Regeneration . have takenpart in the development. The main points of difference betweenthe results of Roux and of Hertwig cannot, however, be explainedin this way, and the explanation is to be found in another direction. Hertwig emphasizes the view that the injured blastomere is notdead, but exerts an influence upon the other half — an influence ofthe same kind as that which the yolk of a meroblastic egg has on theprotoplasmic portion of the egg from which the embryo arises. Heventured to prophesy that if the injured yolk mass could be entirelyremoved, the uninjured blastomere would produce a
Regeneration . have takenpart in the development. The main points of difference betweenthe results of Roux and of Hertwig cannot, however, be explainedin this way, and the explanation is to be found in another direction. Hertwig emphasizes the view that the injured blastomere is notdead, but exerts an influence upon the other half — an influence ofthe same kind as that which the yolk of a meroblastic egg has on theprotoplasmic portion of the egg from which the embryo arises. Heventured to prophesy that if the injured yolk mass could be entirelyremoved, the uninjured blastomere would produce a normal embryowithout defect, and one Hke the normal embryo in every respectexcept in size.^ 1 The development of isolated blastomeres of the ctenophore egg shows that this neednot be the case. 224 AE GENERA TION Roux interprets Hertwigs results as due to the sudden partialpost-generation of a part of the injured half of the He thinksthat a half-embryo had first developed, and then to this there has been.
Size: 1742px × 1435px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecade1900, bookpublisherlondo, bookyear1901
