The Writing Center as Cultural and

Interdisciplinary Contact Zone 1st

Edition Randall W. Monty (Auth.)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-writing-center-as-cultural-and-interdisciplinary-con
tact-zone-1st-edition-randall-w-monty-auth/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Writing Program and Writing Center Collaborations:

Transcending Boundaries 1st Edition Alice Johnston
Myatt

https://textbookfull.com/product/writing-program-and-writing-
center-collaborations-transcending-boundaries-1st-edition-alice-
johnston-myatt/

Thinking Low Level Writing High Level 2nd Edition

Randall Hyde

https://textbookfull.com/product/thinking-low-level-writing-high-
level-2nd-edition-randall-hyde/

Open-Access, Multimodality, and Writing Center Studies

1st Edition Elisabeth H. Buck (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/open-access-multimodality-and-
writing-center-studies-1st-edition-elisabeth-h-buck-auth/

Cultural Mapping as Cultural Inquiry 1st Edition Nancy

Duxbury

https://textbookfull.com/product/cultural-mapping-as-cultural-
inquiry-1st-edition-nancy-duxbury/
Courage for Fools 1st Edition Monty Jay

https://textbookfull.com/product/courage-for-fools-1st-edition-
monty-jay/

Friend Zone To End Zone (Rich and Famous #4) 1st

Edition Judy Corry [Corry

https://textbookfull.com/product/friend-zone-to-end-zone-rich-
and-famous-4-1st-edition-judy-corry-corry/

Love & Hockey (Fury #1) 1st Edition Monty Jay

https://textbookfull.com/product/love-hockey-fury-1-1st-edition-
monty-jay/

Ice Hearts (Fury #2) 1st Edition Monty Jay

https://textbookfull.com/product/ice-hearts-fury-2-1st-edition-
monty-jay/

Terraform Up and Running Writing Infrastructure as Code

1st Edition Yevgeniy Brikman

https://textbookfull.com/product/terraform-up-and-running-
writing-infrastructure-as-code-1st-edition-yevgeniy-brikman/
THE WRITING CENTER
AS CULTURAL AND
INTERDISCIPLINARY
CONTACT ZONE

Randall W. Monty
The Writing Center as Cultural and
Interdisciplinary Contact Zone
 Randall W. Monty

The Writing Center as

Cultural and
Interdisciplinary
Contact Zone
Randall W. Monty
University of Texas Rio Grande Valley
Edinburg, Texas, USA

ISBN 978-1-137-54093-5 ISBN 978-1-137-54094-2 (eBook)

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54094-2

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016939274

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work
in accordance with the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub-
lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Macmillan Publishers Ltd. London
For Victoria and Eva Grace.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

When I was an undergraduate writing tutor, I once gave up tickets to a

Sonic Youth/Yo La Tengo concert so that I could stay home and finish
my research project on regional writing centers. That sentence probably
tells you most of what you need to know about me, but I mention it here
to illustrate how long I have been working on the ideas for this book. As a
result, the number of people I want to thank for helping me along the way
is considerable. Let me start by thanking all the students and tutors that
I had the privilege of working with and learning from.
A great many colleagues were willing to use their own valuable time in
order to provide feedback and advice throughout my writing and research
processes, and you all deserve gracious praise: Esther Al-Tabaa, Alice Batt,
Olivia Briggs, Kathleen Shine Cain, Jonikka Charlton, Colin Charlton,
Melinda DeNero, Michele Eodice, Benjamin Erwin, Jeanette Jeneault,
Rebecca Hallman, Lou Herman, Dawnelle Jager, Kerri Jordan, Shannon
McCrocklin, Megan McIntyre, Michelle Miley, Magdalena Nowak,
Steve Price, Martha Smith, Kyle Stedman, Hill Taylor, Ellen Walker,
Stacia Watkins, Nancy Wilson, Scott Whiddon, Rebekah Hamilton and
Craig Wynne. And special thanks to Chloe Fitzsimmons and everyone at
Palgrave Macmillan for finding value in my work and helping me see it
through from proposal to publication.
I have been fortunate to know teachers and mentors whose generosity
with time and support was probably more than I deserved. So thank you,
Roberto Avant-Mier, Beth Brunk-Chavez, Kate Mangelsdorf, and Bruce
Pegg.

vii
viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Most folks who get the opportunity to write an acknowledgements sec-

tion thank their partner, but it’s really something I should do more often,
and in person. For now though, thank you Annette Zapata Monty, for
keeping me grounded and motivated.
 CONTENTS

1 Introduction: Little Rooms 1

Situatedness 1
Small Rooms 3
What You’ll Find Inside 8
Final Preparatory Thoughts: “We” Are Writing
Center Studies 11
References 13

2 Discourse as Framework 17
Situatedness 17
Locations 18
Theoretical Framework 20
Critical Discourse Analysis 21
Contact Zone 25
Mixed Methodology 30
Definitions 31
Rhetoric and Discourse 31
References 33

3 Discursively Constructing the Session 39

Situatedness 39
Artifact 42
Methodology 42

ix
x CONTENTS

Analysis 43
Analysis 44
Discussion 53
Built Theory and Possible Applications 55
Safe Place and Spaces 56
References 60

4 Decentering Writing in the Institution 63

Situatedness 63
Artifact 65
Across the Curriculum 65
Fellows 66
Methodology 67
Analysis and Discussion 68
Assessment 68
Mapping 71
Interactions in Space 73
In Practice 75
Built Theory and Possible Applications 77
References 79

5 Disciplinarity Through Discourse 83

Situatedness 83
Methodology 85
Artifacts and Analysis 86
International Writing Centers Association Website
(writingcenters.org) 87
The Writing Center Journal 90
Connecting Writing Centers Across Borders 92
Praxis: A Writing Center Journal 94
Built Theory and Potential Applications 96
References 99
 CONTENTS xi

6 Writing Center Webspaces as Ecosystem 101

Introduction 101
Artifact 103
Methodology 104
Results and Analysis 108
Disciplinarity Through Naming Conventions 108
Disciplinarity Through Contact Zone Outreach 114
Disciplinarity Through Cross-Institutional Discourse 117
Builty Theory and Potential Applications 123
References 128

7 Discourse as Heuristic 131

Situatedness 131
Revisiting the “Ideal” Writing Center 132
Revisiting Cells as Applied Theory 133
Triangulated Data in the Study of Transfer 136
Parting Thoughts: The Efficacy of Interior Design 137
References 139

Index 141
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 3.1 Traditional writing center interaction 44

Image 3.1 ETRF demographics 47
Fig. 3.2 Triangulated writing center consultation 49
Image 3.2 ETRF focus of session 57
Fig. 4.1 Traditional institutional hierarchy 72
Image 4.1 Triangulated disciplinarity 78
Fig. 6.1 Traditional (assumed) relationship of WCS to local
writing centers 124
Fig. 6.2 Local writing centers as system 126
Fig. 6.3 Local writing centers as system with WCS disciplinarity 126
Fig. 7.1 WCS disciplinarity 134
Fig. 7.2 WCS with disciplinary gaps 135

xiii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 6.1 Number of tutor type by modification type 110

Table 6.2 Number of centers by name 113
Table 6.3 Mentions of tutor disciplinary expertise 115
Table 6.4 Webspace connections to IWCA 119
Table 6.5 Mentions of WCS scholarly discourses 121
Table 6.6 Mentions of cross-institutional contacts in writing
center webspaces 123

xv
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction: Little Rooms

Abstract In “Little Rooms,” Monty introduces an argument for a new

way of thinking about writing center studies (WCS) as a discursive and
rhetorical discipline. Using a central metaphor of cell theory, this identifi-
cation is grounded in the amalgamated system of cultural and disciplinary
contact zones negotiated by and through local writing centers. It is then
expanded to account for the network of disciplinary methods and feed-
back, and in doing so, redefines disciplinarity as a function of those varied
interactions. This argument is made through a series of critical analyses of
disciplinary discourses, artifacts that work individually and collectively to
create writing center place and space.

