The uncertainty as to the chemical nature of protoplasm is responsible for an unfortunate irregularity in the use of the term. It is _ex hypothesi_ the most active, the most living part of an animal cell. If the cell has a nucleus and an envelope, the protoplasm must lie in the space between the two. This part of the cell is therefore often termed, without qualification, the “cell-protoplasm.” Frequently the abuse of the word is carried still further. Young cells, leucocytes, nerve-cells, etc., which have no envelope, consist of a nucleus embedded in soft cell-substance. The latter is termed its protoplasm. The cell is described as consisting of nucleus and protoplasm, the term assuming an anatomical signification. Not only is such a use of the term bad, because it indicates a confusion of thought, but it brings with it a train of ambiguities. What are the limits of the protoplasm? If the cell-body be firmer towards its exterior than it is within, is the denser substance protoplasm, or is it not? It has not the qualities which are attributed to protoplasm in so marked a degree as has the substance which it surrounds. Hence a distinction is made. The one is “ectoplasm,” the other “endoplasm.” Within the cell-body are many collections, often in the form of granules, of substances which have not the protoplasmic attributes. They constitute the “deuteroplasm” of certain cytologists. But these enclosed substances may be as far removed from protoplasm as starch grains. It is absurd to use the termination “plasm” for such well-defined products of cell activity as these. The subject is, unfortunately, obscured by conflicting terms. Nomenclatures which were invented with the object of giving definiteness to our ideas have served but to perplex them. The term “protoplasm” should be reserved as a synonym for the substance which is most alive, the substance in which chemical change is most active, the substance which has in the highest degree a potentiality of growth. Anatomical distinctions are better expressed in anatomical terms. We shall treat of such distinctions when considering the organization of the cell. In the meantime it may be well to consider the attributes which appear to belong to this most living substance. Its chemical composition can be inferred only from the compounds found on analysis to be present in a mass of organized substance which there is reason for thinking was rich in protoplasm while it was alive. The compounds found vary within certain limits. The quantity of water associated with these compounds is still more variable. Water is essential to the existence of protoplasm. Its power of combining with water in variable quantities is one of its characteristics. Tissue rich in protoplasm yields on an average about 75 per cent. of water. Part of the protoplasm within a cell holds more water associated with it, part less.