142 MR. F. J. COLE ON THE STRUCTURE AND MORPHOLOGY OF 



appears to consider that the fasciculus communis system is in part somatic as well as 

 splanchnic, which is inadmissible in the present state of our knowledge* (but see p. 175) ; 

 second, as Kingsbury (1897, 114) ^^^ pointed out (p. 29), the system is not entirely 

 coufiued to the iuuervation of terminal buds. With regard to the first objection, it is of 

 course difficult, if not impossible, in the region of the visceral clefts, to determine where 

 the somatic region ends aud the splanchnic begins. As Allis apparently considers that 

 the terminal buds of the mouth were originally on the surface (and therefore somatic 

 sensory), aud have since wandered on to the gill arclies and visceral surfaces, he must 

 hold the visceral character of this portion of the fasciculus communis system to have 

 been secondarily acquired. 



Max Fiirbringer (1897, 79) t, in commenting on the connections between the occipital 

 nerves and the true cranial nerves, says (p. 5G8) : — " Die Anastomosen mit dem Sympa- 

 thictis dao-eo-en reprascntiren zu einem grossen Theile wirkliche Wurzeln desselben (Br. 

 viscerales) und sind insofcrn von Interesse, als sie den Beweis fur die immer noch von 

 Einzelnen bezweifelte Thatsache erbringen, dass sympathische Fasern und Ganglien 

 auch den ventralen Spinalnervenwurzeln entstauunen." In a footnote Fiirbringer draws 

 attention to a statement by Van Wijhe of the existence of sympathetic ganglia on the 

 ventral roots of the posterior cranial nerves of ScylUum embryos. Finally, Herrick 

 (1897, 9S) states that the fasciculus communis system innervates taste buds and other 

 specialised sense organs (other than the lateral sense organs) and the visceral surfaces in 

 treueral, and on p. 428 says that the palatinus facialis consists of " fasciculus communis 

 fibres from the geniculate ganglion distributed exclusively to the taste buds of the mouth." 

 The above consideration of the literature makes the solution of the problem a some- 

 what easy matter, and we may at once draw up the following general conclusions : — 



(1) The facial ganglion of the Cod is precisely comparable in every respect to a prse- 



branchial or prse-trematic ganglion, since it is the ganglion of the palatine and 

 chorda tymiiani nerves which consist of fibres belonging to the fasciculus 

 communis system. 



(2) It is hence physiologically and morphologically comparable to a sympathetic ganglion, 



since the fasciculus communis fibres belong essentially to the sympathetic system 

 and innervate the visceral surfaces. 



(3) The ganglion has been well known to anatomists for a long time, and was considered 



by most of the older zoologists to be the most anterior sympathetic ganglion, and 

 to exist only in the osseous fishes. It was rediscovered in Elasmobranchs by Shore 

 and Ewart, and fui'ther described by Allis and Strong (Amphibia) ; but these 

 authors failed to homologise it with the ganglion in the osseous fishes, and refer 



* I am aware of certain statements of Ramsay, "Wright, Kingsbury, aud Herrick to the contrary, but tliink the 

 bulk of the evidence goes to show that the fasciculus communis fibres belong to the visceral system. In any case, 

 however, my argument is unaffected, since the fasciculus communis fibres in the palatine and prai-branchial nerves 

 are'admittedly visceral ssnsory. 



t Ttam indebted to the generosity of the author for a copy of this fine work. 