Keywords writing centers • cell theory • disciplinarity

SITUATEDNESS
The first time I walked into a writing center was the first day I had ever
heard of a writing center. It was on the first week of class, and my com-
position instructor had required everyone to find the center as a home-
work assignment. Conveniently enough, the center was housed on the
ground floor of the same building as my class, although the arbitrarily
sloped topography of the campus rendered designations like that in the
abstract. I was in my first week as an undergraduate student at a medium-
sized, private institution in the northeast USA, before the winter began

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016 1

R.W. Monty, The Writing Center as Cultural and Interdisciplinary
Contact Zone, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54094-2_1
2 R.W. MONTY

its usual 8-month residency, before every first-year student wondered on

what campus the dulcet autumn photos in the school’s recruitment bro-
chure had been staged.
The center itself did not look like an academic space—it was a far cry from
the cramped room with too few desks in the building’s basement where
our class had met—although there were clearly people busy with academic
work, in spite of it being early in the semester. Two of the walls were floor-
to-ceiling glass, and the late-afternoon sun provided all the necessary light.
The walls were lined with computers that no one in my tax bracket owned,
and scattered around the room was an incidental arrangement of modifi-
able tables and chairs. It would have been a jarring sight if it weren’t also
so inviting. I ended up spending much of the next four years in that room.
For a discipline whose work has been historically and inextricably linked
to physical space, writing center studies (WCS), as a field of study and as
a community, has long had difficulty explaining where the heck it was.
Depending on who was doing the situating, as well as where and when the
situating occurred, writing centers have been “at the heart, rather than the
periphery, of current theory in composition studies” (Ede, 1989, pp. 5–6),
“marginalized in relation to the central institutional structures of writing
pedagogy” (Cooper, 1994, p. 106), and even “marginalized within their
own host departments and within their institutions” (Bergman & Conrad-
Salvo, 2007, p. 185). What’s more, writing centers are “cropping up with
increasing regularity” (Ede & Lunsford, 2000, p. 33), safe harbors for “sev-
eral types of non-main-stream students… and non-traditional students”
(Mendez Newman, 2003, p. 44), akin to “an intense church service or
revival” (Esters, 2011, p. 291), and “recognized [as] campus leaders whose
vision of how learning environments should be structured has come to domi-
nate educational thinking” (Harris, 2000, p. 13). Above all, though, writing
centers carved out identities, “so that [their] placement and meaning made
sense within the broader frame of university spatial politics” (Peters, 2009,
p. 192). As a result, the contemporary identification of WCS is one with as
many facets as there are local writing centers comprising the discipline.
In this book, I argue for a new way of thinking about WCS as a discur-
sive and rhetorical discipline. This identification is grounded in the amal-
gamated system of cultural and disciplinary contact zones negotiated by
and through local writing centers. It is then expanded to account for the
network of disciplinary methods and feedback, and in doing so, redefines
disciplinarity as a function of those varied interactions. I will make my
argument through a series of critical analysis of disciplinary discourses that
 INTRODUCTION: LITTLE ROOMS 3

work individually and collectively to create writing center place and space.
Over the subsequent chapter, I will go into greater detail to explain what
I think all of these things mean, but before delving into that deeper analy-
sis, I’d like to talk a little bit about cells.

Small Rooms
Writing centers, also referred to as “writing labs,” “learning centers,”
“tutoring centers,” “writing studios,” “student support centers,” “writing
across the curriculum centers,” and by other names, were initially modeled
on science labs, places where investigative, collaborative, and thorough
inquiry would take place (Boquet, 2002). This theme has persisted within
the scholarship of rhetoric and composition, a discipline with close profes-
sional and theoretical ties to WCS, for instance, as some have borrowed
terminology from ecology to develop useful models for understanding
systems of writing (Dobrin, 2001; Keller, 2001; Reynolds, 2004), while
others have used botany-influenced metaphors, like rhizome (Deleuze &
Guattari, 1987) and crosspollination (Goggin, 2000), to describe the
seemingly naturally occurring network of interactive exchanges among
writers. Clearly, the natural sciences have provided compositionists with
fertile ground for metaphor making.
In order to add to this lineage, I propose a schematic model that draws
from Biology, itself a discipline concerned with negotiating and rational-
izing its own disciplinarity and the intertwining theoretical concepts in its
discussions of physical spaces. Illustrating these points directly, biologist
and naturalist Edward O. Wilson (2005) wrote:

Biology is a science of three dimensions. The first is the study of each species
across all levels of biological organization, molecule to cell to organism to
population to ecosystem. The second dimension is the diversity of all spe-
cies in the biosphere. The third dimension is the history of each species in
turn, comprising both its genetic evolution and the environmental change
that drove the evolution. Biology, by growing in all three dimensions, is
progressing toward unification and will continue to do so. (p. 1)

It is with this image in mind that I argue that by thinking about WCS as a
system of individualized but nevertheless interconnected cells, we can move
it toward a more unified disciplinary identification, one that more actively
embraces and supports the diversity of localized places and spaces, as well
as those people that do work as part of the larger disciplinary organism.
4 R.W. MONTY

In their 1839 explication of cell theory, biologists Matthias Jakob

Schleiden, Theodor Schwann, and Rudolf Virchow, themselves building
off Robert Hooke’s initial observations of the nature of cells, postulated
that living organisms are made up of collections of microscopic cells serv-
ing structural and functional purposes, most significant of these being the
transport and transfer of hereditary traits (Maton, 1997). Since its initial
introduction into scientific discourses, cell theory has been a bedrock prin-
ciple in studies of science and medicine, and pertinent to the discussion
presented in this book, cell theory provides an apt metaphor for under-
standing the functions of disciplinarity.
This cell/discipline analogy can be a rewarding one to explore, because
for nearly every feature that a cell possesses, there seems to be an appli-
cable metaphor for academic disciplines waiting to be expanded. At the
macro level, different cells combine with one another in order to create
larger, more complex organisms. This can be compared to how individual
fields coalesce to make academic disciplines—disciplines are clustered into
departments, groups of separate departments are organized into colleges,
collections of colleges comprise institutions, and institutions form univer-
sity systems. Or, in an analogy that will be as useful for the purposes of
this project, this comparison can refer to disciplines working across institu-
tions: local centers interact with other centers at other institutions in order
to create larger disciplinary identifications. In each case—with cells as well
as with academic disciplines—the autonomous units work both individu-
ally and collectively, communicating and providing responsive feedback,
sometimes in symbiosis, sometimes in competition for resources, and
sometimes at the uneven benefit of one side (and thus, occasionally, at the
detriment of the others).
Shifting focus to the (even more) microscopic level reveals further pos-
sible metaphors. The cell wall, for instance, proves particularly useful in
the cell/discipline analogy. Better known for the roles they serve in plant
cells, the cell wall is a rigid yet flexible membrane that surrounds the cell,
encasing and protecting the cell’s other components. The cell wall pro-
vides structure and regulates what is allowed to flow in and out of the cell
(water, e.g., can almost freely permeate cell walls). The wall’s strength is
tensile, but not absolute; it is permeable, but selectively so; it is sturdy,
but not fixed. Thanks to the wall, cells bend but do not easily break.
While the wall provides stability, its shape can be altered depending upon
a number of variables—temperature, time of year, age of the organism,
and other factors all contribute to the actual shape of a cell at any given
 INTRODUCTION: LITTLE ROOMS 5

