[1] _Allgemeine Physiologie_, p. 53 (1895).
[2] _Vom inwendigen Bau der Gewachse_ (1806).
[3] The Chromoplastids of the vegetable cell come under a different
category of cell-inclusions; see PLANTS: _Cytology_.
[4] Cf. Pfeffer's classical experiments on the physiological
significance of cell-continuity in plant tissues (_Uber den Einfluss
des Zellkerns auf die Bildung der Zellhaut_, 1896). The recent work
in physiology on the influence substances secreted by certain tissues
and circulating in the blood-stream exert upon other and widely
different tissues, should not be lost sight of in this connexion.
[5] The influence this protoplasmic continuity may have upon our
conception of the cell as a unit of organization is referred to below
(_Present Position of the Cell-theory_).
[6] A term (from [Greek: karyon], kernel) suggested by Flemming to
replace Strasburger's hybrid term "nucleoplasm" (1882). The earlier
workers, e.g. Leydig, Schultze, Brucke, 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 [Greek: chroma], 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] "Uber Zentralkorper in mannlichen Geschlechtszellen von
Schmetterlingen" (Anat. Anz. Bd. xiv., 1897). Cf. also the papers of
Lenhossek (_Uber Flimmerzellen_, 1898), Karl Peter (_Das Zentrum fur
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'element ultime du
phenomene 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), Butschli (1876), Strasburger (1875-1888), O. Hertwig
(1875-1890), R. Hertwig (1875-1877); Flemming (1879-1891), van
Beneden (1883-1887), Rabl (1889), Boveri (1887-1903).
[16] This distinction between the chromatic and achromatic portions
of the mitotic figure is due to Flemming.
[17] The genesis of the spireme thread was first described by E. G.
Balbiani in 1876.
[18] "Recherches sur la maturation de l'oeuf, la fecondation et la
division cellulaire" (_Archives de biologie_, vol. iv.).
[19] First discovered by Flemming in 1879 and confirmed by Retzius in
1881.
[20] The discovery by Hermann of the central spindle first clearly
showed that two kinds of fibres must be recognized in the mitotic
figure. Those of the central spindle correspond to the continuous
spindle fibres of Flemming (1891) and Strasburger (1884), and the
mantle fibres, i.e. half-spindle or _Polstrahlen_, of van Beneden
(1887) and Boveri (1889-1890).
[21] Planter, Watase, Griffen and others.
[22] e.g. _Euglypha_ (Schewiakoff, 1888), Infusoria (R. Hertwig,
1898). So also Korschelt for _Ophryotrocha_, and many other cases.
[23] e.g. Bauer, spermatogenic cells of _Ascaris univalens_.
[24] Cf. also Watase, Solger and Zimmermann.
[25] This term is due to Boveri (_Zellenstudien_, ii., 1888, p. 68;
_Jen. Zeit._ xxii.), but it was intended by him to include the region
of modified cytoplasm or "centrosphere" often enclosing the
centrosome proper, i.e. "centriole" of Boveri.
[26] For outline of fertilization see article REPRODUCTION.
[27] e.g. lymph and various epithelial and connective tissue cells of
salamander larva (Flemming, 1891; Heidenhain, 1892); pigment cells of
fishes (Solger, 1891); red blood corpuscles (Heidenhain, Eisen,
1897); and numerous other cases.
[28] For an interesting development of this subject see Watase
(1894). This author not only identifies the centrosome with the
structures seen in lymph cells, &c., but compares it to the basal
granules of ciliated cells and to the varicose swellings on the
sarcostyles of striped muscle cells!
[29] The force of this evidence is admitted by Boveri himself. Meves,
however, maintains the possibility that the numerous centrosomes
appearing in the egg arise by the rapid fragmentation of a centrosome
already present.
