172 MR. F. J. COLE ON THE STRUCTURE A^D MORPHOLOGY OF 



According to Vogt and Yung (2 15) the accessory lateral nerve must be small in Perca, 

 in which tliey differ from Cuvier and Valenciennes, but their description and figure do 

 not agree, and the anterior root of the system must remain a matter of dovibt. Tt is 

 probable, however, as described by Cuvier and Valencienes (from whose figure that given 

 in Vogt and Yung seems to have been largely compiled), that this root resembles the 

 anterior root of Gadus. Willey (1894, 223) considers the accessory lateral to be 

 comparable to the true lateral system. He says (p. 45) : — " It is not impossible that tlie 

 lateral line nerve [JR. lateralis ikkj'i) is honiodynamous with the remarkable Ramus 

 cutaiieus quint i {H. recurrcns trlyeniiid et facialis or Nervus lateralis tri(/emiui, Stannius) 

 of Teleosteans, which runs to the base of all tlie fins, paired as well as unpaired ; just 

 as the paired fins themselves arc known to be homodynamous with the median fins. In 

 this case the H. cutanens qiiinti would be of primitive significance, notwithstanding the 

 fact that it is absent in Selachians ; and it would be another of those features of 

 organization in the possession of which Teleosteans exhibit more primitive relations than 

 do the existing Selachians." I have already emphasized the fact that the accessory 

 lateral nerves are not in any way comparable to the true lateral system, and hence 

 Willey's argument, based indeed on an assumption that is "not impossible,"' must fall 

 to the ground. 



Turning to Allis's last work on A)nia (18-97, 6), we find the following passage 

 (p. 628) : — " Tlie great recurrent branch of the facialis described by Pollard seems to be 

 the ramus lateralis ti'igemiui of other authors. In Silurns glunis this nerve is distributed 

 to the dorsal fin, as in Clarias and Aitchenaspis. In Trlcliomijcterus and CluctostoimisSi 

 large branch is sent from it to the pectoral fin, and in Gadus morrhiia I find this branch 

 distributed to the breast fin also. In Elasmobranchs and Amphibia the nerve is wanting, 

 so far as I can find. Its distribution indicates that it is destined largely or entirely to 

 the sup^ily of terminal buds, for these buds are not found on tlie body in Elasmobranchs 

 and Amphibia, and are found in great quantity, but with a greatly varied distribution, 

 on the body, but more especially on the fins, in Teleosts. The nerve in Gadus lies 

 immediately beneath the skin, but crosses the lateralis vagi internal to the nerve. It 

 arises as two nerves or bundles from the deeper jjortions of the trigemino- facial ganglion, 

 the two bundles embracing the i-oot of the buccal and ophthalmic branches of the facialis 

 exactly as the first pair of branches of the ophthalmicus superficialis trigemini in Amia 

 embrace the ophthalmicus facialis. The nerve in Gadus has, contrary to the arrangement 

 of the branches found in Amia, an intracranial course, as it has in Siluroids, issuing on 

 the top of the skull near its hind end. As the trigemino-facial ganglionic mass lies, in 

 Clarias at least, inside the skull beside the brain, this difference of course is probably of 

 no importance." 



This passage is unfortunate in many respects. In the first place, the homology 

 between the Siluroid and the modern Teleostean nerve is, as I have already shown, by 

 no means new, and has been pointed out by many authors. Secondly, the branches in 

 Gadus to the breast (=pelvic?) and other fins were described as far back as 1835 by 

 Swan, and are even described in the practical handbooks {e. <j. Owen's " Vertebrates " 

 and Parker's " Zootomy "). Thirdly, the accessory lateral is, I think, not Avanting in 



