H. Autrum – författare

1. 1. Probleme funktioneller Strukturanalyse der Organoide bei der Amobe; wahrscheinliche Strukturbilder Die beiden bekannten Haupttypen von groBen Amoben [so AN- DRESEN (1956) J, die einkernige A moeba proteus (oder Chaos diffluens; SCHAEFFER) und die vielkernige Art Chaos chaos (SCHAEFFER) werden z. Z. in der experimentellen Biologie fur die Losung verschiedener grund- legender Fragen herangezogen. Transplantationen des Zellkerns dienen der Analyse genetischer (DANIELL! u. Mitarb. ) oder stoffwechsel- physiologischer Fragen. Der Fermentgehalt der Mitochondrien und des Cytoplasmas sowie die Pinocytose werden z. B. eingehend von der Arbeitsgruppe des Carlsberg-Laboratoriums untersucht (H. HOLTER u. Mitarb. ). Die Gesamtheit dieser physiologischen Studien! ruft nach einer genauen Erfassung der strukturellen Grundlagen des physiolo- gischen Geschehens. Neuerdings hat ANDRESEN (1956) eine sehr ein- HiBliche Monographie uber die Cytologie von Chaos chaos veroffentlicht. Er hat hier wesentliche Beziehungen zwischen lichtmikroskopischen Befunden, die z. T. auch quantitativer Art sind, und einigen funktione11en Phanomenen hergestellt.Doch liegt es im Auflosungsvermogen des Lichtmikroskopes begrundet, daB die Aussagen uber die einzelnen Organoide, wie Plasmalemma, Mitochondrien, Hyaloplasma, nicht sehr bestimmt sein konnen. In diesem Fa11e drangt sich eine elektronen- mikroskopische Strukturanalyse geradezu auf. Aber es liegt ebenfa11s auf der Hand, daB die bis heute vorliegenden submikroskopischen Be- funde nicht als abschlieBend gelten konnen, da die Elektronenmikro- skopie als Forschungsrichtung vie 1 zu jung ist. Immerhin existieren heute schon fUr einzelne Organoide der Amobe gut umrissene Resultate, so daB es gerechtfertigt erscheint, eine erste vorliiufige Sichtung und Ein- ordnung der Befunde vorzunehmen.

Die räumliche Ordnung der Lebensprozesse im Körper der Eumeta­ zoen beruht auf dem Prinzip der Arbeitsteilung, nach dem viele Vorgänge nur in bestimmten, hierfür spezialisierten Teilen des Organismus ab­ laufen können. Für die Wirbeltiere ist seit langem bekannt, daß dieses Prinzip nicht nur für komplexe Lebensleistungen, sondern auch für elementare Prozesse des Stoffwechsels gilt. Die meisten der hochspeziali­ sierten Zelltypen des Wirbeltierorganismus haben die Fähigkeit zur Durchführung bestimmter biochemischer Reaktionen eingebüßt und sind zur Befriedigung ihrer Stoffwechselbedürfnisse auf die Mitwirkung anderer Zellen angewiesen. So kommt also auch das chemische Gesamt­ geschehen bei den Wirbeltieren erst durch Zusammenwirken aller Zellen des Körpers zustande. In diesem Zusammenspiel hat die Leber eine zentrale Rolle inne, die ihr die Bezeichnung "Zentralorgan des Stoff­ wechsels" eingetragen hat. Im Leberparenchym laufen zahlreiche Elementarprozesse des Stoffwechsels ab, die in anderen Organen nicht oder nur in geringerem Ausmaß möglich sind. Es ist naheliegend zu prüfen, ob eine ähnliche Situation auch bei "Wirbellosen" anzutreffen ist. Im folgenden soll dargestellt werden, daß die Mitteldarmdrüsen der Crustaceen und Mollusken sowie der Fett­ körper der Insekten mit einiger Sicherheit als "Zentralorgane des Stoffwechsels" im genannten Sinne anzusprechen sind. Für das Chloragog der Oligochäten erscheint eine zentrale Rolle im Stoffwechsel immerhin möglich. Der Vergleich bestimmter Organe der "Wirbellosen" mit der Wirbel­ tierleber ist schon sehr alt (JORDAN 1912, SrwE 1937). Die Bezeichnung "Leber" für die Mitteldarmdrüsen der Mollusken und Crustaceen geht zurück auf CLAUDE BERNHARD.