[30] Cf. especially the behaviour of the centrosomes in the
fertilization of the egg of _Pleurophyllidia_ (MacFarland, 1897) and
that of _Cerebratulus_ (Coe, 1901). Not only may the sperm
centrosomes totally disappear before reaching the egg-nucleus, but in
the latter type the definitive centrosomes appear while the last
traces of the sperm asters are still visible.
[31] e.g. Meves; Spermatagonia of Salamandra.
[32] Cf. especially the artificial production of amitosis in
_Spirogyra_; W. Pfeffer, 1899.
[33] Cf. Boveri, 1904, p. 13. (For Boveri's criticism of Delage's
views, cf. Boveri, 1901 and 1902.)
[34] It should, however, be noted that the assumption that a
particular group of characters remains always associated in a
particular chromosome is one that is very difficult to reconcile with
the mode of inheritance of Mendelian pairs of characters in the case
of organisms with a relatively small chromosome number.
[35] Boveri (1902), "Fertilization of enucleated _Echinus_-egg
fragments," and M. Boveri (1903); by shaking the egg shortly after
fertilization the sperm centrosome is prevented from dividing, and a
monaster instead of a diaster results, the divided chromosomes
remaining in the one nucleus.
[36] Cf. especially in this connexion Hacker's paper _Uber die
Schicksale der elterlichen und grosselterlichen Kernanteile_ (1902).
[37] Each nucleus contains a duplicate set of chromosomes, the one of
maternal, the other of paternal origin, and either of these sets
alone suffices for development. This is clearly shown by the
experiments of Loeb (1899) and Wilson (1901) on the artificial
parthenogenesis of the sea-urchin egg; and those of O. Hertwig (1889
and 1895), Delage (1899) and Winkler (1901), on the fertilization of
enucleated Echinoderm eggs (_Merogony_, Delage). The fact that in
some forms, e.g. _Ascaris megalocephala_ var. _univalens_, only one
chromosome is derived from each parent, originally led Boveri to
conclude that _all_ chromosomes must necessarily be physiologically
equivalent.
[38] _Uber mehrpolige Mitosen als Mittel zur Analyse des Zellkerns_
(1902).
[39] _Uber das Auseinandergehen von Furchungs- und Gewebezellen in
kalkfreien Medium_ (1900).
[40] "Entwicklungsmechanische Studien V." (_Zeit. fur wiss. Zool._,
Bd. lv., 1892).
[41] See Geddes and Thomson, _Sex_, esp. pp. 127, 137 and 139.
[42] The equivalence of the germ nuclei in development is shown by
the experiments on the fertilization of enucleated eggs and
artificial parthenogenesis already referred to.
[43] O. Hertwig, 1873; but esp. van Beneden, 1883.
[44] Hacker, "Uber die Selbststandigkeit der vaterlichen und
mutterlichen Kernbestandteile," _Arch. f. mikr. Anat._ Bd. xlvi.
(1896).
[45] First discovered by van Beneden (1883, 1887) for the egg of
_Ascaris_.
[46] In the case of the egg the whole of the yolk stored by the
"oocyte" (cell-generation immediately preceding the maturation
divisions) is handed on to only one of the four resulting cells--an
obvious economy. The three yolkless cells are necessarily
functionless--abortive ova--and are known as the "polar bodies"
(Hertwig). In spermatogenesis the maturation divisions, though
bearing the same relation to reduction as in oogenesis (Platner,
1889; O. Hertwig, 1890), give rise to four functional germ-cells. The
explanation of sexual differentiation given above, and that of polar
body formation given here, render it needless to do more than mention
the theories of Mimot (1877), van Beneden (1883) and others, by which
"maturation" was regarded as removing the "male" element from the
otherwise "hermaphrodite" egg.
[47] Weismann postulated a transverse division of the chromosomes,
not a distribution of entire chromosomes; but the result as far as
the reduction in the number of hereditary qualities goes is the same.
The inability of the mitotic mechanism to effect the transverse
division of unsplit chromosomes is pointed out by Boveri (1904).
