Though the analogy with a closed bladder or vesicle could no longer be sustained in the animal tissues, the name ‘cell’ continued to be retained for descriptive purposes, and the body of the cell was spoken of as a more or less soft substance inclosing a nucleus (Leydig). In 1861 Max Schultze adopted for the substance forming the body of the animal cell the term ‘protoplasm.’ He defined a cell to be a particle of protoplasm in the substance of which a nucleus was situated. He regarded the protoplasm, as indeed had previously been pointed out by the botanist Unger, as essentially the same as the contractile sarcode which constitutes the body and pseudopodia of the Amœba and other Rhizopoda. As the term ‘protoplasm,’ as well as that of ‘bioplasm’ employed by Lionel Beale in a somewhat similar though not precisely identical sense, involves certain theoretical views of the origin and function of the body of the cell, it would be better to apply to it the more purely descriptive term ‘cytoplasm’ or ‘cell plasm.’ Schultze defined protoplasm as a homogeneous, glassy, tenacious material, of a jelly-like or somewhat firmer consistency, in which numerous minute granules were embedded. He regarded it as the part of the cell especially endowed with vital energy, whilst the exact function of the nucleus could not be defined. Based upon this conception of the jelly-like character of protoplasm, the idea for a time prevailed that a structureless, dimly granular, jelly or slime destitute of organization, possessed great physiological activity, and was the medium through which the phenomena of life were displayed.