moment (Abkarian & Viallat, 2008). Most significantly, plant cells do not
function in spite of the wall’s variance, but because of it. As surrounding
contexts change, cells—and the organisms they combine to form—can
also change.
Cell walls naturally serve as apt metaphors for the boundaries separating
groups such as academic disciplines, as they likewise function with a great
deal of variability. Considering an academic discipline in biological terms,
then, the cell wall is the contact zone that separates one discipline from the
next and provides its definition. Mary Louise Pratt (1991) seminally recog-
nized a tension in this place, which would result in both contacted cultures
hashing out their perimeters and defining themselves on their own terms,
as well as in contrast with each other. This latter characteristic, as noted by
Janet Alsup (2011) and indicative of the cell wall’s selective permeability,
represents “a consensus in ideas and opinions” between different groups
(p. 47). In other words, when functioning on the contact zone, groups
necessarily act in reaction to and in concert with those other groups that
they contact. Academic disciplines are also defined by their own cultures—
histories, social norms, vocabularies and jargons, modes of discourse, and
so on—and as such, according to Rolf Norgaard (1999), it is valuable to
use these physical metaphors of the contact zone when discussing them.
The cultural contact zones that are academic disciplinary boundaries func-
tion similar to cell walls: they provide shape and definition, and they serve
as demarcations of what is included and excluded.
Animal cells provide their own applicable metaphors for disciplinary
critique. Lacking the rigid wall of plant cells, animal cells are surrounded
by an armored membrane that is comparably less adhesive. They are struc-
tured in their own right, but more fluid and capable of movement than
their plant counterparts, traits that result in noticeable spaces between
individual cells when viewed through a microscope. These spaces contrib-
ute to important functions in animal systems, such as blood coagulation,
and they allow individual cells to move to different areas of the organ-
ism as needed. However, the lack of a cell wall in animal cells also leaves
them susceptible to invasion and outside influence. As with the example
of cell walls in plant cells, there are drawbacks as well as advantages to the
animal cell’s structure that are comparable to those noticed on disciplin-
ary contact zones. When academic disciplines engage in interdisciplinary
collaborations, the negotiation can result in the emergence of “a common
interest that might connect and advance a variety of pedagogical and cur-
ricular experiments” (Norgaard, 1999, p. 45). Yet, in situations where
6 R.W. MONTY

one discipline holds significant power (whether political, social, economic,

racial, gendered, or some other manifestation) over the other, this negoti-
ation can result in the subordinate discipline being inequitably influenced,
changed, or worse yet, disregarded altogether.
Similar to the spaces that exist between animal cells, Rhonda Grego and
Nancy Thompson (2008) considered the “gaps and fissures” between aca-
demic disciplines, which they registered as unclaimed (or dually claimed)
spaces that could prove to be problematic locations when staking out
disciplinary identity (p. 48). These gaps manifest in the lived reality of
practitioners as unclaimed areas of potential scholarship, or as contested
ground that could lead to in-fighting, misappropriation of funds, and dis-
ciplinary ambiguity. Take, for example, the role of First-Year Composition
(FYC). At many schools in the USA, the FYC program is housed in the
English Department, a situation that often can lead to numerous conflicts
of interest that inhibit the autonomy, development, and efficacy of the
composition program. What’s more, just as rhetoric and composition pro-
grams located in English Departments can have their disciplinary interests
compromised, so too have writing centers “[suffered] in their association
with the positioning of composition and the teaching of writing at these
beginning levels” by all-too-often being relegated to the status of support
services and coded as remedial or developmental (Grego & Thompson,
2008, p. 15). More succinctly, without the institutional place that accu-
rately recognizes their complex identifications, writing centers are less
capable of doing their ideal work.
Further complicating this concept is that these gaps are effectively limit-
less, even “as we fill the space between our discipline’s idea of our work…
we distance ourselves farther from ourselves and from each other” (Grego &
Thompson, 2008, p. 159). In other words, the more these interdisciplinary
places and spaces are investigated and negotiated and the more each disci-
pline takes shape, there is the inevitable effect of alterity. That is, in decid-
ing what is included as part of discipline’s identity, the epistemic courts of
that discipline’s discourse community must also define and reject that which
does not belong in the discipline. It is important to maintain that these
processes of inclusion and exclusion are not by definition ethical, rather that
they are necessary functions of identification. Nevertheless, as a result, these
processes could be the potential for a significant deal of missed scholarship
or participants left outside after all the dust has settled in the negotiations.
The internal components of cells can also serve as applicable metaphors
for understanding disciplinarity. The nucleus, for instance, is the center of
 INTRODUCTION: LITTLE ROOMS 7

cellular activity, and it holds the chromosomes which contain the coded
information that guide cell structure and function not only of the cell but
of the entire organism. These parts could be employed in analogies of dis-
ciplinary center and periphery and of disciplinary scholarship, respectively.
Likewise ripe for investigation is the fact that academic disciplines often find
themselves in states of flux, adapting to ideologies, technologies, contexts,
institutional and social expectations, changing demographics, and numer-
ous other factors. This concept can be related to the functions of cells that
are constantly changing and reacting in order to achieve a stabilized state of
homeostasis. Both academic disciplines and cells exist in unstable and ever-
changing environments, and therefore are consistently acted upon.
Of course, academic disciplines are not cells exactly, and it is important
to recognize instances where this analogy does not hold. While both cells
and academic disciplines have variable functions and structures, it is only
with academic disciplines that these changes occur as the result of consci-
entious agents purposefully acting to define and realign the boundaries.
So, even though academic disciplines are ostensibly open to critique and
can change in order to better meet their needs, and even if they first are
able to understand the possibilities and limitations of their own definition,
individuals working within the disciplines still must make these things hap-
pen. Therefore, when we talk about the resulting shape as a critical factor in
determining and maintaining the success and sustainability of the discipline,
we are talking about something that was at once acted upon and acted out.
Historically speaking, comparisons among cells and academic disci-
plines, and within the sciences and rhetoric and composition, are analo-
gies that drive in both directions. In fact, it was Hooke who first used
examples from everyday human interactions to describe what cells were
and what they did. When he sought to describe his discovery to the public,
he explained cells and their functions using language his audience would
more easily understand, a rhetorically savvy move in any context. The name
“cell” itself was borrowed from the Latin cella, meaning “small room,”
which is what Hooke decided these microscopic units resembled. When
describing how cells functioned collectively to achieve certain purposes, he
compared them to groups of people working together. So much for not
meddling with rhetoric.
Inversing these metaphors some centuries later, cells and cell theory can
be used to understand how groups function, and in the particular case of this
project, how academic disciplines work and are structured. Furthermore,
the image of the “small room” is one with historical significance, as the
8 R.W. MONTY

history of WCS is ripe with stories of local writing centers marginalized by

humble and cramped working spaces. By embracing and reexamining these
metaphorical relationships that link “knowledge between the sciences and
humanities,” the people that do the work of WCS can offer new ways of
building writing center theory and practice, goals that start with thinking
of their places and spaces within their institutions and the academy in new
ways (Weisser & Dobrin, 2001).
According to Lisa Ede and Andrea Lunsford (2000), “The politics of
location is essential in writing center work. You have to understand not
only the nature and mission of your university but also the exigencies that
constrain you and the opportunities that (if you can only see them) also
exist” (p. 37). Later, publishing as Lunsford and Ede (2011), these authors
supplemented this notion: “Where we are housed carries both material
and symbolic location… we need to pay much closer attention to physical
space and what that physical space contains” (p. 13). Therefore, in order
to better understand how the locations of writing center affect our work,
we must build theories and methodologies for such analysis. A metaphor of
cell theory is one such approach.

