60 



FUKDKKK K TILXK'i AND LUTHEB F. WARRKX 



paraphysis shows no features of sensory function. Of these 

 three encephalic divert icula from the roof-plate in Saurians, 

 the parietal eye alone seems to have had ancestral sensory 

 function (fig. 26). 



In a later communication, combating the contention of Klinck- 

 owstroem 207 to the effect that the evolutional process observed 

 in An<iuis is normal and more primitive while that in Lacerta 

 is a simple modification of this primitive form, Beraneck 25 pro- 



Fig '_'."> 'I'lic epiphyseal complex in a 27 nun. embryo of Annuls fragilis, ac- 

 cording to Beranerk, 1X92. 



/'/., paraphysis; I'., velum transversum; D.s., dorsal sac; Ch., commissura ha- 

 liennlaris; \/>ur.. ncrvus parapinealis; I'd., ])arapiiH'al organ; H/>., pineal organ; 

 Sch., pars intercalaria posterior; ('/>., conin.issura. posterior. 



posed this (juestion, "If in Anguis the parietal eye is only a 

 differentiation of the distal extremity of the epiphysis, how in 

 La'r,(t does this visual organ develop parallel to the epiphysis 

 and not dependent upon it?" Beraneck maintains thai Klinc- 

 kowstroem escapes the difficulty proposed by this question in 

 claiming thai the pineal eye of lynuim and f.<iccrl<i upon the 

 one hand and Ainjnis upon the other take origin from different 

 parts of the epiphyseal evaginal ion. B-.'raneek formulates the 

 hypothesis that the parietal eye and epiphysis represent in 