[48] For an exhaustive account of reduction in Invertebrates see
Korschelt and Heider, _Entwicklungsgeschichte_, Allgem. Teil ii.
(Jena, 1903).
[49] Nevertheless the possibility of a pseudomitotic interpretation
of maturation in _Ascaris_ also has been maintained by O. Hertwig
(1890), p. 277, Carnoy and Boveri (1904).
[50] The partial or even complete reconstruction of the nucleus
between the heterotype and homotype division in Vertebrates makes it
difficult to determine the identity of the split seen in the anaphase
of the heterotype with that reappearing in the prophase of the
homotype.
[51] e.g. Moore, 1895 (_Scyllium_); Flemming, 1897; Carnoy and
Lebrun, 1899 (_Amphibia_); McGregor, 1899; Lenhossek, 1898 (mammals),
and many others. So also for plants: Strasburger and Mottier, 1897;
Dixon, 1896; Sargant, 1896-1897; Farmer and Moore, 1895; Gregoire,
1899; Guignard, 1899, &c.
[52] H. Henking (1899), T. Montgomery (1898) and F. C. Paulmeir
(1899) describe the diverging bivalent halves of the tetrad as being
united each by _two_ fibres with the corresponding spindle pole. At
the next division, at which the diad is resolved into its constituent
univalent chromosomes, the daughter chromosomes are attached to the
spindle pole each by only one fibre; the two fibres now passing to
opposite poles of the spindle being the same fibres which, in the
preceding mitosis, were attached to one and the same pole.
[53] Reference may be here made to Rosenberg's description (1904) of
the heterotype mitosis in _Drosera_ hybrids. In the one parent (_D.
rotundifolia_) the somatic number is 20, in the other (_D.
longifolia_) 10; while the hybrid itself has a somatic number of 30.
The reduced number in the hybrid, however, is not 15 but 20. Of these
10 are large and 10 small, the latter presumably representing the
supernumerary, and hence unpaired, chromosomes of the _D.
rotundifolia_ parent.
[54] In their 1905 paper J. B. Farmer and J. E. S. Moore describe two
successive synaptic stages (e.g. Elasmobranchs), the first during the
contraction of the spireme thread, the second during the looping up
of the bivalent segments. (In this paper the authors suggest the term
"Meiosis" or "Meiotic phase" for the nuclear changes accompanying the
two maturation divisions in plants and animals ([Greek: meiosis],
reduction).
[55] Whitman, _Jour. Morph._, 1903.
[56] This "Precocious segregation" (Lankester, 1877) is well seen in
the eggs of many Ctenophorae, Annelids, Gastropods and Nematodes. See
the papers by Lillie (1901), Conklin (1902), &c., and especially
Wilson on "Dentalium," _Journ. of Exp. Zool._, No. 1, 1904.
[57] Hofmeister, de Bary, Sachs, &c.
[58] _Loc. cit._
[59] _Quart. Journ. Micro. Science_, 1894, vol. xxxvii.
CYZICENUS, the architectural term given by Vitruvius to the large hall,
used by the Greeks, which faced the north, with a prospect towards the
gardens; the windows of this hall opened down to the ground, so that the
green verdure could be seen by those lying on the couches.
CYZICUS, an ancient town of Mysia in Asia Minor, situated on the
shoreward side of the present peninsula of Kapu-Dagh (Arctonnesus),
which is said to have been originally an island in the Sea of Marmora,
and to have been artificially connected with the mainland in historic
times. It was, according to tradition, occupied by Thessalian settlers
at the coming of the Argonauts, and in 756 B.C. the town was founded by
Greeks from Miletus. Owing to its advantageous position it speedily
acquired commercial importance, and the gold _staters_ of Cyzicus were a
staple currency in the ancient world till they were superseded by those
of Philip of Macedon. During the Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.)
