’99. Regeneration and Regulation in Hydra viridis. Arch.
f. Entw.-mech., VIII, 1899.
’99. The Regulation of Graft-Abnormalities in Hydra.
Arch. Entw.-mech. IX, 1899.
=Randolph, Harriet.=
’92. The Regeneration of the Tail in Lumbriculus. Jour.
Morph., VII, 1892.
’97. Observations and Experiments on Regeneration in
Planarians. Arch. f. Entw.-mech., 5, 1897.
=Rankin, D. R.=
’57. On the Structure and Habits of the Slowworm (Anguis
fragilis Linn.). Edinburgh New Philos. Jour. (N. S.), V, 1857.
=Rauber, A.=
’95. Die Regeneration der Krystalle, I. Leipzig, 1895.
II, 1896.
=Réaumur, R. A. de.=
1712. Sur les diversées Reproductions. Mem. d. l’Acad., 1712.
1742. Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire des Insectes.
Tome VI, Préface, 1742.
=Ribbert, H.=
’94. Beiträge zur kompensatorischen Hypertrophie und zur
Regeneration. Arch. f. Entw.-mech., I, 1894.
’97. Über Veränderungen transplantierter Gewebe. Arch. f.
Entw.-mech., VI, 1897.
’97. Über Rückbildung an Zellen und Geweben und über die
Entstehung der Geschwülste. Bibl. med. Abt., C, 1897.
’98. Über Veränderungen der abnorm. gekrümmten
Schwanzwirbelsäule des Kaninchens. Arch. f. Entw.-mech., VI, 1898.
’98. Über Transplantation von Ovarium, Hoden, und Mamma.
Arch. f. Entw.-mech., VII, 1898.
=Rievel, H.=
’96. Die Regeneration des Vorderdarms und Enddarms bei
einigen Anneliden. Zeit. wiss. Zool., LXII, 1896.
=Ritter, W. E., and Congdon, E. M.=
’00. On the Inhibition by Artificial Section of the
Normal Fission Plane in Stenostoma. Proc. California Acad. Science, II,
1900.
=Röthig, P.=
’98. Über Linsenregeneration. Inaug.-Diss. Berlin, 1898.
=Roux, W.=
’83. Über die Bedeutung der Kernteilungsfiguren. Leipzig,
1883.
’85. Beiträge zur Entwickelungsmechanik des Embryo. I.
Zur Orientierung über einige Probleme der embryonalen Entwickelung.
Zeit. f. Biologie, XXI, 1885.
’84. II. Über die Entwickelung des Froscheies
bei Aufhebung der richtenden Wirkung der Schwere. Breslauer
aerztl. zeitsch., 1884.
’85. III. Über die Bestimmung der
Hauptrichtungen des Froschembryo im Ei und über die erste Teilung des
Froscheies. _Ibid._, 1885.
’87. IV. Die Bestimmung der Medianebene des Froschembryo
durch die Kopulationsrichtung des Eikernes und des Spermakernes. Arch.
f. mikr. Anat., XXIX, 1887.
’88. V. Über die künstliche Hervorbringung halber
Embryonen durch Zerstörung einer der beiden ersten Furchungskugeln,
etc. Virchow’s Archiv, CXIV, 1888.
’91. VI. Über die morphologische Polarization von Eiern
und Embryonen durch den elektrischen Strom. Sitz. Ber. Akad. Wiss.
Wien., CI, 1891.
’90. Die Entwickelungsmechanik der Organismen, eine
anatomische Wissenschaft der Zukunft. Wien, 1890.
’92. Über das entwickelungsmechanische Vermögen jeder der
beiden ersten Furchungszellen des Eies. Verhandl. Anat. Gesell. Wien.,
1892.
’93. Über Mosaikarbeit und neuere
Entwickelungshypothesen, Anat. Hefte, II, 1893.
’93. Über die Spezifikation der Furchungszellen und über
die bei der Postgeneration und Regeneration anzunehmenden Vorgänge.
Biol. Centralbl., XIII, 1893.
’94. Über den Cytotropismus der Furchungszellen des
Grasfrosches. Arch. f. Entw.-mech., I, 1894.
’95. Gesammelte Abhandlungen über Entwickelungsmechanik.
Leipzig, 1895.
’95. Über die verschiedene Entwickelung isolierter erster
Blastomeren. Arch. f. Entw.-mech., I, 1895.
’96. Über die Selbstordnung (Cytotaxis) sich berührender
Furchungszellen, etc. _Ibid._, III, 1896.
’96. Über die Bedeutung “geringer” verschiedenheiten
der relativen Grösse der Furchungszellen für den Charakter des
Furchungsschemas. _Ibid._, IV, 1896.
’97. Für unser Programm und seine Verwirklichung.
_Ibid._, V, 1897.
’96. Zu H. Driesch’s “Analytischer Theorie der
organischen Entwickelung.” _Ibid._, IV, 1896.
’00. Berichtigungen zu O. Schultze’s jüngstem Aufsatz
über die Bedeutung der Schwerkraft, etc. _Ibid._, X, 1900.
=Sachs, J.=
’80. Stoff und Form der Pflanzenorgane. Arbeiten d. bot.
Instituts Würzburg, II, 1880-82.
’93. Physiologische Notizen, I. Flora, 1893.
=Sarasin, P. and F.=
’88. Knospenbildung bei Linckia multiformis. Ergebn.
Naturforschung auf Ceylon, 1884-85. I. Wiesbaden, 1888.
=Sars, G. O.=
’75. Researches on the Structure and Affinity of the
Genus Brisinga. Christiania, 1875.
=Schaper, A.=
’98. Experimentelle Studien an Amphibienlarven. I.
Haben künstlich angelegte Defekte des Centralnervensystems oder die
vollständige Elimination desselben einen =nachweisbaren Einfluss auf
die Entwickelung des Gesamtorganismus junger Froschlarven? Arch. f.
Entw.-mech., VI, 1898.=
=Schiedt, R. R.=
’92. Diffuse Pigmentation of the Epidermis of the Oyster
due to prolonged exposure to Light. Regeneration of Shell and loss of
Adductor Muscle. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1892.
=Schimkewitsch, W.=
’00. Über einer Fall von Heterotopie der Haare. Verh. d.
k. Naturforscher Gesell. in St. Petersburg, XXX, 1900.
