will.'S.rd: cranial nerves of anolis carolinensis. 19 



■facility at my disposal and for his continued interest and encourage- 

 ment. Also the work has been aided not a little through the courtesy 

 of Professor H. W. Norris of Grinnell College and Dr. C. J. Herrick 

 of Chicago University, who on different occasions have given me work- 

 ing facilities in their laboratories. 



B. SCOPE OF THE PAPER. 



This paper includes, to some extent, the general anatomy of the 

 head of Anolis; much of this, however, is of quite secondary impor- 

 tance and there has been no attempt to treat critically anything but 

 the nervous organs; even within this field certain features have been 

 omitted, since they can better be considered in connection with the 

 central nervous system. This is true of the larger sense organs and 

 their nerves, i. e., eye, ear, and olfactory organs. Also the distribu- 

 tion of the vagus nerve is not carried into the trunk region beyond 

 the limits of the series of sections figured. Of the non-nervous 

 structures, the skeleton is included for the purpose of more exact 

 topography. The muscles and glands, and the integument and 

 mucous membrane with their sense organs are included on account of 

 their relation to the peripheral distribution of neurones. 



The aim of this work is to give as complete an account as possible 

 of a single reptilian form, which may serve as a basis for further com- 

 parative study. The entire absence of such an account within the 

 whole sauropsidan group is believed to be sufficient justification for 

 the publication of the present paper. But this plan is not compatible 

 with the intensive treatment of many of the problems that arise in 

 connection with various details of the work. Much of the literature 

 that has been consulted in the course of the study has not been specifi- 

 cally cited as it would have been, had the field been more limited. 

 This is particularly true of most of the reptilian studies whose results 

 are based on dissections alone and are therefore open to more than one 

 interpretation, because an attempt at detailed comparisons in such 

 cases would serve only to impair the usefulness of the present study. 

 In regard to the Icthyopsida, where more exact work has been done, 

 it seems premature to go far with comparisons until the study of the 

 Sauropsida has covered several forms. Such comparisons as are made 

 should, therefore, be considered tentative. 