WHAT YOU’LL FIND INSIDE

Well, I guess that depends on where you’re coming from. For stakeholders
new to or transitioning in WCS, including tutors, graduate students, freshly
minted Writing Center Administrators (WCA), as well as those rebranding
existing centers, I hope that this book offers insights into the multitudes
of ways that you, that we, can construct identifications locally, discipli-
narily, and within the academy at large. For those readers who already find
themselves deeply situated within writing centers and writing center schol-
arship, I hope that this book introduces a new way of thinking about our
work, one that is grounded in replicable methodologies and shared ambi-
tions, even if those things do not always look or sound the same.
Some will contend with my framing of WCS as a discipline even though
it already includes many of the familiar structural components of academic
disciplines, such as shared scholarship, refereed conferences, peer-reviewed
publications, and professional organizations with ranking officers, that I
will address throughout. Yet at the same time, WCS draws much its iden-
tity and ethos through its intentional diffusion of institutional power and
through its relations with other, contacted disciplines. In that spirit, the
analysis and discussion chapters of this book (Chaps. 3, 4, 5, and 6) have
 INTRODUCTION: LITTLE ROOMS 9

been designed to be read, consulted, analyzed, critiqued, and otherwise

consumed achronologically according to the individual needs and local
contexts of the reader. If you’re in charge of starting a writing fellows pro-
gram at your center, jump ahead to Chap. 4. If you’re teaching a graduate
class on qualitative research methods, start with Chap. 6 (Just be sure to
come back and read the rest when you get the chance).
My motivation for taking this approach is the direct result of my expe-
riences talking with different writing center stakeholders throughout the
12-plus years of working this project from a set of disparate ideas, to scat-
tered class projects, to my doctoral dissertation, to a series of conference
presentations, and now to this book. Throughout those conversations, a
reified theme was that stakeholders come to WCS seeking many differ-
ent things. Dana Lynn Driscoll and Sherry Wynn Perdue (2014) used
the term “Writing Center Administrators” to refer to professionals that
work in a center and hold managerial positions. In practice, WCAs can
be tenured faculty (from rhetoric and composition, literature, and other
disciplines commonly housed in English departments) that followed tradi-
tional institutional trajectories of service, qualified professionals with non-
terminal degrees that have found or reinvented themselves as the “Writing
Center person” on campus, graduate students filling local needs because
there are no available faculty willing to do the job, and recently hired
Assistant Professors who are the first ones at their new institutions to ever
hold the title of “Writing Center Director” (Cogie, Janke, Kramer, &
Simpson, 2007). Likewise, tutors come to work at writing centers for a
variety of reasons: some initially came to their institutions to study writing,
some are required by their graduate programs to work in a center, some
were recommended by teachers who were responding to a WCA’s call for
recommendations, and some, like me, started working in their local center
because a single instructor recognized that they enjoyed talking to their
peers about writing and recommended that they give it a go. And most
importantly, as has been extensively reported, students go to the writing
center for many different reasons, including instructor requirement; sug-
gestion from an academic advisor; peer recommendations; and even, for
some, because they had positive experiences with their high school writ-
ing centers. By this point, you can probably sense where I’m going with
this: writing center stakeholders, like the centers themselves, are a diverse
group representing a range of motivations, exigencies, and reasons for
being. Writing center stakeholders do show an affinity for the “icono-
clastic” label (a concept that Jackie Grutsch McKinney (2013) expertly
10 R.W. MONTY

dismantled), but as that identification is a function of the material realities

of writing centers, it shouldn’t be summarily rejected.
This book is organized to reflect this “many paths to success” model.
Starting in Chap. 2, “Discourse as Framework,” I will lay down the schol-
arly and methodological foundations for this book, with particular empha-
sis on how identifications across WCS have been constructed through
representations of place and space. I will resurrect Stephen North’s (1984)
call for a reevaluation of the field’s disciplinary identification and a reartic-
ulation of its missions, objectives, and self-perceptions. Then, I will discuss
the methodologies, theories, and vocabularies that guided and shaped my
project. This framework begins with the use of contextualist research para-
digm (Johanek, 2000) to identify appropriate strands of critical discourse
analysis (CDA) (Wodak, 1999). Along the way, I will also incorporate
elements of ecocomposition (Reynolds, 2004), social justice pedagogy
(Applebaum, 2003), and theories from Writing Across the Curriculum
and Writing in the Disciplines (Bazerman, 2011). The approach to inquiry
is meant to build on Lisa Ede’s (1996) call for “the kind of theorizing that
enables individuals to critique, resist, and sometimes even change disci-
plinary assumptions and practices” (p. 119). In this spirit, I will define the
parameters for my use of the terms “rhetoric” and “discourse.”
In Chap. 3, “Constructing Writing Center Identifications through
Local Discourse,” I will investigate how interactions between tutors and
students discursively construct disciplinary identifications that reproduce
and challenge institutional power. To do this, I utilize a strand of CDA
as defined by Teun van Djik (2009) as a framework for identifying how
tutor response forms contribute to social inequality, provide guidelines for
intervention and resistance against unjust discursive practices, and account
for the interests and expertise of the victims of discursive injustice. Finally,
I will redirect binary thinking propagated by physical metaphors of con-
tact zone space and argue for a more equitable triangulated contact zone
of tutor, student, and content area discipline.
The focus of my analysis will shift to explore the ways writing cen-
ters work, and how power functions and flows, across disciplinary contact
zones at their local institutions in Chap. 4, “Decentering Writing within
the Institution.” To do this, I will use Norman Fairclough’s (2010) take on
CDA as a methodological framework to draw attention to the relational,
dialectical, and transdisciplinary aspects of a Writing Fellows Initiative that
I helped implement. This analysis will be used as a jumping-off point for
discussions of communities of praxis that can be used to understand the
 INTRODUCTION: LITTLE ROOMS 11

relationships between the writing center, its contacted disciplines, and

their shared institutions.
Panning out further, in Chap. 5, “Disciplinarity through Discourse,” I
will use Thomas Huckin’s (2002) context-sensitive CDA to read through
a set of four prominent WCS discourses: the official webspace for the
International Writing Centers Association, The Writing Center Journal,
Connecting Writing Centers Across Borders (a blog sponsored by WLN:
A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship), and Praxis: A Writing Center
Journal. Each of these text-based discourses incorporates place and space
in different ways in order to construct identification for WCS. Through
these readings, I will argue that individually, these discourses and the orga-
nizations they represent cannot represent the complexity of WCS, but
when viewed as part of a larger discursive system, a substantial disciplinary
foundation is established.
Then, by focusing on the various ways local writing centers rhetori-
cally and discursively construct identification through webspace, a larger
disciplinary ecosystem is revealed. In Chap. 6, “Writing Center Webspaces
as Ecosystem,” I will analyze a corpus of writing center webspace dis-
course using Gerlinde Mautner’s (2009) alignment of corpus linguistics
and CDA. This approach will allow me to highlight unique, innovative,
and effective ways that local writing centers use online place and space to
rhetorically and discursively construct identifications.
Finally, in Chap. 7, “Discourse as Heuristic,” I will reflect on my built
theories in order to draw broader implications of and applications for my
research. This will begin by recovering Muriel Harris’s (1985) concept of
the “ideal” writing center in order to argue for the inclusion of perspec-
tives from an expanded base of stakeholders (not just institutional admin-
istrators, as are traditionally the case, but also interdisciplinary scholars,
writing center tutors, students clients, and representatives from the sur-
rounding communities) when composing and constructing a local writing
center’s disciplinary place and space. Finally, I will propose new directions
for studying the cultural and interdisciplinary contact zone of critical dis-
course and WCS.