=Schmidt, E. O.=
’75. Spongien. Jahresb. Comm. Untersuch. Deutschen Meere
in Kiel, II und III, Jahrg., 1875.
=Schostakowitsch.=
’94. Über Regeneration, etc., bei Lebermoosen. Flora,
Ergänzungsband, 1894.
=Schultz, E.=
’98. Über die Regeneration von
Spinnenfüssen. Trav. Soc. Nat. Petersb., XXIX, 1898.
=Schultze, E.=
’99. Aus dem Gebiete der Regeneration. Zeit. f. wiss.
Zool., LXVI, 1899.
=Schultze, L. S.=
’99. Die Regeneration des Ganglion von Ciona
intestinalis, L. und über das Verhaltnis der Regeneration und Knospung
zur Keimblätterlehre. Jena Zeit. f. Naturswiss., XXXIII, 1899.
=Schultze, O.=
’94. Die künstliche Erzeugung von Doppelbildungen
bei Froschlarven mit Hülfe abnormer Gravitationswirkung. Arch. f.
Entw.-mech., I, 1894.
’99. Über das erste Auftreten der bilateralen Symmetrie.
im Verlauf der Entwickelung. Archiv. f. Mikr. Anat., LV, 1899.
’99. Über die Nothwendigkeit der freien Entwickelung des
Embryo. _Ibid._, 1899.
=Scudder, S.=
’68-’69. Proceedings Boston Society of Natural History
(page 99), XII, 1868-69.
=Semon, R.=
’89. Neubildung der Scherbe in der Mitte eines
abgebrochenen Seesternarmes. Jena. Zeit. f. Naturw., XXIII, 1889.
=Semper, C.=
’68. Reisen in Archipel der Philippinen, II, 1868.
’76. Die Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen der gegliederten
Thiere. Arb. zool.-zoot. Inst. Würzburg, III, 1876.
=Siebold.=
’28. Observationes quaedam de Salamandris et Tritonis.
Diss. Berolini, 1828.
=Simroth, H.=
’77. Anatomie und Schizogonie der Ophiactis virens. Zeit.
f. wiss. Zool., XXVIII, 1877.
=Spallanzani, L.=
1782. Risultati di esperienze sopra la riproduzione della
Testa nelle Lumache Terrestri. Memoria di Matematica e Fisica della
Societa italiana, tomo I, Verona, 1782.
’26. Prodromo di un’ opera sopra le riproduzioni animali.
Milano, 1826.
=Spemann, H.=
’00. Experimentelle Erzeugung zweiköpfiger Embryonen.
Sitzber. d. Phys. Med. Gesell. Würzburg, 1900.
’01. Entwickelungsphysiologische Studien am Triton-Ei.
Archiv. f. Entw.-mech., XII, 1901.
=Spengel, J. W.=
’93. Monographie der Enteropneusten. Fauna und Flora des
Golfes von Neapel, 1893.
=Stahl, E.=
’76. Über künstliche hervorgerufene Protonemabildungen an
dem Sporogonium der Laubmoose. Bot. Zeit., 1876.
=Strasser, H.=
’99. Regeneration und Entwickelung. Berner Rektoratsrede.
Jena, 1899.
=Studer, Th.=
’77. Echinodermen aus dem antarktischen Meere. Monatsber.
d. Berliner Akad., 1877.
=Tittmann, H.=
’95. Physiol. Untersuch. über Callusbildung an
Stocklingen. Jahr. f. wiss. Botan., XXVIII, 1895.
=Tizzoni, G.=
’83. Experimentelle Studie über die partielle
Regeneration und Neubildung von Lebergewebe. Biol. Centralb., III,
1883-84.
=Tornier, G.=
’96. Über Hyperdaktylie, Regeneration und Vererbung mit
Experimenten. Arch. f. Entw.-mech., III, 1896.
’97. Über
experimentell erzeugte dreischwänzige Eidechsen und Doppelgliedmassen
von Molchen. Zool. Anz., XX, 1897.
’97. Über Operationsmethoden, welche sicher Hyperdaktylie
erzeugen mit Bemerkungen über Hyperdaktylie und Hyperpedie. Zool. Anz.,
XX, 1897.
=Tower, W. L.=
’99. Loss of the Ectoderm of Hydra viridis in the Light
of a Projection Microscope. The American Naturalist (page 505), June,
1899.
=Towle, E. W.=
’91. On Muscle Regeneration in the Limbs of Plethedon.
Biol. Bull., II, 1891.
=Trembley, A.=
’74. Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire d’un genre de
Polypes d’eau douce. Leide, 1774.
=Tytler, R. C.=
’65. Farbenwechsel, die Häutung und die Regeneration des
Schwanzes bei den Ascalaboten. Journ. of the Asiatic Soc. of Bengal,
1865.
=Vernon, H. M.=
’99. The Effect of Staleness of the Sexual Cells on the
Development of Echinoids. Proc. Roy. Soc., LXV, 1899.
’00. Cross-Fertilization among Echinoids. Arch. f.
Entw.-mech., IX, 1900.
=Verworn, M.=
’91. Die physiologische Bedeutung d. Zellkerns. Arch. f.
d. ges. Physiol., LI, 1891.
’88. Biologische Protistenstudien. I. Zeit. f. wiss.
Zool., XLVI, 1888.
’89. Psycho-physiologische Protistenstudien, 1889.
’89. Die Polare Erregung der Protisten durch den
galvanischen Strom. Arch. f. d. ges. Physiol., XLVI, 1889.
=Vöchting, H.=
’77. Über die Teilbarkeit und die Wirkung innerer und
äusserer Kräfte auf die Organbildung in Pflanzenteilen. Pflüger’s
Arch., XV, 1877.
’78. Über Organbildung im Pflanzenreiche. Bonn, 1878 u.
1884.
’85. Über die Regeneration der Marchantieen. Jahrb. f.
wiss. Botanik, XVI, 1885.
’87. Über die Bildung von Knollen. Bibliotheca Botanica,
No. 4, Cassel, 1887.
’92. Über Transplantation am Pflanzenkörper. Tübingen,
1892.
=Voigt, W.=
’99. Künstlich hervorgerufene Neubildung von
körpertheilen bei Strudelwürmern, Sitz. d. Niederrhein. Gesell. f.
Natur- und Heilkunde zu Bonn, 1899.
=De Vries, H.=
’89. Intracellulare Pangenesis, 1889.
