NO. 4 NERVOUS SYSTEM OF A CENTIPEDE — LORENZO 33 



morphology of the Annulata (= annelid-arthropod complex). In a 

 paper entitled "The Contradictions of the Insect Head," he stated: 



The processes of change which have produced the millions of species, living 

 and dead, that belong and have belonged to the super-phylum Annulata have 

 left the central nervous system basically unaltered. A system that must have 

 been established in the Precambrian has come down to the present time so little 

 altered that a point-by-point correspondence may be shown to exist on even some 

 of the smaller details throughout the vast group that has been derived from 

 Annelid-like ancestors. 



This is the fundamental significance of the facts that will be presented. 

 (Ferris, 1947, p. 64.) 



This concept is the starting point from which Henry (1947, 1948) 

 undertook the study of the "Nervous System and the Segmentation 

 in the Annulata," which appeared under that title in five articles. 

 She considered the problem of segmental homology in the oligochaete 

 annelids up through the insects. Included in her work is a brief treat- 

 ment of a large gosibiid centipede, Pseudolithobius megaloporus 

 (Stuxberg). She interpreted the segmentation of the chilopod head 

 and the disposition of the cephalic nerves in the light of her investiga- 

 tions on the nervous systems of the Polychaeta, Onychophora, and 

 Crustacea. 



Applegarth (1952) continued the program with a study of the 

 cephalic musculature and innervation of the same lithobiomorph. He 

 interpreted his findings in accord with the principles outlined by 

 Ferris (1948) and the conclusions given by Henry (1948). The 

 bibliographies of these workers did not include Fahlander (1938) 

 until Applegarth (1952) had completed his doctoral dissertation. In 

 a supplementary note, he wrote : 



it appears that Fahlander's paper contains numerous errors, small in themselves, 

 but of such a nature as to preclude the development of any understanding of 

 the relation of the muscles of the head region to the segmentation of that area. 

 (P. 143.) 



Ferris (1953) summed up the work he had initiated and defended 

 his morphological principles. He concluded a section devoted to the 

 Chilopoda with a bitter criticism of Fahlander's efforts. Comparison 

 of the various areas of controversy revealed the following dis- 

 crepancies : 



(i) Fahlander described a short, thin, motor nerve (ug) which 

 innervates a part of the levator pharyngis muscle and which arises 

 from the deutocerebrum. Ferris, on the other hand, said that no 

 such nerve existed in his material. A nerve corresponding in position 

 occurs but goes to the integument between the bases of the antennae. 