Final Preparatory Thoughts: “We” Are Writing Center Studies

By naming something a “writing center,” you’re giving it a license to be
complex, fluid, and rhetorical. We see this through disciplinary embrace
of physical space metaphors like the “safe house” concept introduced by
12 R.W. MONTY

Mary Louise Pratt (1991) in her initial discussion of contact zones (p. 6).
This metaphor has been modified by WCS scholars like Twila Yates Papay
(2002), who repositioned writing centers as “comfort zones” (p. 5).
Examples like these illustrate how writing centers have cultivated iden-
tifications as places and spaces where cultures and disciplines can interact
freely and without judgment.
Of course, when saying “cultures and disciplines,” the connotation
is that writing centers are safe and welcoming places for the people who
occupy those places. Purposeful use of the first-person plural pronoun
marks an intentional and rhetorically savvy move that performs the dis-
cursive function of promoting community, association, and togetherness.
These are among the traits that could be considered shared among dispa-
rate local writing centers, and in that spirit, I will embrace the first-person
plural when appropriate in this book.
However, such linguistic maneuvers can also function, in both intended
and unintentional ways, to exclude those not within the WCS discourse
community. Jackie Grutsch McKinney (2013) pointed out that using “the
‘we’ assumes there will be a consensus” and “that homes are culturally
marked,” so even as we try to promote a welcoming culture in our writing
centers, we are forced to ask questions like Who decides what constitutes
a consensus? Whose culture are we promoting? (pp. 89, 25). With that
in mind, our objectives must expand to find productive ways to not only
allow for, but actively invite in stakeholders from different cultural, lin-
guistic, and gender identity positions.
In order to enact their roles as interdisciplinary and cultural contact
zones, writing centers discursively construct representations that reflect and
reproduce contextually defined missions and objectives. In order to pro-
mote identifications of WCS, those missions are aligned with disciplinary
norms. Even though no two centers can have exactly the same context or
mission, WCS can find common ground in its epistemologies and method-
ologies. In this book, I present different strands of CDA as viable theoreti-
cal frameworks for conducting research in and of writing centers. Through
these shared approaches and common goals, stakeholders establish disci-
plinary place and space both locally and within the academy at large.
As you read this book, you will invariably think of things that I should
have thought of, identify rocks I should have looked under, and point out
paths I should have followed. My hope is that in the places I did investi-
gate, in the spaces I did visit, that I was able to explore those locations with
the thoroughness and sincerity that they deserve. The fact that I missed
 INTRODUCTION: LITTLE ROOMS 13

things is a limitation of my argument, but it may also be a validation of it.

There is always more complexity within an ecosystem, always fundamental
aspects of a culture that an outsider can’t see. Maybe something I’m really
accomplishing here is setting a parameter, identifying a range and saying,
“Go find what else is in there.”

REFERENCES
Abkarian, M., & Viallat, A. (2008). Vesicles and red blood cells in shear flow. Soft
Matter, 4, 653–657.
Alsup, J. (2011). Seeking connection: An English educator speaks across a disci-
plinary contact zone. English Education, 34(1), 31–49.
Applebaum, B. (2003). Social justice, democratic education and the silencing of
words that wound. Journal of Moral Education, 32(2), 151–162.
Bazerman, C. (2011). The disciplined interdisciplinarity of writing studies.
Research in the Teaching of English, 46(1), 8–21.
Bergmann, L. S., & Conrad-Salvo, T. (2007). Dialogue and collaboration: Writing
lab applied tutoring techniques to relations with other writing programs. In
W. Macauley & N. Maurillo (Eds.), Marginal words marginal work? Tutoring
the academy in the work of writing centers (pp. 183–196). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Boquet, E. H. (2002). Noise from the writing center. Logan, UT: Utah State
University Press.
Cogie, J., Janke, D., Kramer, T. J., & Simpson, C. (2007). Risks in collaboration:
Accountability as we move beyond the center’s walls. In W. Maccauly &
N. Maurillo (Eds.), Marginal words marginal work? Tutoring the academy in
the work of writing centers (pp. 105–134). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Cooper, M. (1994). Really useful knowledge: A cultural studies agenda for writing
centers. The Writing Center Journal, 14(2), 97–111.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. Capitalism and schizo-
phrenia. (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota
Press.
Dobrin, S. (2001). Writing takes place. In C. Weisser & S. Dobrin (Eds.),
Ecocomposition: Theoretical and pedagogical approaches (pp. 11–26). Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Driscoll, D. L., & Perdue, S. W. (2014). RAD research as a framework for writing
center inquiry: Survey and interview data on writing center administrators’
beliefs about research and research practices. The Writing Center Journal,
34(1), 105–133.
Ede, L. (1989). Writing as a social process: A theoretical foundation for writing
centers. The Writing Center Journal, 9(2), 3–15.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Angiostomum, 134
Angler-fish, Trematodes of, 62, 72
Anguillula aceti, 125, 154;
A. tritici, 125;
A. diplogaster, 155
Anguillulidae, 137, 154
Anguinella, 532
Annadrilus, 386
Annelida, 241
Anocelis, 42
Anonymidae, 19
Anonymus, 16, 18, 19, 20;
penes, 27
Anopla, 109
Anoplocephala, 91;
characters, 90:
A. mamillana, 90;
A. perfoliata, life-history, 83;
specific characters, 90:
A. plicata, specific characters, 90
Anoplodiscus, 73
Anoplodium, 50;
A. parasiticum, occurrence, 45
Antaeus, 388
Antedon, as host, 342
Antenna, of Rotifers, 215
Anthobothrium, 76 n., 91
Anthocotyle, 73
Antinoë, 298
Antipathes, as host, 298
Anuraea, 225, 226
Anuraeidae, 201, 205, 225, 226
A'oon, an edible worm, 297
Apel, on Priapuloidea, 433
Aperture, of zooecium, 468, 517, 523, 524
Aphaneura, 353, 374
Aphanostoma, 49
Aphanostomatidae, 49
Aphelenchus, 131, 155, 157
Aphrodite, 312;
shape, 258;
head, 260;
peristomium, 263;
chaetae, 268;
felting, 312;
intestine, 271;
genital cells, 273;
colour, 291:
A. aculeata, 312;
distribution, 299;
A. echidna, 299
Aphroditidae, 258, 309;
frontal ridge, 260;
parapodium, 264;
elytra, 266, 309;
chaetae, 266
Apical plate, of Trochosphere, 245
Apodina, 235
Apodoides, 225
Apogon, Scolex polymorphus in, 77
Apsilidae, 201, 203, 214, 220, 221
Apsilus, 201, 212, 213, 214, 221
Arabellites, 302
Arachnidium, 532
Archiannelida, 241;
anatomy, 243 f.;
nerve cords, 255;
development, 243, 245
Archigetes, 5, 74, 76, 91;
significance of, 77
Area, of zooecium, 523, 524
Arenicola, 333;
perienteric sinus, 252;
nephridium, 253, 254, 269;
 prostomium, 259;
body, 259;
head, 264;
gill, 265;
chaetae, 266 f.;
genital organs, 273;
otocyst, 273;
burrows, 285;
pigment, 291;
colour, 293;
A. marina, 333;
habits, 301;
in brackish water, 284;
as bait, 297;
eggs, 314
Arenicolidae, 258, 333
Argilophilus, 372
Arhynchidae, 185
Arhynchus hemignathi, 181, 185
Aricia, otocyst, 273;
eggs, 275
Ariciidae, 258, 321;
gill, 265
Aristotle, on Earthworms, 347
Armata, 445, 446
Arthropoda, absence of cilia in, 124
Articulata, 517, 518
Ascaridae, 131, 138, 163
Ascaris, 139, 163;
A. acus, 130;
A. alata, 140;
A. depressa, 141;
A. ferox, 141;
A. incurva, 141;
A. leptoptera, 141;
A. lumbricoides, 125, 134, 135, 139, 163;
A. megalocephala, 125, 127, 128, 131, 136, 140, 163;
 A. mucronata, 141;
A. mystax, 125, 130, 140;
A. nigrovenosa, 155;
A. rubicunda, 141;
A. suillae, 139;
A. sulcata, 141;
A. transfuga, 125, 126, 141
Ascodictyon, 521 n.
Ascomorpha, 223
Ascopodaria, 488 n.
Asellus, Rotifers attached to, 227
Asexual reproduction, in Triclads, 40;
in Rhabdocoels, 44;
in Cestodes, 80;
in Trichoplax and Salinella, 96;
in Polychaeta, 278 f., 279, 280, 282, 340;
in Oligochaeta, 374, 375, 377;
in Polyzoa, 496, 514
Aspidobothridae, 73
Aspidocotyle, 73
Aspidocotylea, 73
Aspidogaster, 63, 73
Aspidosiphon, 421, 423, 424, 425, 428;
commensalism of, 429
Asplanchna, 200, 205, 210, 213, 215 n., 223, 226
Asplanchnaceae, 203, 212, 220, 222
Asplanchnidae, 200, 201, 203, 205, 211, 212, 216, 223, 226,
230
Asplanchnopus, 201, 211, 222, 223, 226, 230
Ass, parasites of, 140
Association, of Rhabdocoels with Lamellibranchs and Sea-
urchins, 45;
of Monotus fuscus with littoral animals, 46;
significance, in Turbellaria, 51—see also Commensal and
Parasitic
Asteroids, as hosts, 341
Asterope, 315
Astropecten, as host, 297, 309
Atokous phase, 277 n.
Atractonema, 131, 150, 152, 153
Atrium (genital), in Planaria, 38, 39;
in Oligochaeta, 361, 378
Atrochus, 201, 213, 214, 221
Auditory organs, of Turbellaria, 26;
of Hoplonemertea, 106, 110;
of Nematoda, 128;
of Polychaeta, 273
Aulastomum, 393, 399, 403
Auricles, of Rotifers, 205
Autolytus, 308;
eye, 255;
denticles, 270;
brood-sac, 275, 276;
reproduction, 278, 279;
sexual dimorphism, 281;
A. ebiensis, eggs, 276
Automolos, British species, 50
Avenella, 533
Avicularian zooecium, 482, 524
Avicularium, 466, 467, 468, 482 f., 482, 516, 517, 522 f., 524;
adventitious, 482;
vicarious, 482;
vibraculoid, 484, 485;
structure, 483;
movements, 485;
function, 486
Axine, 56, 73
Axiothea, 332, 333