=Vulpian, M. A.=
’59. Notes sur les phénomènes de développement qui se
manifestent dans la queue de très jeunes embryons de grenouille. Compt.
Rend., XLVIII, 1859.
=Wagner, F. von.=
’93. Einige Bemerkungen über das Verhältnis von Ontogenie
und Regeneration. Biol. Centralbl., XIII, 1893.
’97. Zwei Wörter zur Kenntniss der Regeneration des
Vorderdarms bei Lumbriculus. Zool. Anz., XX, 1897.
’00. Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Reparationsprozesse bei
Lumbriculus variegatus. I. Zool. Jahrb., XIII, 1900.
=Wagner, W.=
’87. La régénération des organes perdus chez les
araignées. Bull. Soc. Imp. Natural., Moscow, 1887.
=Watson, J.=
’91. On the Redevelopment of Lost Limbs in the Insecta.
The Entomologist, XXIV, 1891.
=Weismann, A.=
’91. Essays on Heredity, Vol. I. Clarendon Press, Oxford,
1891.
’92. Das Keimplasma. Eine Theorie der Vererbung. Jena,
1892.
’94. The Germ-plasm. New York, 1894.
’96. Über Germinal-Selektion. Eine Quelle bestimmt gerichteter
Variation. Jena, 1896.
’97. Regeneration: Facts and Interpretations. Natural
Science, April, 1897.
’99. Thatsachen und Auslegungen in Besug auf
Regeneration. Anat. Anz., XV, 1899.
=Wendelstadt, H.=
’01. Über Knochenregeneration. Arch. f. mikr. Anat.,
LVII, 1801.
=Werner, F.=
’92. Selbstverstümmelung bei Heuschrecken Zool. Anz., XV,
1892.
’96. Über die Schuppenbildung, des regenerierten
Schwanzes bei Eidechsen. Sitzungsber. d. kais. Akad. in Wien, CV, 1896.
=Wetzel, G.=
’95. Transplantationsversuche mit Hydra. Arch. f. mikr.
Anat., XLV, 1895.
’95. Über die Bedeutung der cirkulären Furche in der
Entwickelung der Schultzeschen Doppelbildungen von Rana Fusca. Arch. f.
mikr. Anat., XLVI, 1895.
’96. Beitrag zum Studium der künstlichen
Doppelmissbildungen von Rana Fusca. Inaug. Dissert., 1896.
=Whitman, C. O.=
’89. The Seat of Formative and Regenerative Energy. Jour.
Morph., II, 1889.
’93. The Inadequacy of the Cell Theory of Development.
Jour. Morph., VIII, 1893.
’95. Evolution and Epigenesis. Biolog. Lectures at Woods
Holl in 1894, 1895.
=Wiedersheim, R.=
’77. Über Neubildung von Kiemen bei Siren lacertina.
Morph. Jahrb., III, 1887.
=Wilson, C. B.=
’97. Experiments on the Early Development of the
Amphibian Embryo under the Influence of Ringer and Salt Solutions.
Arch. f. Entw.-mech., V, 1897.
’00. The Habits and Early Development of Cerebratulus
Lacteus. Q. J. Mic. Sc., XLIII, 1900.
=Wilson, E. B.=
’92. The Cell-Lineage of Nereis. Jour. Morph., VI, 1892.
’93. Amphioxus and the Mosaic Theory of Development.
Jour. Morph., VIII, 1893.
’95. On Cleavage and Mosaic Work. Appendix to Crampton.
Arch. f. Entw.-mech., III, 1895.
’96. The Cell in Development and Inheritance. New York
and London, 1896.
’98. Considerations on Cell-Lineage and Ancestral
Reminiscence. New York Acad. Science, II, 1898.
=Wolff, G.=
’94. Bemerkungen zum Darwinismus mit einem
experimentellen Beitrag zur Physiologie der Entwickelung. Biol.
Centralbl., XIV, 1894.
’93. Entwickelungphysiologische. Studien. I. Die
Regeneration der Urodelenlinse. Arch. f. Entw.-mech., I, 1893.
=Zacharias, O.=
’86. Über Fortpflanzung durch Spontanquertheilung, etc.
Zeit. f. wiss. Zool., XLIII, 1886.
=Ziegler, E.=
’91. Über die ursachen der pathologischen
Gewebsneubildungen. International Beiträge zur wissenschaftliche
Medizin. Festschrift für Virchow, II, 1891.
=Ziegler, H. E.=
’98. Experimentelle Studien über die Zellteilung, I. Die
Zerschnürung der Seeigeleier. Arch. f. Entw.-mech., VI, 1898.
’98. Experimentelle Studien, etc., III. Die
Furchungszellen von Beroë ovata. Arch. f. Entw.-mech., VII, 1898.
=Zoja, R.=
’95. Sullo sviluppo dei blastomeri isolati delle nova di
alcune meduse. Arch. f. Entw.-mech., I u. II, 1895.</p>
INDEX
Accidental Regeneration, 25.
Achimenes, 88.
Actinians, 142.
Actinosphærium eichhornii, 65.
“Action at a distance,” 283-287.
Adaptation, 94, 158, 277, 288-292.
Allman, 38.
Allolobophora terrestris, 172, 174, 175.
Alpheus platyrrhynchus, 63.
Amœba, 103.
Amphibia, 106.
Amphioxus, 105, 139, 231, 237.
Amphiuma, 106.
Analytische Theorie of Driesch, 253-254.
Andrews, E. A., 152.
Andrews, Mrs. G. F., 251.
Anguis fragilis, 198.
Annelids, 104, 143.
Antennularia antennina, 30-33, 103, 131.
Ants, 154.
Aristotle, 1.
Aschoff, 115.
Ascidian, 114, 149.
Ascidian egg, 236.
Asplenium, 23.
Asterias vulgaris, 102, 103.
Atrophy, 111, 123-125.
Atyoïda potimirum, 24, 213.
Aurelia, 104.
Autolytus, 143.
Autotomy, 110, 142, 150-155;
theories of, 155-158.
Baer, von, 208.
Balbiani, 66, 129.
Bardeen, 41, 136.
Barfurth, 21, 45, 54, 129, 137, 197, 199, 200.
Begonia, 23; B. discolor, 74.
Beneden, Van, 210.
Beroë ovata, 239.
Bert, 178.
Bickford, E., 57, 202.
