262 Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology. 



it were a general cutaneous nerve, its distribution would exclude 

 it from being homologized with the maxillopaktine anastomosis 

 of Anura for the latter is distributed to the lateral side of the 

 internal nares. In this connection, also, Kingsley's descrip- 

 tion of the anastomosis between the r. palatinus and profundus 

 of Amphiuma is of special interest; the conspicuous part of the 

 anastomosis passes to the lateral side of the internal nares. In 

 Amblystoma and Triton this lateral nerve from the anastomosis 

 is obscure in its composition, which can be determined only under 

 favorable conditions, while the mesial division is the larger and is 

 clearly composed of trigeminal and facialis fibers. It is my 

 belief that this nerve "e" of Kingsley in Amphiuma, which 

 is composed of fibers from the r. palatinus and r. ophthalmicus 

 profundus, represents the nerve which is formed from the r. 

 palatinus and r. maxillaris superior in Anura. 



In the light of the more recent work on the cranial nerves of 

 Amphibia I can not understand why the r. maxillaris superior of 

 Anura should be homologized with the nerve which the earlier 

 authors called r. maxillaris in Urodela. These authors apparently 

 knew nothing of the nerve which Strong named r. accessorius in 

 anuran larvae. They found in the adult Anura only the one nerve 

 which could be compared with the r. maxillaris of Urodela and to 

 which they gave the same name. It seems to me unfortunate that 

 this error should be perpetuated in opposition to facts which have 

 become established by more exact methods than were at the com- 

 mand of earlier investigators. 



With reference to the comparison of Amphibia with fishes as to 

 the relation existing between the r. palatinus VII and the tri- 

 geminus, Kingsley ('02 a, p. 339) cites Pollard's description 

 of a connective between the r. palatinus and maxillaris superior 

 in Polypterus. Now the significance of this connective hangs 

 upon its composition. So far as we know it may be a communis 

 nerve. If it is such, it then has no relation whatever to a general 

 cutaneous connective between the trigeminus and the r. palatinus, 

 for the communis fibers which associate with the r. maxillaris in 

 fishes belong to the facialis. 



2. Jacobson's Anastomosis and R. Communicans IX— X ad 

 VII. — In his paper on Amphiuma Kingsley uses these two terms 

 as synonymous. Norris ('05), also, in his description of certain 

 cranial nerves of Amphiuma applies the term Jacobson's anas- 



