CocHiLL, F2fth Nerve in Amphibia. 57 
she makes homologous with Strone’s lateral ‘‘accessory ramus” 
of the trigeminus of the tadpole. If, from her standpoint, 
Miss Pratt can show that the ontogenetic development of the 
‘(accessory ramus’ and the buccal VII in the tadpole corres- 
ponds with that of the two components of the infra-orbital 
nerve in Necturus, the evidence will be most conclusive, but she 
has offered no exact data to sustain the homology. Miss 
Pratt’s suggestion, however, is the only one I have been able 
to find in the literature as to the representative in Urodela of 
STRoNG’s ‘‘accessory ramus’ in the tadpole. 
In Spelerpes bilineatus Miss Bowers says that the ophthal- 
micus profundus, near the muscle rectus internus, divides into 
three branches; but her drawings represent the ‘‘middle one of 
the three branches’’ as coming off of the mesal or ‘‘most dor- 
sal.’”’ It is impossible to say which representation is correct. 
The one in the drawing would sustain her homologies better 
than the one in the text. But from her descriptions generally 
I am led to believe that the relations are essentially the same in 
Spelerpes as I find in Amblystoma. Her diagram of the anas- 
tomosis of the ophthalmicus profundus and palatinus indicates 
that the palatinus divides posterior of the internal nares as it 
does in Amblystoma, each division receiving fibers from the 
ophthalmicus profundus. If such is the case, the homologies 
which she proposes for the terminal rami of the ophthalmicus 
profundus are extremely doubtful. 
In her treatment of the infra-orbital nerve in Spelerpes, 
Miss Bowers distinguishes accustico-lateral and general cuta- 
neous components, considering the latter component as repre- 
senting the maxillaris V. She observes, however, that this 
nerve does not anastomose with the palatinus VII as the max- 
illaris does in Rana. In its relation to the buccal VII the gen- 
eral cutaneous portion of this nerve in Spelerpes approaches 
more nearly the conditions found in Rana than does that of 
Amblystoma, providing we consider this component as homol- 
ogous with the ‘‘accessory ramus’ in the tadpole. 
The works reviewed above serve only to show that there 
are, in the gross structure of different genera of Urodela, vari- 