Biophors, 278.
Bipalium, 13, 14, 104; grafting, 170.
Birds, 97, 106.
Bizozzero, 128.
Blastomeres, 19, 110.
Blastulæ, fusion of, 188.
Blood vessels, 120, 122-123.
Blumenbach, 112.
Bock, von, 149.
Bombinator igneus, 184.
Bones, 113, 124, 181.
Bonnet, 1;
experiments with worms, 2, 26, 38, 41, 92, 112, 200, 260, 261, 267.
Bordage, 97, 100, 157.
Born, 182-183, 243.
Boulenger, 214.
Boveri, 68, 228.
Braefeld, 17, 80.
Braem, 211.
Brandt, 65.
Breaking-joint, 150-152.
Brindley, 100, 104.
Brittle-stars, 105, 144, 145.
Broussonet, 97.
Bryozoa, 211.
Budding, 142, 149-150.
Bülow, 190, 213.
Bunting, 237.
Byrnes, 182.
Callus, 82, 83.
Camerano, 92.
Campanularia, 35.
Carniola, 106.
Carodina, 213.
Carrière, 104, 213.
Cat, 179.
Caterpillar, 100, 104, 154.
Cause, 287, 290.
Cells, origin of, 190-215.
Cephalodiscus, 149.
Cerianthus membranaceous, 41, 104.
Cermatia forceps, 100.
Cestodes, 103, 146.
Chabry, 236.
Chætogaster, 146.
Chætopterus, 189.
Chun, 238.
Ciona intestinalis, 42.
Closing wound, 69.
Cockroach, 100, 104.
Cœlenterates, 145, 149.
Cohnheim, 118, 119.
Colucci, 112, 203.
Conifers, 76 (footnote).
Conklin, 116.
Connective tissue, 180, 181.
Contact, 33, 37.
Coprinus stercorarius, 86, 87.
Corals, 142.
Crab, 43, 151, 152, 158.
Crampton, 236, 240, 245.
Crayfish, 100, 151, 157.
Crepidula fornicata, 116.
Crinoids, 105.
Crystal, regeneration of, 263-264.
Ctenodrilus monostylos, 144, 148.
Ctenodrilus pardalis, 144, 148.
Ctenophore-egg, 238-241.
Ctenophores, 142.
Cuvierian organs, 105.
Cytotropism, 69, 281.
Dalyell, 129, 144.
Darwinism, 108.
Darwin’s pangenesis, 278.
Delage, 25, 92.
Dendrocœlum, 104.
Difflugia, 103.
Double structures, 128, 135-141.
Driesch, definition of regeneration, 21, 22;
reparation, 22;
regulation, 22;
restitution, 22;
self-regulation, 22;
antennularia, 32;
43, 57, 59, 60, 135, 139, 188, 202,
228-236, 243, 246, 248,
250, 251, 252-255, 257, 267, 268, 274, 280, 281-287.
Driesch and Morgan, 239-241, 245.
Du Bois-Reymond, 286.
Dugès, 136.
Duhamel, 178.
Duyne, van, 136, 140, 141.
Dwarfs, 116.
Earthworm (Allolobophora fœtida), 9, 12, 38-39,
40, 53, 144, 170, 194, 271, 280, 290.
Echinoderms, 105, 144.
Echinus microtuberculatus, 68.
Egg, 18, 19, 139, 188, 216.
Embryo, 18, 110, 216;
grafting in, 182-189; union of, 188;
tension hypothesis, 274.
Endres, 221.
Epeiridæ, 100.
Epimorphosis, 23.
Epithelium, 180.
Eudendrium racemosum, 29, 30, 103.
External factors, 26.
Eye, 203;
crustacea, 30;
lens, 203-205.
Factors, 277.
Faraday, 136.
Fiedler, 228.
Fischel, 112, 205-207, 240, 291, 292.
Fischer, 124, 178.
Fish, 6, 97, 131-133, 274, 281;
lens, 290.
Fish’s eggs, 237.
Flatworms, see Planarians.
Food, influence of, 27, 37, 120, 122, 123.
Force, 76, 287.
Formative forces, 255, 277, 288.
Formative stuffs, 40, 88, 89, 90, 91.
Fraisse, 21, 97, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 214.
Fredericq, 151, 152.
Frogs, 106.
Frogs’ egg, 216.
Fundulus eggs, 237.
Fundulus heteroclitus, 45, 97, 274.
Gastroblasta Raffælei, 142, 145.
Gerassimoff, 66.
Germ-layers, 207-212.
Giants, 115.
Giard, 92.
Godelmann, 154.
Goebel, 22, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90.
Goette, 106, 200, 201, 213.
Gonionemus, 104, 125.
Grafting, 159-189.
Gravity, influence of, 30-33, 37.
Grawitz, 119.
Growth, 128, 131-135, 269-271, 278, 292.
Gruber, 66.
Guinea pig, 179.
Haberlandt, 66.
Haeckel, 102, 208, 216.
Half-embryos of frog, 216-226.
Hargitt, 125, 127, 168, 169.
Harmony, 282.
Harrison, 186, 187.
Heart, 124.
Heineken, 100.
Helicarion, 93.
Heliotropism, 271.
Hepke, 190, 192.
Herbst, 30, 214, 286.
Hermit-crab, 63, 97-99;
autotomy, 155.
Herrick, 153.
Hertwig, O., 22, 23, 222-227, 243, 246, 251, 252, 256, 278, 280, 288.
Hertwig, R., 228.
Hescheler, 44, 194, 196.
Heterocentron diversifolium, 74, 80.
Heteromorphosis, 24, 38-42.
Heteronereis, 143.
Heterotropy, 280.
His, 241.
Hjort, 210.
Hofer, 66.
Holomorphosis, 24.
Holothurians, 105, 145, 154.
Homology, 209.
Homomorphosis, 23.
Hunter, 178.
Huxley, 208.
Hyacinthus orientalis, 88.
Hydra, 1, 2, 11, 56, 103, 121, 122, 124, 142, 149;
grafting, 159-166, 203, 270, 272.
Hydra grisea, 169.
Hydra fusca, 169.
Hydractinia, 103, 168.
Hyperplasy, 115.
Hypertrophy, 111, 115-123.
Idiosomes, 278.
Ilyanassa obsoleta, 240.
Internal factors, 38, etc., 52-54.