Baely, on human parasites, 139

Baird, on Oligochaeta, 382
Bait, Polychaeta as, 297
Baker, on Rotifers, 197, 207; on Polyzoa,
496 n.
Balanoglossus, affinities of Nemertinea with, 120
Balatro, 204, 212, 224, 227
Balfour, on Trochosphere, 229
Barentsia, 488 n.
Barrois, on Polyzoa, 509
Basement-membrane, of Leptoplana, 11, 12;
of Nemertines, 102, 103, 110 f.
Bathymetrical distribution, of Polychaeta, 300
Bdellodrilus, 376
Bdelloida, 201, 203 f., 211, 213, 215, 216, 222, 227
Bdellouridae, 32, 42
Beania, 518, 525
Beddard, on Tetrastemma aquarium dulcium, 118;
on Oligochaeta, 347 f.;
on Leeches, 392 f.
Bedwell, on Rotifers, 198
Beneden, van, on Cestodes, 76;
on Nematodes, 162;
on Phoronis, 450
Benham, on a fresh-water Tetrastemma, 118;
on Archiannelida, 241 f.;
on Polychaeta, 245 f.;
on Myzostomaria, 341 f.;
on Oligochaeta, 357, 373, 382;
on Phoronis, 452 f.
Benhamia, 383 f.
Bicellaria, 481, 518, 526, 527
Bilfinger, on Rotifers, 212
Bilharzia, 4, 73;
B. crassa, 70;
B. haematobia, 63, 68 f., 69
Bimastos, 389
Bipaliidae, 35, 42
Bipalium, 33, 34, 42, 408
Birds, Trematodes of, 62, 63, 64, 72;
Cestodes of, 77 f., 84, 85;
Nematodes of, 144, 149, 163;
 Gordius of, 173;
Acanthocephala of, 184, 185
Bisexual, Turbellaria, 44;
Trematodes, 70 f.
Bladder, of Rotifers, 214
Bladder-worms, 5, 79 f., 89
Blanchard, on Cestoda, 91;
on Hirudinea, 392 f., 405, 408
Blastomeres, of egg of Distomum, 65
Blood, of Nemertinea, 108;
of Polygordius, 244;
of Chaetopoda, 252;
of Chlorhaemidae, 252, 334;
of Magelona, 252, 325;
of Sabelliformia, 252, 337
Blood-corpuscles, in Chaetopoda, 252
Body-cavity (including Coelom), of Nematoda, 130;
of Gordius, 166;
of Acanthocephala, 175, 178;
of Chaetognatha, 187;
of Archiannelids, 243, 244;
of Polychaeta, 249;
of Myzostoma, 343;
of Oligochaeta, 355;
of Leeches, 397;
of Gephyrea, 416;
of Phoronis, 454, 462;
of Polyzoa, 468, 488, 495
Body-wall, of Nemertinea, 102, 103;
of Nematodes, 125;
of Gordiidae, 165;
of Acanthocephala, 175;
of Chaetognatha, 187;
of Rotifers, 205;
of Nereis, 249;
of Oligochaeta, 349;
of Gephyrea, 414, 436;
 of Phoronis, 454;
of Polyzoa, 470, 495, 500
Bohadsch, on Gephyrea, 411
Bohemilla, 377;
chaeta, 350
Bonellein, 435, 292
Bonellia, 411, 434, 442;
anatomy, 434 f., 435;
male, 438;
development, 439;
habits of, 442;
as host, 297
Bonnet, on Oligochaeta, 348, 379
Boring Worms, 286, 287
Borlase, on Lineus marinus, 99
Borlasia elizabethae, 111, 114
Bothriocephalidae, 91
Bothriocephalinae, 91
Bothriocephalus, 91;
B. cordatus, 81, 91;
B. cristatus, 81, 91;
B. latus, in man, 81, 91;
life-history, 84;
reproductive organs, 87 f.;
larva, 87;
B. mansoni (= B. liguloides), 81, 91
Bothriocerca, 226
Bothrioneuron, 379
Bothrioplana, 46, 50
Bothrioplanidae, 42, 46, 50
Bothromesostoma personatum, 49
Bourne, on Oligochaeta, 352, 373, 377 n., 380;
on Leeches, 400
Bouvier, on commensal Gephyrea, 429
Bowerbankia, 470, 480, 481, 492, 500, 518, 532, 533;
larva, 511, 513;
budding, 514
Brachionidae, 225
Brachionus, 200, 201, 204, 218, 225, 226, 227
Brachydrilus, 357
Brackish water, Rotifers, 226;
Polychaeta, 284;
Polyzoa, 492
Bradynema, 150, 151, 160
Braem, on statoblasts, 503 f.
Brain—see Nervous System
Branchellion, 393, 395, 397, 401, 406
Branchial crown, 336;
regeneration of, 283
Branchiobdella, 376
Branchiomma, 337;
gills, 261;
eyes, 272;
B. vigilans on Aphrodite, 299
Branchiura, 352, 361, 367, 378 f.;
transverse section, 353
Braun, on Platyhelminthes, etc., 6 n., 55 n., 62, 94
Brettia, 525, 527
Bristles = Chaetae, q.v.
Bristle-worms, 241
British, Polycladida, 19;
Tricladida, 42;
Rhabdocoelida, 49;
Nemertinea, 100, 110 f.;
Polychaeta, 306 f.;
Earthworms, 390;
Leeches, 393;
Gephyrea, 449;
Polyzoa, 488 n., 505, 523 f.
Brood-pouch, of Spirorbis, 261, 276, 341;
of Salmacina, 276;
of Entoprocta, 487, 507
Brood-sac, of Autolytus, 275;
of Myrianida, 280
Brown body, in Polyzoa, 468, 471 f., 472, 489, 496, 510, 514
Brown tubes (nephridia), of Sipunculoidea, 415, 417, 423, 425;
of Echiuroidea, 435, 437, 439, 441;
of Epithetosomatoidea, 445;
used as generative ducts, 418, 438;
absent in Priapuloidea, 430
Bryozoa, 475
Buccal region, in Polychaeta, 249, 250, 269;
of Nereis diversicolor, 248;
of N. cultrifera, 316
Buchanan, on marine muds, 423
Buchholzia, 359
Budding, in Syllidae, 279, 283 (see also Gemmation);
in Polyzoa, 467, 514 (see also Polypide-bud)
Bugula, 467, 468, 477, 481, 515, 517, 518, 519, 526;
avicularia, 483, 485;
larva, 511
Bunge, on respiration in Nematoda, 130
Bürger, on Nemertinea, 109, 112;
on Nectonema, 168;
on Hirudinea, 397, 403
Burrows, of Polychaeta, 285, 304;
of Cirratulus, 286;
of Nereis, 286, 316, 317;
of Arenicola, 333;
fossil, 302;
of Earthworms, 368;
of Sipunculus, 426
Bursa seminalis, in Rhabdocoels, 48
Busk, on Polyzoa, 465 n., 475, 487, 519
Buskia, 533
Bütschli, on Nematoda, 137
Byrsophlebs, occurrence, 44;
British species, 49

