.
«
'
‘
:_
.'
,
.;
»
%
_
-
"
v
.
.»
'—
.“
!
«
'
1=;:
'
.».rf
af?
“
%
_
_
;
;;
,:,
af,»
._
—,
—r
…
"
,
.,
-
'
.;
\"
,
"T‘
—
|
"
“>.“
,
,_,
'
'
—
5:
’
‘
“
|
‘
t—_::.Lj"
—*Î “
«
&
,_
.
,_m
'
,_
,
_.
v_
»
:
‘t
“
__
_
,‘
?'_.
“,
":
“
_’ , ;‘Lx
,
-,
.'
.
.
“
,
»
,
1
..
__;'.EΑ.‘
“
.
,,
,
.;,_.,:l..=
'
3 1
‘
.
.
"_î‘â
—
_
.
,
.;
,4A
…'2_}
'
“
f.»
"Ë‘äl
«;:_;.=
Ë
_
.,
:
,.“
:
.
.
.
li
FIGURE 5. ER from Spisula egg treated as rn gure 4. Note un1t membranes, r1bosomes, etc. “Vacuoles” are
“
“ghosts” of lipid yolk dissolved during substitution. >< 68,000.
_
.
““
_
FIGURE 6. A bundle of microtubules Wlth associated ribosomes in Spisula egg treated at rst cleavage as in
gures 4 and 5. Note very regular arrangement of large ribosomes. >< 60,000.
“ “
FIGURE 7. Nucleus in rat pancreas cell dehydrated briey in full strength glycerol just prior to freez'mg. Note
chromatin, pores in nucleus, ER, etc. Space surrounding nucleus is undoubtedly due to shrinkage. >< 12,000.
FIGURE 8. Mitochondr_ia and ER in rat pancreas cell treated as that in gure 7. Compare cristae (arrow)
"
to those in gure 4. >< 72,000.