LITERARY NOTICES. 



Mark Anniversary Volume. Ne-M York, Henry Holt and Compa7iy, pp. xiv, 

 513, 36 plates, 1903. 



This volume, which contains in addition to twenty-five papers an 

 excellent photogravure of Professor Mark, bears the inscription, "To 

 Edward Laurens Mark Hersey Professor of Anatomy and Director of 

 the Zoological Laboratory at Harvard L^niversity in Celebration of 

 Twenty-five Years of Successful Work for the Advancement of Zoqlogy 

 from his former Students 1877-1902." 



The following papers of the volume are within the scope of this 

 Journal : 



Locy, William A. A New Cranial Nerve in Selachians. Art. Ill, pp. 39-55" 



This research is a careful description of a new cranial nerve, 

 homologous with Pinkus' nerve, in Sqnaliis acanthias, Mustclus canis, 

 Raja, Canharlas Uttoralis, Syphrna tiburo and Scoliodon terrae novae. 

 Its existence has also been determined in embryos of Torpedo and in 

 other selachians making in all 19 genera and 24 species of adults. 



In all the forms described the nerve enters the brain in the median 

 furrow, usually on the ventral surface of the (secondary) forebrain. In 

 Sqiialus, however, it enters midway between the dorsal and ventral 

 surfaces and in the skate on the anterior dorsal surface. The fibers 

 are traced in the brain to a mesial eminence of the infolded pallium. 



Peripherally the nerve is distributed to the nasal epithelium, the 

 greater part going to the anterolateral part of the olfactory cup. The 

 exact termination was not ascertained. In some forms the nerve 

 exhibits a ganglionic enlargement along its course. 



Embryologically the nerve has its own independent connection 

 with the epithelium which precedes that of the olfactory nerve. 



Locy is inclined to homologize the nerve with the new nerve de- 

 scribed by Pinkus in Frotoptenis and by Allis in ^w/(?— certainly the 

 differences in point of connection with the brain would hardly justify 

 one in seriously doubting the homology. Locy also thinks that "its 

 separateness in origin and differences from all other olfactory radices" 

 would justify its being called a "new nerve" even if it should prove to 

 be an aberrant olfactory bundle. Apropos of this, the fact may be 