Caberea, 487, 518, 526;

vibracula, 486, 517
Caecum, in Polyzoa, 499
Calathus, host of Gordius, 172
Calceostominae, 73
Calceostomum, 73
Caldwell, on Phoronis, 454, 456, 461
Calicotyle, 73
Callidina, 201, 202, 204, 218, 219, 222, 225, 227, 230
Calliobothrium, 76 n., 91;
larva, 77
Calotte, of Dicyemids, 93
Calyx, 488
Camerano, on development of Gordius, 170
Capitella, 331;
peristomium, 263;
special chaetae, 267, 268;
habitat, 286;
colour, 291;
O. capitata, distribution, 299
Capitellidae, 258, 331, 373
Capitelliformia, 258, 305;
guanin in, 253;
body, 259;
buccal region, 269;
siphon, 272;
ciliated organs, 272, 273;
genital organs, 273
Carabus, host of Gordius, 172
Carinella, 112;
British species, 112
Carinellidae, side organs of, 107
Caruncle, of Amphinomidae, 260, 273 n., 318
Caryophyllaeus, 91;
C. mutabilis, 77
Castalia, 308;
distribution of, 300
Castings, of Polychaeta, 285;
fossil, 302;
 of Arenicola, 333
Castrada, 44, 49
Cat, parasites of, 80, 125, 130, 140, 143, 144, 145
Catenicella, 518, 519
Catenula, 49
Cathypna, 225
Cathypnidae, 225
Cellaria, 479, 515, 518, 519, 526;
zooecia and avicularium, 482
Cellepora, 518, 527, 528, 529;
avicularia, 483, 517
Celleporella, 529
Cellularia, 518, 527
Cellularina, 518
Cement-glands, of Rotifers, 205
Cephalic slits, of Nemertinea, 101, 104, 107, 111, 112
Cephalisation, in Polychaeta, 263;
in Oligochaeta, 377
Cephalodiscus, 461 f.
Cephalopods, parasites of, 78, 92;
list of, containing Dicyemids, 94
Cephalosiphon, 205, 221
Cephalothrix, 112
Cercaria, 13, 65, 67, 71 f.;
C. macrocerca, 72;
C. cystophora, 72
Cercyra, 42
Cerebral organ, of Nemertinea, 107;
of Gephyrea, 417
Cerebratulus, 101, 111, 114;
British species, 111
Cerfontaine, on Earthworms, 349, 350
Cestoda, characters of the group, 5, 74;
nature of, 76 f.;
occurrence, 77-82;
life-histories, 83;
structure and development, 84-89;
 synoptic table of, 89 f.;
classification, 91
Cestodariidae (= Monozoa), 91
Cestoplana, 17, 18, 19
Cestoplanidae, 19
Chaetae, 241;
of Polychaeta, 266, 267;
provisional, 274;
of Nereis, 246, 247;
of Heteronereid, 276, 277;
jointed, 246;
natatory, in sexual Syllid, 278, 307;
iridescent, 268, 291, 312;
palmate, of Coabangia, 339 n.;
colour, 291;
genital, of Capitella, 331;
of Sternaspis, 336;
special, of Polydora, 261, 267;
of Chaetopterus, 267, 324;
of Myzostoma, 342;
of Oligochaeta, 347, 350, 351, 352;
penial, 362;
of Microdrili, 375 f.;
of Megadrili, 381 f.;
of Lumbricidae, 389, 390;
of Leeches, 395, 396;
(= hooks), of Echiuroid Gephyrea, 434, 435, 438, 440 f., 446
Chaetifera, 445, 446
Chaetobranchus, 352
Chaetogaster, 356, 377, 401
Chaetognatha, 186 f., 534;
anatomy, 186;
development, 189;
habits, 189;
classification, 191;
key to, 193;
American species, 534
Chaetonotus, 232, 235
Chaetopoda, 241 f.;
as food for Nemertinea, 115
Chaetopteridae, 258, 323
Chaetopterus, 304 n., 323;
anatomy, 323 f.;
special chaetae, 267;
larva, 274, 325;
pigment, 292;
phosphorescence, 295, 296;
commensals of, 298, 478, 533;
Ch. variopedatus, 324
Chaetosoma, 158
Chaetosomatidae, 158
Chaetosyllis, form of head, 278
Chaetozone, 326;
uncini, 268
Chaetura, 235
Chalk, Serpulids of, 301
Charles, on male guinea-worm, 148
Cheilostomata, 477, 506, 518, 519, 525, 526 f.;
occurrence, 478;
external characters (see also Avicularium and Vibraculum),
481;
ovicells, 507;
reproduction, 507 f.;
larva, 511;
fossil, 521
Chiaje, Delle, on Gephyrea, 411
Chickoff, on Triclads, 41
Chironomus, host of Gordius, 172
Chitin, 249, 267;
in coelomic corpuscles, 252
Chloeia, colour, 291
Chlorhaemidae, 258, 305, 334, 336;
chlorocruorin in, 252;
head, 260, 262, 264;
 palps, 260;
tentacles, 262
Chlorocruorin, 252, 334;
colour due to, 291
Chone, 338
Chorizopora, 530
Cilia, 3;
of Leptoplana, 10, 11, 12, 15;
of Polyclads, 23, 25, 26;
of Müller's larva, 29;
of Land Planarians, 33;
of Planaria lactea, 35;
of Temnocephala, 53;
of Trematode-larvae, 3, 59, 60, 65;
of Cestode-larvae, 87;
absent in certain groups, 124, 396;
of Rotifers, 202 f.;
of Archiannelida, 243, 244;
of Echiuroidea, 434;
of Phoronis, 453;
of Polyzoa, 467, 470
Ciliated, lappets, of Pterosyllis, 273 n.;
pits, of Polygordius, 244;
pits (= nuchal organs), of Polychaeta, 272 f.;
organs, of Capitelliformia, 305
Cingulum, in Rotifers, 202
Cirratulidae, 258, 325;
gill, 265;
tentacular filaments, 304 n.
Cirratulus, 326;
burrows, 286;
pigment, 292;
colour, 293;
viviparous, 276;
C. tentaculatus, 326
Cirri, of Nereis, 246;
of Polychaeta, 265;
 of Myzostoma, 342;
anal, 259;
nuchal, of Eunicidae, 318;