Internal organs, 52-54, 111.
Iris, 204-207.
Ischikawa, 203.
Jelly-fish’s eggs, 237.
Joest, 170-175, 186.
Kennel, von, 147, 148, 149.
Kidney, 113, 116, 124, 180.
King, 102, 103, 125, 135, 139, 153, 162, 214.
Klebs, 66, 118, 120.
Knight, 75.
Knowlton, 27.
Kochs, W., 112.
Kowalevsky, 208, 210.
Kretz, 112.
Kroeber, 196.
Lamarckianism, 157.
Lang, 92, 93.
Lateral Regeneration, 9, 10, 28, 29, 43.
Leeches, 146.
Lefevre, 210, 211.
Lepelletur, 100.
Lepismium radicans, 78.
Lessona, 92, 93.
Liability to injury, 92-110;
view of Réaumur, 92;
of Bonnet, 92;
of Darwin, 92;
of Lang, 93;
of Semper, 93;
of Weismann, 93-96.
Light, influence of, 29, 30, 37.
Lillie, 26, 56.
Limnæa, 104.
Linckia multiformis, 102.
Lithium salts, 286.
Liver, 111, 180.
Liverworts, 16.
Lizard, 6, 94, 106;
double tail, 137-139;
198, 214, 290.
Lobster, 153.
Loeb, J., 24, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35,
42, 59, 67, 68, 102, 114, 131, 139,
141, 189, 231, 267, 268.
Loeb, Leo, 179.
Ludwig, 105.
Lumbricus rubellus, 172, 174, 175.
Lumbriculus, 43, 104, 144, 149, 190, 191.
Lung, 112.
Lunularia vulgaris, 84, 85.
Lymphatic glands, 121; grafting upon, 179.
Machine theory, 281.
Mammals, 97, 117-118;
grafting, 178.
Man, 107;
grafting, 178, 179.
Mantis, 100, 104.
Margelis carolinensis, 34.
Marshall, 124-125.
Martens, von, 102.
Mauritius, fighting cocks, 97, 106.
Mechanism, 277.
Meckel, 208.
Mesoderm, 193, 194.
Metridium, 104.
Michel, 190, 192.
Minchin, 105.
Minimal size, 55-57.
Molgula manhattensis, 237.
Mollusks, 104.
Morgan, 9, 30, 32, 33, 43, 44, 57-62, 64, 65, 68, 126,
131, 175, 185, 186, 187, 225, 231, 232, 237, 238,
243, 246, 247, 248, 249, 268.
Morphallaxis, 13, 270-271.
Mosses, 16, 17.
Moulds, 16.
Mouse, 178.
Mucor mucedo, 86.
Müller, E., 112.
Müller, Fritz, 100, 213.
Mus decumanus, 178.
Mus sylvaticus, 178.
Muscles, 114, 116, 120, 128, 181.
Myriapods, 100, 104; autotomy, 154.
Nägeli, 278, 280.
Nais, 104, 146.
Natural selection, 96, 108-110, 155-157, 262, 290, 292.
Necturus, 106.
Nematodes, 104.
Nemerteans, 104, 143.
Nereis, 143.
Nerves, 114.
Nervous system, 114.
Newport, 100, 154.
Nothnagel, 116, 117, 120.
Nucleus, influence of, 66, 67, 258, 281.
Nussbaum, 20, 66, 202, 203.
Oblique surface, 44-52, 281.
Oka, 210.
Old part, influence of, 62-65.
Oligochæta, 143.
Ontogeny, 212-215, 282.
Organization, 251, 275, 277, 278, 279, 288.
“Origin of Species,” 109.
Ovary, 124.
Oxygen, influence of, 36, 77-78.
Palla, 66.
Palolo, 143.
Paramœcium, 103.
Parypha, see Tubularia.
Pathological Regeneration, 21.
Peebles, F., hydra, 27, 56, 63, 101, 167, 168.
Peipers, 113.
Pekelharing, 118.
Pennaria tiarella, 35.
Petromyzon, 105.
Pflüger, 216, 242-243, 246, 252, 256, 264, 265, 288.
Phagocata, 104.
Phallusia mammalata, 236.
Phasmids, 154.
Phialidium variabile, 142.
Phillipeaux, 112, 200.
Phoxichilidium maxillare, 102.
Phylogeny, 212-215.
Physa, 104.
Physiological Regeneration, 19, 25, 128-131.
Pizon, 210.
Planaria lugubris, see Planarian.
Planaria maculata, see Planarian.
Planaria torva, 26.
Planarian, 9, 11, 13, 27, 28, 29, 40, 41, 43, 44-51, 64-65,
104, 107, 129, 133-135, 136, 141, 142, 201, 207, 273, 280.
Planorbis, 104.
Plants, 15, 70-91.
Plasomes, 278.
Platodes, 104.
Plethedon cinereus, 201.
Pliny, 1.
Podocoryne, 103, 168.
Podwyssozki, 113.
Poisons, 123.
Polarity, 38-40, 43, 177, 277, 280.
Polychæta, 143.
Polyclads, 104.
Polyzoa, 149.
Ponfick, 111.
Populus dilatata, 75, 76, 80.
Post generation, 20;
criticism of, 20 (footnote);
216, 219-221.
Pringsheim, 17, 86.
Proglottids, 146.
Proteus, 106.
Protozoa, 103, 145.
Przibram, 63, 100, 213.
Purpose, 282, 283.
Qualitative division of nucleus, 263.
Rabbit, 112, 113, 117, 118, 179.
Rana esculenta, 184.
Rana palustris, 185.
Rana virescens, 185.
Rand, 124, 164.
Randolph, 136, 190, 194.
Rat, 113, 179.
Rathburn, 153.
Rauber, 263-264.
Réaumur, 1;
experiments with worm and with hydra, 2;
92, 151.
Recklinghausen, 118.
Regeneration, definition of, 19-25;
incomplete, 125.
Regular Regeneration, 25.
Regulation, 22.
Remak, 208.
Reparation, 22.
Restitution, 22.
Restorative Regeneration, 25.
Rhabdocœlous, Planarians, 142, 149.
Ribbert, 112, 115, 117, 179-181.
Rievel, 190.
Roots, 80.
Rothig, 112.
Roux, definition of Regeneration, 20, 22, 183, 216-226,
243, 250, 252, 256, 288.
