260 yournal of Comparative Neurology ajtd Psychology. 



and that "this nerve is clearly a double one." He identifies 

 various branches of the nerve as "buccalis" divisions, but by their 

 distribution only, and not by their certain origin from the lateralis 

 ganglion. Tv^o of the divisions of the nerve which may be so 

 identified from Kingsley's descriptions are the middle and inner 

 terminal branches, which arise from the main nerve near the level 

 of the cephalic border of the eye and almost immediately anasto- 

 mose with the rami of the ophthalmicus profundus. The two 

 nerves thus formed pass through foramina in the maxillary bone 



and innervate organs of the infraorbital line. 



. . ... 1 



Now, in Triton there is a single small nerve which arises m the 



same locahty from the r. buccalis and passes mesad into the nasal 

 capsule. Here it anastomoses with the mesial nerve which arises 

 from the palatine ganglion and which is composed of both pro- 

 fundus V and communis VH fibers. In these relations the nerve 

 differs conspicuously from the anastomoses which Kingsley 

 describes for the maxillaris superior of Amphiuma. Neverthe- 

 less, in both instances the tendency is shown for the buccalis 

 fibers which are destined for the more cephalic organs ot the 

 lateral line to fuse with rami of the profundus. This tendency 

 seems to be more pronounced in those forms which have greater 

 ossification in the maxillary region. Indeed, it may be only 

 incident to this skeletal condition, since in larval Amblystoma, 

 in which ossification is very slight in the maxillary region, the 

 buccahs does not anastomose with the ophthalmicus at any point. 



But the most important feature of these anastomoses is the tact 

 that, so far as they have been analyzed, they are between the pro- 

 fundus (plus r. palatinus in Triton) and lateralis fibers and not 

 between the profundus and other general cutaneous fibers. Conse- 

 quently Kingsley's statement ('02, p. 302) that "In higher verte- 

 brates this union, or a similar one between maxillaris and lachry- 

 mal, is common," can scarcely be correct; for such an interpreta- 

 tion would require that we make a general cutaneous nerve of the 

 sauropsida or mammalia homologous with a lateral line nerve of 

 the ichthyopsida. 



It is not clear from his paper that Professor Kingsley would 

 himself adopt such an hypothesis as a sound morphological prin- 

 ciple, although he states clearly that these maxillaris divisions in 

 question carry lateral fine fibers and offers no evidence to show 

 that they contain trigeminal fibers. 