The present volume covers the physiology of the visual system beyond the optic nerve. It is a continuation of the two preceding parts on the photochemistry and the physiology of the eye, and forms a bridge from them to the fourth part on visual psychophysics. These fields have all developed as independent speciali­ ties and need integrating with each other. The processing of visual information in the brain cannot be understood without some knowledge of the preceding mechanisms in the photoreceptor organs. There are two fundamental reasons, ontogenetic and functional, why this is so: 1) the retina of the vertebrate eye has developed from a specialized part of the brain; 2) in processing their data the eyes follow physiological principles similar to the visual brain centres. Peripheral and central functions should also be discussed in context with their final synthesis in subjective experience, i. e. visual perception. Microphysiology and ultramicroscopy have brought new insights into the neuronal basis of vision. These investigations began in the periphery: HARTLINE''S pioneering experiments on single visual elements of Limulus in 1932 started a successful period of neuronal recordings which ascended from the retina to the highest centres in the visual brain. In the last two decades modern electron­ microscopic techniques and photochemical investigations of single photoreceptors further contributed to vision research.

The present volume covers the physiology of the visual system beyond the optic nerve. It is a continuation of the two preceding parts on the photochemistry and the physiology of the eye, and forms a bridge from them to the fourth part on visual psychophysics. These fields have all developed as independent speciali­ ties and need integrating with each other. The processing of visual information in the brain cannot be understood without some knowledge of the preceding mechanisms in the photoreceptor organs. There are two fundamental reasons, ontogenetic and functional, why this is so: 1) the retina of the vertebrate eye has developed from a specialized part of the brain; 2) in processing their data the eyes follow physiological principles similar to the visual brain centres. Peripheral and central functions should also be discussed in context with their final synthesis in subjective experience, i. e. visual perception. Microphysiology and ultramicroscopy have brought new insights into the neuronal basis of vision. These investigations began in the periphery: HARTLINE'S pioneering experiments on single visual elements of Limulus in 1932 started a successful period of neuronal recordings which ascended from the retina to the highest centres in the visual brain. In the last two decades modern electron­ microscopic techniques and photochemical investigations of single photoreceptors further contributed to vision research.

In the comparative physiology of photoreception by the Protista and the invertebrates two aspects are emphasized: (1) the diversity of visual processes in these groups and (2) their bearing upon general mechanisms of photoreception. Invertebrates have evolved a far greater variety of adaptations than vertebrates­ modifications aiding survival in the remarkably different biotopes they occupy. The number of species in itself suggests this multiformity; each of them has peculiarities of its own, in morphology as well as in physiology and behavior. But these special adaptations are variations on a few great themes. Although the catalogue of invertebrate species is immense, the literature concerning them nearly rivals it in extent-even if one considers only that fraction dealing with visual physiology. Taxonomy proceeds by grouping the species, categorizing them in genera, families, orders, and progressively larger units. Similarly, comparative physiology aims at an analogous, more or less compre­ hensive, classification. This Part A of Volume VII/6, like Part B that follows it, emphasizes the broad questions that concern groups larger than the individual species; in some cases these questions have general applicability. The middle course between approaches that are too specialized and those that are too general is often elusive, but here we attempt to follow it. The vast number of special adaptations-probably, as we have said, as large as the number of species-is beyond the range even of a handbook.

In the comparative physiology of photoreception by the Protista and the invertebrates two aspects are emphasized: (1) the diversity of visual processes in these groups and (2) their bearing upon general mechanisms of photoreception. Invertebrates have evolved a far greater variety of adaptations than vertebrates­ modifications aiding survival in the remarkably different biotopes they occupy. The number of species in itself suggests this multiformity; each of them has peculiarities of its own, in morphology as well as in physiology and behavior. But these special adaptations are variations on a few great themes. Although the catalogue of invertebrate species is immense, the literature concerning them nearly rivals it in extent-even if one considers only that fraction dealing with visual physiology. Taxonomy proceeds by grouping the species, categorizing them in genera, families, orders, and progressively larger units. Similarly, comparative physiology aims at an analogous, more or less compre­ hensive, classification. This Part A of Volume VII/6, like Part B that follows it, emphasizes the broad questions that concern groups larger than the individual species; in some cases these questions have general applicability. The middle course between approaches that are too specialized and those that are too general is often elusive, but here we attempt to follow it. The vast number of special adaptations-probably, as we have said, as large as the number of species-is beyond the range even of a handbook.

Volume VII, Part 6 brings to a conclusion the Handbook of Sensory Physiology, the publication of which has spanned 9 years. In the General Preface of Volume I it was stated that: "The purpose of this handbook is not encyclopedic completeness, nor the sort of brief summaries provided by periodic annual reviews. " The Editorial Board and the editors hope that this golden mean has been achieved: An absorbing, thorough, but nevertheless exemplary presentation should, with the aid of relevant examples, enable the reader to become accustomed with the numerous facets of the sensory system without sacrificing an overview of the subject. The main issues of sensory physiology were formulated in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by JOHANNES MULLER, H. VON HELMHOLTZ, E. HERING, S. EXNER, 1. VON KRIES, W. TRENDELENBURG, and E. D. ADRIAN, to name but a few. Modern development in the field has been characterized by interdisciplinary cooperation, the foundation for which was laid in the second half of the nineteenth century by VON HELMHOLTZ, EXNER, MAXWELL, and others. Progress made in bio­ chemistry, physics, mathematics, and information theory has not only made pos­ sible unanticipated refinement of methods of measurement; it has above all per­ mitted the transformation of mere hypotheses into established, accepted theories as well as revealing new problems. However, at the same time such development has, in recent decades, resulted in the literature becoming dispersed in specialist journals; consequently, it has grown increasingly difficult to survey.

