings.
- Carl Heitzmann
- Date:
- 1883
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Microscopical morphology of the animal body in health and disease / by C. Heitzmann. With 380 original engravings. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by the Augustus C. Long Health Sciences Library at Columbia University and Columbia University Libraries/Information Services, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the the Augustus C. Long Health Sciences Library at Columbia University and Columbia University.
45/884 page 19
![(iiiM'.KAL i'U()i'i:irni-:s of Livi.sa MAiTKit. id showed, in iSfil, tliat cliiiii^es of foi'iii, locomotion, and division arc inn)ossiblc to coi-pnsclcs surrounded l)y a resistant mcni- hrane; he maintained tliat the smaUest individual elements of orj^anisms arc lumps of a jelly-like matter endowed with life, for which he proposed, for jiood reasons, in accordance with the German hotanist, Iluyo von Mold, the tei-ni ''pi-()to])lasm. This jelly-like substance is identical with Dujai-din's 'sarcode. Max Schnltze was the first to announce that the liviiiu- matter of the infusi(m-animalcules and that of the cells of all animals are one and the same substance. The cell consists, according to this ol)server's views, of a nunute particle of protoplasm, in which there are imbedded the nucleus and gran ides. In the same year (1861), E. Briicke, of Vienna, though accepting Max Schultze's views, asserted that the inicleus is not an essential part of the cell, as he knew of many living lumps without any nucleus. Briicke defined the cell, for which he also proposed the name of elementary organism, to be a structureless lump of pro- toplasm ; though fully aware of the necessity of the existence of some structure, as in every substance, he regarded the structure of the cell as imperceptible to our senses. S. Strieker, in accordance wdth Briicke, in 1868, explained that the (;eU is nothing but a particle of structureless protoplasm, usually con- taining granides, but that these granid.es are nat essential characteristics. He especially examined the form-elements of the ovula of frogs while studWug their development, and obsei'ved in these elements hyaline flaps, which he took for pui*e protoplasm, whereas the greater part of the protoplasm was fiUed with granides, or particles of yoke. The fact that every living lump is capable of taking in foreign minute corpuscles, granules of carmine or aniline, for instance, from without, led him to the conclusion that protoplasm, perhaps, is devoid of any visible structure, while the \'isible granules are secondary prod- ucts of the protoplasm, or foreign substances accidentally taken into the interior of the protoplasmic lump. S. Strieker, in his Histology, discusses the question, how large the lump of protoplasm must be to be entitled to the name of ' cell,' and comes to the conclusion that we should call a living corpuscle a ^'eell only when we perceive in it the properties of a living organism—\dz., growth, motion, and reproduction. Lionel Beale (1860), independently of Max Schultze's doctrine, announced sim- ilar views, arriving, however, at conclusions qiute different froni those of German biologists. Apparently his microscopes, al-](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21219163_0045.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