Cyzicus was subject to the Athenians and Lacedaemonians alternately, and
at the peace of Antalcidas (387 B.C.), like the other Greek cities in
Asia, it was made over to Persia. The history of the town in Hellenistic
times is closely connected with that of the dynasts of Pergamum, with
whose extinction it came into direct relations with Rome. Cyzicus was
held for the Romans against Mithradates in 74 B.C. till the siege was
raised by Lucullus: the loyalty of the city was rewarded by an extension
of territory and other privileges. Still a nourishing centre in Imperial
times, the place appears to have been ruined by a series of
earthquakes--the last in A.D. 1063--and the population was transferred
to Artaki at least as early as the 13th century, when the peninsula was
occupied by the Crusaders. The site is now known as Bal-Kiz ([Greek:
Palaia Kuzikos]?) and entirely uninhabited, though under cultivation.
The principal extant ruins are:--the walls, which are traceable for
nearly their whole extent, a picturesque amphitheatre intersected by a
stream, and the substructures of the temple of Hadrian. Of this
magnificent building, sometimes ranked among the seven wonders of the
ancient world, thirty-one immense columns still stood erect in 1444.
These have since been carried away piecemeal for building purposes by
the Turks.
See J. Marquardt, _Cyzicus_ (Berlin, 1830); G. Perrot, _Exploration de
la Galatie_ (Paris, 1862); F. W. Hasluck and A. E. Henderson in
_Journal of Hellenic Studies_ (1904), 135-143. (F. W. Ha.)
CZARNIECKI, STEPHEN (1590-1665), Polish general, learnt the science of
war under Stanislaw Koniecpolski in the Prussian campaigns against
Gustavus Adolphus (1626-1629), and under Wladislaus IV. in the Muscovite
campaign of 1633. On the 15th of April 1648 he was one of the many noble
Polish prisoners who fell into the hands of Chmielnicki at the battle of
"Yellow Waters," and was sent in chains to the Crimea, whence he was
ransomed in 1649. He took an active part in all the subsequent wars with
the Cossacks and received more disfiguring wounds than any other
commander. When Charles X. of Sweden invaded Poland in 1655, Czarniecki
distinguished himself by his heroic defence of Cracow, which he only
surrendered under the most honourable conditions. His energy and ability
as a leader of guerillas hampered Charles X. at every step, and though
frequently worsted he from time to time inflicted serious defeats upon
the Swedes, notably at Jaroslaw and at Kozienice in 1656. Under his
direction the popular rising against the invader ultimately proved
triumphant. It was he who brought King John Casimir back from exile and
enabled him to regain his lost kingdom. It was against his advice that
the great battle of Warsaw was fought, and his subsequent strategy
neutralized the ill effects of that national disaster. On the retirement
of the Swedes from Cracow and Warsaw, and the conclusion of the treaty
of Copenhagen with the Danes, he commanded the army corps sent to drive
the troops of Charles X. out of Jutland and greatly contributed to the
ultimate success of the Allies. On the conclusion of the Peace of Oliva,
which adjusted the long outstanding differences between Poland and
Sweden, Czarniecki was transferred to the eastern frontier where the war
with Muscovy was still raging. In the campaign of 1660 he won the
victories of Polonka and Lachowicza and penetrated to the heart of the
enemy's country. The diet of 1661 publicly thanked him for his services;
the king heaped honours and riches upon him, and in 1665 he was
appointed acting commander-in-chief of Poland, but died a few days after
receiving this supreme distinction. By his wife Sophia Kobierzycka he
left two daughters. Czarniecki is rightly regarded as one of the most
famous of heroic Poland's great captains, and to him belongs the chief
merit of extricating her from the difficulties which threatened to
overwhelm her during the disastrous reign of John Casimir. Czarniecki
raised partisan-warfare to the dignity of a science, and by his ubiquity
and tenacity demoralized and exhausted the regular armies to which he
was generally opposed.