When seen from an outsider''s vantage point, the development of knowledge in the sensory sciences must appear massive and the result of some carefully followed master plan. In reality, it is the result of numerous relatively independent human endeavors shaped by application of the scientific method. The comprehensive construction of quantitative theories of sense organ function has occurred only recently -but at an explosive rate prefaced by centuries of expansion in the physical sciences. Predicated on this growth, the twentieth century may become known as the age of the biological sciences. With the exception of a modest number of intellectual giants, there were few contributors to the foundations of the sensory sciences before the dawn of this century. At least 90% of existing knowledge has been produced by scientists working in laboratories founded since 1920. If any single scientist and his laboratory may be identified with the growth in the sensory sciences, it is EDGAR DOUGLAS ADRIAN, First Baron of Cambridge and leader of the Physiological Laboratory at Cambridge University, England. Lord ADRIAN''S influence upon the sensory sciences was great, not only in terms of his contribution to knowledge itself but also through the influence which he exerted upon numerous young scientists who spent weeks or years at the Cambridge laboratory and who later returned to their homelands and colleagues with the seeds of vigorous research and quantitative inquiry firmly implanted.

When seen from an outsider's vantage point, the development of knowledge in the sensory sciences must appear massive and the result of some carefully followed master plan. In reality, it is the result of numerous relatively independent human endeavors shaped by application of the scientific method. The comprehensive construction of quantitative theories of sense organ function has occurred only recently -but at an explosive rate prefaced by centuries of expansion in the physical sciences. Predicated on this growth, the twentieth century may become known as the age of the biological sciences. With the exception of a modest number of intellectual giants, there were few contributors to the foundations of the sensory sciences before the dawn of this century. At least 90% of existing knowledge has been produced by scientists working in laboratories founded since 1920. If any single scientist and his laboratory may be identified with the growth in the sensory sciences, it is EDGAR DOUGLAS ADRIAN, First Baron of Cambridge and leader of the Physiological Laboratory at Cambridge University, England. Lord ADRIAN'S influence upon the sensory sciences was great, not only in terms of his contribution to knowledge itself but also through the influence which he exerted upon numerous young scientists who spent weeks or years at the Cambridge laboratory and who later returned to their homelands and colleagues with the seeds of vigorous research and quantitative inquiry firmly implanted.

Die räumliche Ordnung der Lebensprozesse im Körper der Eumeta­ zoen beruht auf dem Prinzip der Arbeitsteilung, nach dem viele Vorgänge nur in bestimmten, hierfür spezialisierten Teilen des Organismus ab­ laufen können. Für die Wirbeltiere ist seit langem bekannt, daß dieses Prinzip nicht nur für komplexe Lebensleistungen, sondern auch für elementare Prozesse des Stoffwechsels gilt. Die meisten der hochspeziali­ sierten Zelltypen des Wirbeltierorganismus haben die Fähigkeit zur Durchführung bestimmter biochemischer Reaktionen eingebüßt und sind zur Befriedigung ihrer Stoffwechselbedürfnisse auf die Mitwirkung anderer Zellen angewiesen. So kommt also auch das chemische Gesamt­ geschehen bei den Wirbeltieren erst durch Zusammenwirken aller Zellen des Körpers zustande. In diesem Zusammenspiel hat die Leber eine zentrale Rolle inne, die ihr die Bezeichnung "Zentralorgan des Stoff­ wechsels" eingetragen hat. Im Leberparenchym laufen zahlreiche Elementarprozesse des Stoffwechsels ab, die in anderen Organen nicht oder nur in geringerem Ausmaß möglich sind. Es ist naheliegend zu prüfen, ob eine ähnliche Situation auch bei "Wirbellosen" anzutreffen ist. Im folgenden soll dargestellt werden, daß die Mitteldarmdrüsen der Crustaceen und Mollusken sowie der Fett­ körper der Insekten mit einiger Sicherheit als "Zentralorgane des Stoffwechsels" im genannten Sinne anzusprechen sind. Für das Chloragog der Oligochäten erscheint eine zentrale Rolle im Stoffwechsel immerhin möglich. Der Vergleich bestimmter Organe der "Wirbellosen" mit der Wirbel­ tierleber ist schon sehr alt (JORDAN 1912, SrwE 1937). Die Bezeichnung "Leber" für die Mitteldarmdrüsen der Mollusken und Crustaceen geht zurück auf CLAUDE BERNHARD.