peristomial, of Nereis, 248;
nerves to, 254;
of Polychaeta, 263
Cladocora, with Myxicola, 294
Claparède, on Heteronereis, 276, 277;
on Earthworms, 347, 355, 356
Claus, on Nematoda, 138;
on Seisonaceae, 225 n.
Clepsine—see Glossiphonia
Clitellio, 366, 378
Cloeosiphon, 424, 425, 429
Clover sickness, 155
Clymene, 333;
C. ebiensis, tube of, 287
Clymenidae—see Maldanidae
Coabangia, 284, 339 n.
Cobb, on Nematoda, 131 n., 138
Cobbold, on Nematoda, 140
Cobitis, host of Gordius, 173
Cochleare, 225
Cocoons, of Triclads, 40;
of Oligochaeta, 364, 365;
of Leeches, 404
Coelom—see Body-cavity
Coelomic fluid, of Polychaeta, 252;
as cause of colour, 291
Coelopus, 225
Cohn, on Rotifers, 198
Collar, peristomial, of Sabellidae, 336;
of Gephyrea, 421;
of Ctenostomata, 470, 477, 480, 481
Colonial nervous system, 471
Colony, of Myrianida, 281;
of Syllis ramosa, 282;
 of Polyzoa, 466
Colour of Polyclads, 20;
of Land Planarians, 33;
of Nemertinea, 102;
of Polychaeta, 291, 314, 340
Coluridae, 207, 225
Colurus, 225, 226
Comatula, as host, 342
Commensal, Polychaeta, 297 f., 323, 325;
Gephyrea, 428, 429;
Polyzoa, 489
Conn, on development of Gephyrea, 419 n., 441, 444, 447
Conoceros, 19
Conochilus, 202, 203, 205, 215, 221, 226
Conocyema, hosts of, 94
Convoluta, 45;
British species, 43, 49;
C. henseni, pelagic habit, 43;
C. roscoffensis, assimilating tissue, 43
Copepoda, on Polychaeta, 299
Copeus, 215, 224
Coral reefs, Polychaeta in, 293
Corallina (= Coralline Alga), 14, 488, 516
Coralline, 465
Coralline Crag, 465, 521
Corallobothrium, 91
Corethra, host of Gordius, 172
Cori, on Phoronis, 451 f.
Cornulites, 302
Cotylea, 16 f., 17, 18
Cotylogaster, 73
Cotyloplana, 35
Crateromorpha, as host, 282
Crayfish, Temnocephala associated with, 53
Creeper, 317
Crepina, 450
Cretaceous, Polyzoa, 520, 521
Cribrilina, 518, 524, 528
Crinoids, as hosts, 341
Criodrilus, 358, 366, 386
Crisia, 471, 478, 479, 480, 507, 518, 531
Crisiidae, 517
Crisp, on Parasites, 164
Cristatella, 494 f., 495, 499, 501, 503-505, 512, 518;
attacked by Planarians, 486;
movements, 494, 496, 498;
fission, 496, 506;
statoblast, 502, 503;
larva, 512
Crossopodia, 302
Crotchets, 266, 267, 305, 322
Crustacea, parasites of, 174, 179, 182
Cryptocelis, 19, 24
Cryptocephala, 258, 303, 305;
vascular system, 252;
prostomium, 259;
tentacles, 263;
eyes, 272;
food, 296
Cryptodrilidae, 357, 362, 373, 382
Cryptodrilus, 372, 382 f.
Ctenodrilus, 373
Ctenophores, as hosts, 298
Ctenostomata, 470, 477, 479, 480, 518, 532;
occurrence, 478;
in fresh water, 492;
external characters, 480;
reproduction, 507;
larva, 511;
relation to Phylactolaemata, 493, 502 f.;
fossil, 521 n.
Cucullanus, 136, 142, 163;
C. elegans, 143, 161
Cucumaria, as host, 298
Cuénot, on Gephyrea, 416 n.
Cuticle, of Nemathelminthes, 125, 165, 175;
of Rotifera, etc., 205, 233, 236;
of Polyzoa, 470—see also Epidermis
Cuvier, on Oligochaeta, 352;
on Gephyrea, 411
Cyclatella, 489
Cyclicobdella, 392
Cycloporus, 19, 22, 24
Cyclops, parasites of, 143, 148, 161
Cyclorhagae, 238
Cyclostomata, 477, 479, 506, 517, 518, 525, 531;
occurrence, 478;
external characters, 480;
ovicells, 507;
reproduction, 507, 511;
larva, 511; fossil, 520, 521
Cydippe, as host, 298
Cylindroecium, 533
Cylindrostoma, 46;
British species, 50
Cyphonautes, 509, 510, 512, 520
Cyprina, Malacobdella found on, 119
Cyrtonia, 224
Cyst, of Land-Planarians, 33;
of Myzostoma, 342, 343, 344;
(capsules), of Aeolosoma, 370, 375
Cystibranchus, 395, 406
Cysticercoid-larva, 83, 85, 88
Cysticercus-larva, 79, 80;
list of, 83;
C. cellulosae, 79, 80;
C. pisiformis, development, 81, 85, 89
Cysticolous, Myzostomaria, 344
Cystoidotaeninae, 91
Cystotaeninae, 91
Dactylogyrus, 73
Dalyell, on habits of Turbellaria, 6, 10, 20;
on regeneration in Polychaeta, 283;
on tubes of Polychaeta, 287;
on Hirudinea, 405 n.;
on larvae of Flustra, 466;
on Cristatella, 496
Danielssen and Koren, on Gephyrea, 442, 444
Daphnia, Rotifers attached to, 227
Dapidia, 225
Darwin, on Earthworms, 354, 359, 368
Dasybranchus, 331;
gill, 268
Dasychone, 338;
gills, 261;
eyes, 272;
regeneration, 283
Dasydetes, 232, 235
Davaine, on Nematoda, 140, 145
Davainea, 91;
D. friedbergeri, 84;
D. madagascariensis, 80, 84;
D. proglottina, life-history, 84
Davenport, on Urnatella, 491
Davis, on Rotifers, 227
Deep-sea, Polychaeta, 300;
Polyzoa, 478
Deinodrilus, 351, 384
Delagia, 478 n.
Dendrobaena, 382
Dendrocoelum, 30, 35, 39
Dendrostoma, 422, 425, 428
Dendy, on Land Planarians, 33, 34, 38
Denticles, 248, 250, 316, 522
Dero, 352, 377
Derostoma, 44, 50
Desmogaster, 380