THE INTERNAL EAR IN VERTEBRATES 581 



In 1895 Kreidl 1 made some experiments upon Gold-fish from 

 which he concluded that the fish ear was not sensitive to sound 

 or indeed to any vibration but that coarse vibrations were felt 

 by the skin. 



He tested the fishes by means of vibrating rods plunged into 

 the water of the tank and with instruments of various sorts 

 sounded in the air. None of these vibrations elicited the least 

 response but the slightest jar to the water was responded to at 

 once — the response being quite independent of the presence or 

 absence of the ear but dependent on the full physiological 

 activity of the skin. 



Similar results as to the total insensitiveness to musical 

 tones were obtained in 1907 by Lafite Dupont 2 and KOrner. 3 

 Various kinds of fishes were tested with tuning-forks and 

 instruments specially constructed not to produce tangible 

 vibrations. 



Thus it would seem to have been fairly settled that fishes 

 could not hear in the true sense of the word. 



On the other hand Parker 4 and subsequently Bigelow 5 ob- 

 tained results from Minnows and Gold-fish the precise opposite 

 of those got by Kreidl. They found that the fish responded to 

 the vibrations of a tuning-fork when the ear was intact but that 

 when the ear was rendered inactive by cutting the otic nerve all 

 response ceased in spite of the fact that the skin remained in full 

 working order. 



This is a surprising want of harmony in results obtained 

 by similar experiments upon the same species of fish. It can 

 perhaps be explained, as suggested by Bigelow, by the practical 

 difficulties that bar the removal of the whole ear by the method 

 of extraction used by Kreidl. And if, as seems likely, the lower 

 saccular chambers (sacculus and lagena) were left behind in his 

 experiments, his conclusion that the ear has no part in vibration 

 perception is vitiated. 



All these experiments were performed on fish in captivity 

 and therefore in a somewhat abnormal state; but, in 1903, 

 Zenneck 6 carried out some very careful experiments upon fish 



1 Kreidl, Arch.f. Physiol. 61, 1895, P- 45°- 



2 Lafite Dupont, C.R. Soc. Biol. Paris, 63, 1907, p. 710. 



3 Korner, Arch, hydrobiol. Stuttgart, 2, 1906, p. 9. 



4 Parker, Bull. U.S. Fish Commisssoti, 22, 1902, p. 45. 



5 Bigelow, Am. Nat. 38, 1904, p. 275. 



6 Zenneck, Arch. Physiol. 95, 1903, p. 346, 



