338 MAMMALIAN ALVEOLINGUAL SALIVARY AREA 



Furchen. Die cylindrische Drusenanlage geht vorn aus einem niedrigen Epithel- 

 kamm hervor und geht dann, massiv unter der Oberflache freiliegend nach hinten 

 urn ungetheilt, abgerundet zu enden. 



In the embryos of the rabbit Chievitz reports his inability to find 

 the anlage of the subUnguahs major. The concluding portions of 

 his paper are concerned with the late changes in the anlages, in partic- 

 ular with the liistiogenesis of their epithehum. Chievitz does not dis- 

 cuss liis findings except in relation to the number of elements present, 

 and the composition of the massa sublingualis, as has been noted, and 

 yet his results are of the highest theoretical importance and form a 

 basis for new interpretations and new problems in the morphology of 

 the sahvary glands, (i) From the standpoint of development the 

 glands may be divided into those formed in Mo as simple sprouts, and 

 those supplied with advancing keels, which secondarily separate from 

 the oral epithelium to form ducts. Only to those of the first class can 

 the old criterion of the orifice be directly apphed. (2) As glands of 

 the second class are not the product of simple sprouts, it becomes per- 

 tinent to inquire what interpretation can be made of them, and, in 

 particular, of their keels ; whether, in other words, they ought not to 

 be compared to a plurality, a condensed row of simple elements, 

 rather than to a single gland, hypertrophied. (3) With regard to the 

 analysis -of the glands of the alvcolingual region, the work of Chievitz 

 confirms and emphasizes the distinction between the subhnguaUs 

 major and the sublinguales minores, by the discovery of the peculiar 

 development of the former, but at the same time raises unexpectedly 

 the question of its relation to the submaxillary. A number of alter- 

 natives offer: if it be taken, and the assumption is natural, that the 

 site of the anlage is an absolute index of the status of a gland, we must 

 conclude that here is evidence of the presence of two different elements, 

 one a lateral associate of the submaxillary (man, pig), and one an 

 independent derivative of the alveolingual gutter (mouse). It will 

 be noted that this view differs toto ccelo from the distinction of Ranvier 

 between the human Bartholinian element and the retrolingual, for 

 here the division of the field is sagittal, there transverse, and further 

 the resemblance in position of the anlages in man and the pig, proves 

 the inconsequence of a distinction between these glands in the adult 

 on the basis of their relation to the Ungual nerve. Nor did Zumstein 



