MOEPHOLOGY OF THE BRAIN IN THE MA.M^fALIA. 301 



(his /)) is (lie continuation of tlicretrocalcaiine and not of the paracalcarine (his tt). Th(! 

 furrow TT merely cuts into the upper lip of p + o. In reference to this statement, he calls 

 attention to Bischotfs memoir *. In his discussion of the lioraoloo-ies of the calcarine 

 group of svilci, Ziehen compares the furrows of tlie Prosimian bi-ain with those of the 

 Carnivora, and especially Fhoca hispida. Like Broca, he regards the posterior branch of 

 the splenial sulcus ("' ramus horizontalis posterior ") as the calcarine sulcus, and the 

 " occipito-temporal part of the splenial " as the " stem of the f. parieto-occipitalis and 

 fissura calcarina " (p. 919). The confusion in these statements arises from the failure to 

 recognize that it is the so-called " stem of the paiieto-occipital and calcarine furrows " 

 which alone deserves the title " calcarine "f, whereas the furrow he calls " calcarine " is 

 really the retrocalcarine. But if the calcarine sulcus of the Prosimiae is represented by 

 the end piece of the splenial svilcus in the Carnivora, why does he consider the obvious 

 homologue of the latter in Fteropus to be the sulcus a (calloso-marginal or intercalary), 

 and not the sulcus p (calcarine) ? 



A similar confusion of the true calcarine sulcus and the posterior calcarine has been 

 made by the German Anatomical Nomenclature Commission, calling the former 

 " f. occipito-calcarina" and the latter " f. calcarina," in spite of the fact that Huxley 

 introduced the name '•' calcarine " to distinguish that sulcus which produces the calcar, 

 i.e. the so-called " occipito-calcarine." Burt Wilder, who has disagreed with the 

 conclusions of the German Committee on so many other points, seems to embodv 

 the same confusing use of terms in his system of nomenclature. 



Many other writers, such as Benedikt and Meynert, apply the term calcarine to that 

 portion of the sulcus which can only by courtesy, as it were, be so called, because it is 

 really a separate sulcus, the retrocalcarine, which has secondarily become confluent with 

 the true calcarine. If it were not for this confusion of terms, the conclusions at vvliich 

 these writers have arrived might have been received as an approximately accurate 

 expression of the homologies existing between the furroAvs of the Carnivora and the 

 Primates; ])ut this can hardly be said of them in their present confusing form i. 

 Pansch's criticism of the teaciiing of Meynert is utterly futile in the light of our 

 present knowledge. The climax of his argument — "Wo ist bei einen Raubthier 

 ein Calcar avis?" — becomes meaningless, if we compare tigs. 51 and 53 of this 

 work §. 



The works of the English anatomists Turner and Cunningham are in direct conflict 

 with all the other writings quoted above. I have already referred to Turner's views. 



* Siteb. d. bayer. Akad. d. Wisscnsch. 187U, p. 47S. 



t /. f., if the slightest attention be paid to the detinition given by Husley when he coiued the word calcarine. 

 The calcarine sulcus is the furrow wliieh produces the caJcar. 



X Theodor Meynert, " Die Windungeu der couvexeu Oberfluche des Vorder-Hirnes bei llenschen, Affen nnd 

 IJaubthiereu," Arch, f. Psychiatrie, 1877. 



Maurice Benedikt, " Nouveile contribution i rAnatomie compart'e du Oerveau," Bull, dc la Soc. d'Anthrop. de 

 Paris, 4e serie, t. vii. March 1890, p. 22(;. 



§ Adolf Pansch, '• Bemerkungen iiber die Faltuugen des &rosshirns imd ibrc Beschreibung," Arch. f. Psychial. 

 Bd. viii. 1878, p. 1'38. 



SECOND SERIES. — ZOOLOGY, VOL. VIII. 57 