Sachs, 81, 88, 89;
theory of Regeneration, 265-267.
Salamander, 5, 6, 11, 43, 200, 213, 214, 270.
Salamandra maculata, 205.
Salensky, 210.
Salivary gland, 112, 113, 180.
Salix viminalis, 77.
Samuel, 118.
Sarasin, 102.
Sars, 102.
Schaper, 182.
Schmidt, O., 103.
Schmitz, 65.
Schostokowitsch, 85.
Schreiber, 106.
Schuberg, 129.
Schultz, 100, 101, 102, 154.
Schultze, 139, 225-227.
Scudder, 100, 154.
Scutigera forceps, 154.
Scyphistoma, 104, 142, 149.
Scyphozoa, 104.
Sea-urchin, 18, 19, 105.
Sea-urchin’s egg, 228.
Seeliger, 68, 210.
Self-division, 142.
Self-regulation, 22.
Semper, 93, 190.
Sertoli’s cells, 181.
Sharks, 105.
Siredon, 199.
Skin, 178, 179, 180.
Snail, 213.
Snakes, 106.
Spallanzani, Prodromo, 1, 4;
experiments with earthworms, 4;
tadpole, 5;
salamanders, 5;
snail, 5, 26, 38, 104, 153, 182, 200.
Spemann, 227.
Spencer, Herbert, 263.
Sphærechinus granularis, 68.
Spiders, 100, 104.
Spina bifida, 6.
Spleen, 124.
Sponges, 103, 142, 143, 149.
Spur of cock, 178.
Starfish, 18, 19, 102, 103, 105, 110, 144, 153, 214, 284.
Stenopus chrysops, 133, 274, 281.
Stentor, 14, 15, 56, 66, 67, 103, 129.
Stimulus, 283, 284, 285.
Stomobranchium mirabile, 142.
Stork, 97.
Strassen, zur, 189.
Stricker, 119.
Stuffs, 265-269.
Syllids, 143.
Syllis ramosa, 149.
Tadpole, 11, 45;
closing of wound, 70;
106, 137, 182-186, 197, 199-200.
Tail, 197.
Tapeworm, 143.
Tarantula, 100, 154.
Teleology, 282, 288-292.
Teleost’s egg, 237.
Temperature, 26-27, 37.
Tension, 272-278; in egg, 274.
Testes, 117, 124, 181.
Tetrastemma, 104.
Thallasicolla nucleata, 67.
Theories of Regeneration, 260.
Tornier, 54, 137, 139, 214.
Tower, 203.
Towle, 97, 201.
Townsend, 66.
Trachea, 180.
Transplantation, 179.
Trematodes, 104.
Trembley, 1;
experiments with hydra, 2, 20, 26, 38, 43, 159, 202.
Triclads, 104.
Triton cristatus, 137.
Triton eye, 112;
lens, 112.
Triton marmoratus, 106.
Tubifex, 104, 191.
Tubularia, 25, 33, 34, 52, 56-62, 69, 70, 103, 129, 167-168, 267, 273.
Turtles, 106.
Urodeles, 106, 197.
Valle, della, 210.
Vernon, 68.
Vertebræ, 181.
Verworn, 66, 67.
Virchow, 115.
Vitalism, 277, 284, 285.
Vöchting, 16, 57, 71-91, 131, 176, 269.
Vries, de, 278.
Vulpian, 182.
Wagner, von, 144, 149, 190, 192.
Wagner, W., 100.
Walter, 221.
Wax glands, 180.
Weigert, 118, 119.
Weismann, 93-96, 97, 101, 106, 108, 112, 129-130, 245, 252, 256, 261-263, 278.
Wetzel, 159, 169, 227.
White ants, 154.
Whitman, 280.
Whole embryos, of reduced size, 222.
Wiesner, 278.
Willow, 71-82.
Wilson, E. B., 68, 139, 231, 237, 250, 251, 256.
Wolff, C. F., 207, 208.
Wolff, G., 112, 203, 205, 206, 291, 292.
Zahn, 124, 178.
Ziegler, 115, 118, 119, 121, 240-241, 243, 246.
Zoja, 237.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Guettard and Gérard de Villars. Bernard de Jussieu also, who
demonstrated that starfish can regenerate.
[2] An annelid of unknown species.
[3] This statement of Spallanzani’s I interpreted incorrectly (’99),
thinking that he obtained a two-tailed form as had Bonnet.
[4] There is some doubt in regard to this statement of Spallanzani’s.
In a letter to Bonnet he denies that this takes place in the earthworm.
[5] Spallanzani refers to the work of Ginnani, Vandelli, Vallisneri.
[6] He found that the legs of the tadpole of the frog, and of two
species of toads, also have the power of regeneration.
[7] These experiments on the earthworm are in the main taken from my
own results (’95) (’97) (’99).
[8] _Lunularia vulgaris._
[9] Gesammelte Abhandlungen, No. 27, p. 836.
[10] The fact that the piece does, or does not, take in food has no
bearing on the question, since many animals that do not feed while the
regeneration is going on produce new cells to form the new part.
[11] These two kinds of regeneration are post-generation and
regeneration proper. The distinction that Roux attempts to make
between these two processes is to a certain extent artificial and
rests at present on a very unsafe basis, at least in so far as the
post-generation of the frog’s embryo is taken as a representative case
of this process. Roux states that in the process of _regeneration_ the
injured tissues produce each their like in the new part, while in the
process of _post-generation_ of the frog’s egg the new cell-material
arises in part from the nuclei and yolk-material of the injured half
and in part through the accidental position of the nuclear material of
the uninjured half. In order more fully to understand this distinction
the original description of the process of post-generation given by
Roux in his account of the development of half embryos of the frog’s
egg must be referred to. In later papers Roux pointed out that the
missing half of the frog embryo, as well as of other forms, may be
post-generated without any new material appearing at the open side of
the embryo. It is unfortunate, I think, that the original term should
have been extended to include these other processes that do not partake
of the nature of post-generation as at first defined, but are more like
the true process of regeneration as described by Roux.
[12] Ergebnisse der Anatomie und Entwickelungsgeschichte. 1891-1900.
[13] As used in connection with other terms, see his Ges. Abhandl.,
Vol. II, page 41.
[14] Die Zelle und die Gewebe.
[15] Hertwig’s description of the method by which a piece of hydra
makes a new one shows that he did not understand the kind of change
that takes place in this animal.