See Ludwik Jenike, _Stephen Czarniecki_ (Pol.) (Warsaw, 1891); Michal
Dymitr Krajewski, _History of Stephen Czarniecki_ (Pol.), (Cracow,
1859).
CZARTORYSKI, ADAM GEORGE, PRINCE (1770-1861), Polish statesman, was the
son of Prince Adam Casimir Czartoryski and Isabella Fleming. After a
careful education at home by eminent specialists, mostly Frenchmen,[1]
he first went abroad in 1786. At Gotha he heard Goethe read his
_Iphigenie auf Tauris_, and made the acquaintance of the dignified
Herder and "fat little Wieland." In 1789 he visited England with his
mother, and was present at the trial of Warren Hastings. On a second
visit in 1793 he made many acquaintances among the English aristocracy
and studied the English constitution. In the interval between these
visits he fought for his country during the war of the second partition,
and would subsequently have served under Kosciuszko also had he not been
arrested on his way to Poland at Brussels by the Austrian government.
After the third partition the estates of the Czartoryskis were
confiscated, and in May 1795 Adam and his younger brother Constantine
were summoned to St Petersburg; later in the year they were commanded to
enter the Russian service, Adam becoming an officer in the horse, and
Constantine in the foot guards. Catherine was so favourably impressed by
the youths that she restored them part of their estates, and in the
beginning of 1796 made them gentlemen in waiting. Adam had already met
the grand duke Alexander at a ball at the princess Golitsuin's, and the
youths at once conceived a strong "intellectual friendship" for each
other. On the accession of the emperor Paul, Czartoryski was appointed
adjutant to Alexander, now Cesarevich, and was permitted to revisit his
Polish estates for three months. At this time the tone of the Russian
court was extremely liberal, humanitarian enthusiasts like Peter
Volkonsky and Nikolai Novosiltsov possessing great influence.
Throughout the reign of Paul, Czartoryski was in high favour and on
terms of the closest intimacy with the emperor, who in December 1798
appointed him ambassador to the court of Sardinia. On reaching Italy
Czartoryski found that the monarch to whom he was accredited was a king
without a kingdom, so that the outcome of his first diplomatic mission
was a pleasant tour through Italy to Naples, the acquisition of the
Italian language, and a careful exploration of the antiquities of Rome.
In the spring of 1801 the new emperor Alexander summoned his friend back
to St Petersburg. Czartoryski found the tsar still suffering from
remorse at his father's assassination, and incapable of doing anything
but talk religion and politics to a small circle of private friends. To
all remonstrances he only replied "There's plenty of time." The senate
did most of the current business; Peter Vasilevich Zavadovsky, a pupil
of the Jesuits, was minister of education. Alexander appointed
Czartoryski curator of the academy of Vilna (April 3, 1803) that he
might give full play to his advanced ideas. He was unable, however, to
give much attention to education, for from the beginning of 1804, as
adjunct of foreign affairs, he had the practical control of Russian
diplomacy. His first act was to protest energetically against the murder
of the due d'Enghien (March 20, 1804), and insist on an immediate
rupture with France. On the 7th of June the French minister Hedouville
quitted St Petersburg; and on the 11th of August a note dictated by
Czartoryski to Alexander was sent to the Russian minister in London,
urging the formation of an anti-French coalition. It was Czartoryski
also who framed the Convention of the 6th of November 1804, whereby
Russia agreed to put 115,000 and Austria 235,000 men in the field
against Napoleon. Finally, on the 11th of April 1805 he signed an
offensive-defensive alliance with England. But his most striking
ministerial act was a memorial written in 1805, but otherwise undated,
which aimed at transforming the whole map of Europe. In brief it
amounted to this. Austria and Prussia were to divide Germany between
them. Russia was to acquire the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmora, the
Bosphorus with Constantinople, and Corfu. Austria was to have Bosnia,
Wallachia and Ragusa. Montenegro, enlarged by Mostar and the Ionian
Islands, was to form a separate state. England and Russia together were
to maintain the equilibrium of the world. In return for their
acquisitions in Germany, Austria and Prussia were to consent to the
erection of an autonomous Polish state extending from Danzig to the
sources of the Vistula, under the protection of Russia. Fantastic as it
was in some particulars, this project was partly realized[2] in more
recent times, and it presented the best guarantee for the independent
existence of Poland which had never been able to govern itself. But in
the meantime Austria had come to an understanding with England as to
subsidies, and war had begun.
