386 JOHN BEARD, 



ganglion-cell was drawn at this point, but careful and repeated exa- 

 mination under the highest powers revealed the presence of two very 

 closely apphed ganglion- cells as in the published drawing. They were 

 not so clearly defined as in the figure, but otherwise the latter is 

 correct ^). 



The two transient nerves of this figure (Fig. 24) are certainly of 

 a very remarkable character. The nerve on either side is partly made 

 up of ganglion-cells and partly of single nerve -fibres, arranged in a 

 chain-like fashion. The fibre from any one ganglion-cell does not 

 appear to end in another such cell, the indications being rather that 

 it is in close application to the fibre of the latter, and on both sides 

 in difierent positions there are two ganglion-cells (gl. c 1 and 2, gl. c 3 

 and 4) applied end to end. In passing, the symmetry of the figure 

 on the two sides may be commented upon as indicative of a former 

 greater symmetry of the apparatus. 



The two nerves are what might be termed plexiform, and the 

 reader may perhaps try to imagine what would happen if the ganglion- 

 cells were to degenerate to mere nerve - forming cells along the path 

 outlined by Figs. 79, 80 and 81 to be described and discussed at a 

 later stage. 



There is no intention of citing this figure as proof of the non- 

 validity of the "process - theory" of nerve - formation. In view of 

 the nature of many other figures illustrating this memoir it would be 

 absurd to take up any such position. The matter will be reverted 

 to in a subsequent section of the work. There have been many other 

 nerves of the transient system noticed bearing some resemblance to 

 those in Fig. 24. Two such plexiform nerves of greater complication 

 are those of Figs. 7, 8 and 9. If the reader should reconstruct the 

 latter for himself, even in imagination, he would be convinced of the 

 truth of this remark. 



Then, there are other figures which doubtless belong to the same 



1) In order to have independent testimonj^ on the point the sections 

 in question were laid before my pupil, Mr. J. A. Murbay B. Sc, Vans 

 Dunlop Scholar in the University of Edinburgh, in whose keenness of 

 vision and qualifications to solve difficult questions I have good reason 

 for the utmost confidence, with the request to make a combination 

 drawing of the two nerves in certain consecutive sections. At the 

 time he had neither seen my own drawing nor had he had any infor- 

 mation as to its nature. His figures and conclusions tallied exactly 

 with my own (compare Fig. 24, plate 23, and Fig. 24 a, plate 26). 