[16] Organographic der Pflanzen, ’98.
[17] This term is used by Driesch to his _Analytische Theorie_.
[18] Delage, Y. _La Structure du Protoplasma_, etc., ’95.
[19] The dark red glass was fairly monochromatic; the dark blue let a
trace of red light through.
[20] The same difference was found in this form in regard to
heliotropism.
[21] Palæmon and Sicyonia.
[22] The regeneration of the lens of triton may also be affected by
gravity.
[23] Driesch does not give in his paper (’99) the position of the
hydroids, or the method of the experiment, but I can supply the details
given above from a personal communication from Driesch.
[24] Jacobson has shown that the layer of water just above the
sedimentary layer at the bottom is poor in oxygen.
[25] “There is thus _manifested in the formative force of the
tubularia-stem a well-marked polarity_, which is rendered very apparent
if a segment be cut out from the centre of the stem.” Allman (’64).
[26] The same holds good for the basal hydranth if it arises near an
oblique end.
[27] Although it is by no means certain that the results may not be due
in part, at least, to injuries to the nervous system.
[28] In normal animals some have the right claw the larger and some the
left.
[29] In other plants, fumaria, for example, non-nucleated pieces do
not seem to be able to make new starch after using up that which they
contain at first.
[30] I have found that the closing in takes place equally well when one
per cent of KCl is added to the sea water. This salt has, as Loeb has
shown, an inhibiting effect on muscular contractility,--not, however,
on amœboid movements.
[31] Knight obtained similar results in 1809.
[32] Vöchting points out that a parallel case is found in certain
conifers. In these there arise from a vertical many-sided main stem
whorls of side branches that are symmetrical in one plane. These
lateral branches, if cut off and planted, produce new roots and new
branches, but the latter are always side-branches, like the parts from
which they arise. They never produce a normal main axis. Nevertheless,
although these branches cannot themselves produce a main shoot, a
callus may be formed at the base of the piece, and from this a new main
stem may arise.
[33] A piece suspended in ordinary air dries up without producing any
new structures.
[34] Goebel, ’98, page 37.
[35] Examples of this are found in _Lilium candidum_, _Lachenalia
luteola_.
[36] Delage and Giard give Lessona (’69) the credit for first stating
that the phenomenon of regeneration is an adaptation to liability to
injury; but Réaumur first suggested this idea in 1742, and Bonnet in
1745. Delage’s interpretation, viz. that Lessona ascribed this to a
_prévoyance de la nature_, has been denied by Lessona’s biographer,
Camerano (_La Vita di M. Lessona_, _Acad. R. d. Torino_, 2, XLV, 1896),
and by Giard (_Sur L’autotomie Parasitaire_, etc., _Compt. Rendus de
Séances de la Société de Biologie_, May, 1897).
[37] Whether, having once failed in this way to obtain the snail, the
bird or lizard would not learn to make a frontal attack is not stated.
Or shall we assume that the tail is all that is wanted?
[38] _The Germ Plasm._ Translation by W. Newton-Parker, 1893, page 116.
[39] There are no facts that show that this statement is not entirely
imaginary. T. H. M.
[40] The _italics_ are, of course, my own. T. H. M.
[41] _Fundulus heteroclitus_, _Stenopus chrysops_, _Decapterus
macrella_, _Menticirrhus macrella_, _Carassius auratus_, _Phoxinus
funduloides_, _Noturus sp._, and a few others.
[42] See Newport and Scudder.
[43] Brindley, ’97.
[44] Lepelletur, _Nouveau Bulletin de la Société philomatique_, 1813,
Tome III, page 254; Heineken, _Zool. Journal_, 1828, Vol. IV, page 284
(also for insects, _ibid._, page 294); Müller, _Manual de Physiol._,
Tome I, page 30; Wagner, W., _Bull. Soc. Imp. Natural._, Moscow, ’87.
[45] The Sarasins have described several cases in _Linckia multiformis_
in which an old arm has one or more new arms arising from it. In one
case (copied in our Fig. 38, _G_), four rays arise from the end of one
arm, producing the appearance of a new starfish. In fact the Sarasins
interpret the result in this way, although they state that there is no
madreporite on the upper surface, and they did not determine whether a
mouth is formed at the convergence of the rays, because they did not
wish to destroy so unique a specimen--even to find out the meaning of
it. There seems to me little probability that the new structure is a
starfish, but the old arm has been so injured that it has produced a
number of new arms.
[46] For a review of the literature see Brindley, ’98.
[47] I do not know whether this animal was kept long enough to make it
certain that the legs do not regenerate.
[48] A statement to the contrary quoted in Darwin’s _Animals and Plants
under Domestication_ is doubted by Darwin himself.
[49] The stork and the fighting cocks.
[50] See Darwin, _loc. cit._
[51] The more generally accepted results are given in Virchow’s
_Cellular Pathology_ and in Ziegler’s _Pathological Anatomy_. An
excellent review of the subject down to 1895 is given in a summary by
Ludwig Aschoff in the _Ergebnisse d. allgem. patholog. Morphol. und
Physiologie_, 1895, “Regeneration und Hypertrophie,” in which there are
two hundred and eighteen references to the literature.
[52] Nothnagel gives a review of the subject down to 1886 in an
article entitled “_Über Anpassung und Ausgleichung bei pathologischen
Zuständen. Zeitsch. f. klinische Medicin._” 1886. Vols. X and XI.
[53] Not, however, from the same litter.
[54] _Internat. Beiträge zu wissensch. Medicin. Festschrift für R.
Virchow_, Vol. II, 1891.
[55] _Vorlesungen über allgemeine, Pathologie_, Vol. I, 1882.
[56] _Handbuch._
[57] _Handbuch d. allgem. Pathologie_, 1879.
[58] _Allgemeine Pathologie_, Vol. II, 1889.
[59] _Über Endothelwucherungen in Arterien. Beitr. z. pathol. Anat._,
Vol. VIII, 1890.
[60] Haeckel (1870) first showed, in another medusa, that pieces
produce new medusæ.
[61] In rodents, however, the incisors continue to grow throughout the
life of the animal.
[62] If the young worm is fed the new part becomes almost as broad as
the old piece, but if the worm is not fed the old part decreases in
breadth and the new part does not grow as broad as in the former case.
[63] See Fraisse for literature.
