32 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. I40 



CELL TYPES 



The types of nerve cell bodies observed in hipuncticeps resemble 

 those of other arthropods with reference to relative size and shape. 

 The motor, associational, and neuroglial nuclei may be differentiated 

 on the basis of size and the nuclear properties already described. The 

 cells described by Gabe (1952) were not observed in the frontal 

 cortex, probably because specific stains for secretory granules were 

 not employed. In a preparation in which a contaminated metachro- 

 matic dye was accidentally used, however, some evidence of neuro- 

 secretory activity was seen, not in the cells of origin but in the tissue 

 of the cerebral gland. This requires further investigation. 



NERVE TRACTS 



The difference between the glomerular entities in the neuropile of 

 hipuncticeps and those of other centipedes, particularly the Scutigero- 

 morpha, are probably due to phylogenetic modifications. Homologies 

 undoubtedly exist. The scutigeromorph head is domed and resembles 

 that of an insect, in that the antennae are dorsally placed and the 

 mouth is pushed forward so that the labrum and clypeus form the 

 front boundary of the head. In hipuncticeps the head is flattened 

 dorsoventrally so that the mouth, clypeus, and labrum are ventrally lo- 

 cated. The antennae are rostrally situated. The general configuration 

 of the cephalic capsules accounts for many of the differences between 

 the geophilomorph and scutigeromorph brains. The positions of the an- 

 tennal lobes and tritocerebral components in the brain of hipuncticeps 

 become intelligible. The reduction of the protocerebrum is related 

 to the absence of eyes and the Organs of Tomosvary, and the absence 

 of the corpora pedunculata and of the central complex follows log- 

 ically. The other tracts may be homologized on the assumption that 

 the shapes of the heads are correlated with a spatial displacement of 

 fibers. 



THE FAHLANDER-FERRIS CONTROVERSY 



Fahlander's contribution to chilopod neuroanatomy has proved a 

 most reliable source in this study, but a single statement found in 

 Ferris (1953) is sufficient to jeopardize the value of the former's 

 research. "It is not a criticism of the author of this work [Fahlander, 

 1938] to say that as far as the nervous system is concerned the work 

 fails." (Ferris, 1953, p. 12.) 



After World War II, G. F. Ferris began a study of the comparative 