In 1805 Czartoryski accompanied Alexander both to Berlin and Olmutz as
chief minister. He regarded the Berlin visit as a blunder, chiefly owing
to his profound distrust of Prussia; but Alexander ignored his
representations, and in February 1807 he lost favour and was superseded
by Andrei Eberhard Budberg. But though no longer a minister Czartoryski
continued to enjoy Alexander's confidence in private, and in 1810 the
emperor candidly admitted to Czartoryski that his policy in 1805 had
been erroneous and he had not made a proper use of his opportunities.
The same year Czartoryski quitted St Petersburg for ever; but the
personal relations between him and Alexander were never better. The
friends met again at Kalisch shortly before the signature of the
Russo-Prussian alliance of the 20th of February 1813, and Czartoryski
was in the emperor's suite at Paris in 1814, and rendered his sovereign
material services at the congress of Vienna.
On the erection of the congressional kingdom of Poland every one
thought that Czartoryski, who more than any other man had prepared the
way for it, would be its first governor-general, but he was content with
the title of senator-palatine and a share in the administration. In 1817
the prince married Anna Sapiezanko, the wedding leading to a duel with
his rival Pac. On the death of his father in 1823 he retired to his
ancestral castle at Pulawy; but the Revolution of 1830 brought him back
to public life. As president of the provisional government he summoned
(Dec. 18th, 1830) the Diet of 1831, and after the termination of
Chlopicki's dictatorship was elected chief of the supreme council by 121
out of 138 votes (January 30th). On the 16th of September his
disapproval of the popular excesses at Warsaw caused him to quit the
government after sacrificing half his fortune to the national cause; but
it must be admitted that throughout the insurrection he did not act up
to his great reputation. Yet the energy of the sexagenarian statesman
was wonderful. On the 23rd of August he joined Girolano Ramorino's
army-corps as a volunteer, and subsequently formed a confederation of
the three southern provinces of Kalisch, Sandomir and Cracow. At the end
of the war he emigrated to France, where he resided during the last
thirty years of his life. He died at his country residence at
Montfermeil, near Meaux, on the 15th of July 1861. He left two sons,
Witold (1824-1865), and Wladyslaus (1828-1894), and a daughter Isabella,
who married Jan Dzialynski in 1857. The principal works of Czartoryski
are _Essai sur la diplomatie_ (Marseilles, 1830); _Life of J. U.
Niemcewiez_ (Pol). (Paris, 1860); _Alexander I. et Czartoryski:
correspondance ... et conversations_ (1801-1823) (Paris, 1865);
_Memoires et correspondance avec Alex. I._, with preface by C. de
Mazade, 2 vols. (Paris, 1887); an English translation _Memoirs of
Czartoryski, &c._, edited by A. Gielguch, with documents relating to his
negotiations with Pitt, and conversations with Palmerston in 1832 (2
vols., London, 1888).
See Bronislaw Zaleski, _Life of Adam Czartoryski_ (Pol.) (Paris,
1881); Lubomir Gadon, _Prince Adam Czartoryski_ (Pol.) (Cracow, 1892);
Ludovik Debicki, _Pulawy_, vol. iv.; Lubomir Gadon, _Prince Adam
Czartoryski during the Insurrection of November_ (Pol.) (Cracow,
1900). (R. N. B.)