I04 Journal of CoDiparativc Neurology and Psychology. 



fibrillar network about the nucleus of each cell. On page 85 

 he figures tvv^o cells showing such perinuclear networks and states 

 in the text: "Von der Existenz glatt durch die Zellen hin. 

 durch passierender Neurofibrillen habe ich mich allerdings an 

 diesem Object [palate of frog] nicht mit Sicherheit iiberzeugen 

 konnen. Es ist aber doch sehr wohl rn(")glich dass auch hier 

 solche vorkommen, doch ist ihre Zahl sicher nicht gross." To 

 me it seems evident both from Bethe's figures and my own 

 preparations that most of the fibrillae do pass directly through 

 tlie cells. The doubtful point is in the existence of a perinuc- 

 lear network. The structures figured by Bethe could easily 

 be accounted for by the adhesion of the fibrils at their points of 

 division. Bethe's figures show plainly that the main portion 

 of each fibril passes through the cell. It is only small side 

 branches which show the semblance of a network. Of this I 

 am sure, that in all my preparations of these cells the fibrillae 

 do not form a network about the nucleus. The usual condition 

 found in these cells from the palate of the frog is shown in fig- 

 ure 6. The fibrils often divide in the region of the nucleus, 

 but the branches which thus arise are not continuous with each 



Fig. J. A single cell from the subepithelial network in the palate of Nec- 

 turus; most of the fibrillae run straight through the cell but in the region of the 

 nucleus there is apparently evidence of a network. X looo. 



other. It is possible that the network figured by Bethe may 

 not have been stained in my preparations ; but as the fibrillae 

 passing through the cells were clearly demonstrated, it seems 

 strange that some trace of the network, if present, could not 



