72 THE ENZYME TREATMENT OF CANCER
belongs.* if this hypothetical shunting—which, to my mind, in a normal development is physically impossible without disaster to the developing embryo—happen in the earliest periods, it will be in connection with cells of the cleavage, and one or more of these may become the abnormally placed seeds of a tumour or tumours. As an example, to be commented upon later in its true bearings, Wilms himself found in one case not less than five embryomata or rudimentary embryos in one ovary! These represent under Wilms’s views five blastomeres of the cleavage. I do not know whether or not there be any upholder of epigenetic development who is prepared to grant the subtraction of this number of cleavage-products without utter disaster to the further development. As will be seen anon, the experimental researches of Driesch, Herbst, and others—Bonnet notwithstanding—do not in the least support Wilms and Bonnet in their extravagant suppositions. Again, according to Wilms, if the happening be at a later period, it may concern, for instance, a part of one or more mesoblastic somites, and, as we know the fate of these, the structure of a tumour arising subsequently can be foretold. Thus a tumour in the region of the vertebral column may be made up of “embryonic mesenchyme,” or formative tissue, cartilage, and bone; or of the first, or of the first and second of these. Such a tumour Wilms derives from a “shunted” mesoblastic somite, because such a somite gives rise normally to these tissues. Now that, for example,
* On closer examination, contradictions in Wilms’s statements may be found. Thus, to account for some turnours, or parts of such, Wilms requires “germs” from rnesoblastic somites, and these may, according to him, be displaced physically into—for example—the kidney or uterus. In this way Wilms’s theory is seen to have very much in common with the earlier one of Remak-Cohnheim.