[64] In the figure one double or forked toe is present.
[65] A parallel case is found when a piece partially split in two at
the anterior end (Fig. 24) produces one or two heads on each half,
according to the extent of fusion of the new material that goes to form
the new head or heads.
[66] See Lang (’88).
[67] See Zacharias (’86).
[68] See Hescheler (’97).
[69] The proglottids of the cestodes seem to be an exception, but they
are little more than sacs filled with embryos at the time of their
separation. How far regeneration may take place in the scolex, or young
proglottids, is not known, but it is not improbable that some of the
abnormal forms that have been described may be due to regeneration.
[70] Except for the protozoa.
[71] _The Fisheries and Fishing Industries of the United States_,
Washington, 1887.
[72] “The American Lobster,” _Bull. U. S. Fish Comm._, 1895.
[73] Réaumur in 1742 records the first observations. Spallanzani also
described the process, and many later writers have examined it.
[74] The phenomenon has been observed by Dalyell, Semper, Minchin, and
others.
[75] Müller, _Elements of Physiology_, 1837.
[76] By Wagner (’87).
[77] For references to the literature on grafting in plants see
Vöchting (’84).
[78] In one case they separated only after three months.
[79] This and other experiments were carried out by pushing the pieces
on a bristle.
[80] Rand found that when a posterior piece was grafted by its cut,
oral end to the side of another hydra that it was absorbed into the
stock. In one case it moved down the whole length of the body of the
stock and finally disappeared by absorption into the foot of the stock.
[81] Pieces from male and female colonies of the same species also
unite.
[82] See Joest’s Fig. 14.
[83] It is not certain whether this is a head or a tail.
[84] Joest states that this new part is a head, as shown by the
presence of food matter in the digestive tract of the posterior piece.
[85] The prostomium was misshapen, so that its specific character could
not be made out.
[86] It is known that the process of regeneration of the liver takes
place especially from the gall ducts.
[87] In one case I observed rhythmic pulsations in a vessel on one side
of the neck, in the region above the pharynx.
[88] The figure was drawn fifteen days after union.
[89] Metschnikoff (’86), Herbst (’92).
[90] Eggs without membranes were placed in sea water without calcium,
to which a few drops of sodium hydroxide have been added.
[91] The usual interpretation at present is to regard the proctodæal
ingrowth as ectodermal.
[92] In some species the two proliferating regions seem to be in
contact above from the beginning (Hepke, in _Nais_).
[93] This seems to be true for urodeles, but whether it is true for the
anurans is rather a question of definition, as I have pointed out in my
book on _The Development of the Frog’s Egg_.
[94] The attachments of the muscles may be the cause of the break in
the middle of the vertebræ, rather than between two vertebræ.
[95] _Prodromo_, 1768.
[96] Philipeaux, _Comptes rendus de l’Acad. des sciences de l’Institut
de France_, Année 1866, 1867.
[97] Todd (_Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature, and Arts_, Vol.
XVI), Blumenbach, Treviranus, Von Siebold.
[98] How the tentacles could have gotten into their normal position is
not explained.
[99] The foot sometimes pushes out through one of the slits made by the
bristle instead of out of the mouth.
[100] I have given elsewhere (_The International Monthly_, March, 1901)
a fuller treatment of the gastræa theory from the historical point of
view.
[101] It may be pointed out that there may be really several kinds of
homology, such as homology due to similar origin of the blastomeres, or
to their position, or to their fate, etc. The confusion that has arisen
may in part result from the attempt to make homologous parts agree in
all points.
[102] That is, one not depending on inheritance through adult forms.
[103] _Biologisches Centralblatt_, XV, ’95.
[104] A small amount of embryonic mesenchyme may come from some of the
ectodermal quartettes of the embryo and produce the branching muscles
of the head, but not the characteristic muscles of the trunk.
[105] Cosmos, Vol. VII, p. 388.
[106] King pointed out the fallacy of this argument.
[107] Roux’s earlier experiments in 1885, in which the unsegmented
or segmented egg was stuck and a part of its contents removed, the
remaining part making a whole embryo, will be considered in another
connection.
[108] This had been first discovered by Newport in 1851.
[109] The cross-section _C_ is reversed as compared with the
half-embryo _B_.
[110] This difference is due, I suppose, to the amount of injury that
the nucleus of the injured half may have suffered.
[111] The development of isolated blastomeres of the ctenophore egg
shows that this need not be the case.
[112] In one case a half-embryo resulted.
[113] The plane of the first cleavage has been shown in two urodeles to
correspond, not to the median longitudinal plane, but to a cross-plane
of the embryo.
[114] In some cases, especially in sphærechinus, even at the
eight-celled stage, the blastomeres seem to shift their position, so
that a whole sphere of half size is formed.
[115] Hertwig had a year before expressed a similar view in regard to
the equivalency of the blastomeres.
[116] A view advanced by Pflüger.
[117] The evidence to show that more than four and certainly more than
eight such groups that come from a single egg can produce a pluteus is,
I think, insufficient, and the result improbable.
[118] Driesch’s figures seem to show, nevertheless, that the
archenterons are proportionately too large.
[119] These may be pieces that were cut obliquely, as Driesch suggests,
so that they contain a part of the archenteric region.
[120] Driesch, Hertwig, Roux, Weismann, Barfurth. For review see
Driesch (’95).
[121] Bunting (’94) also found that isolated blastomeres of hydractinia
make whole embryos.
[122] If the yolk of the dividing egg is partially withdrawn without
disturbing the blastomeres, the form of the cleavage may be altered,
but a normal whole embryo develops over the smaller yolk sphere.
[123] We offered as a possible explanation in this case that the egg
had been cut in two symmetrically with reference to the eccentric
nucleus.
[124] These experiments have been quite fully described in my book on
_The Development of the Frog’s Egg_.
[125] Not, however, the supposed action of gravity on the egg.
[126] As stated in my article on “The Problem of Development,” 1900.
[127] According to Roux.
[128] According to E. B. Wilson.
[129] 1897.
[130] Unless it produces a physical change in the structure.
[131] Stevens (’01) has found that this ball of red pigment is ejected
from the mouth of the new hydranth.
[132] The importance of this conception is, in my opinion, marred by
the fiction of the ferment action of the nucleus; but it should not be
overlooked that Driesch avowedly called this a pure fiction.
[133] Not that Driesch supposes this would be the case.