[g6 Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology. 



terior end of the lobus vagi (lobus facialis or lobus impar). 

 The term "lobus trigemini" was commonly applied to the most 

 dorsal portion of the tuberculum acusticum in selachians and 

 ganoids. This lobe was the center for part of the lateral line 

 fibers and has since come to be called appropriately the lohus 

 lineae lateralis (65, 49). 



In teleosts, where the facial lobe is enormously developed, 

 it overtops the tuberculum acusticum which has no lobus lineae 

 lateralis. Mayser was misled by the gross anatomy into ap- 

 plying the name "lobus trigemini" to the facial lobe. There 

 is no relation, connection, or similarity between the lobus lineae 

 lateralis in selachians and ganoids and the lobus facialis in tele- 

 osts to which for a time the same name was erroneously applied. 

 The homologues of both exist side by side \x\ cyclostomes, 

 selachians, and ganoids and their distinctness and dissimilarity 

 can be easily demonstrated. 



The second support is that the ampullary pores of the 

 ophthalmic row stand in the same position relative to the supra- 

 orbital canal as do the first formed end buds in Amia. The writer 

 is unable to see that the mere position of a cutaneous sense or- 

 gan is a safe guide to its homology. It certainly can not have 

 much weight in the absence of any evidence from the side of 

 structure, innervation, or function. 



Third, Allis and Coggi find evidence of homology be- 

 tween end buds and ampullae in the statement made by Wied- 

 ERSHEiM and others that all cutaneous sense organs, including 

 end buds, have the same fundamental structure and that the 

 different kinds of organs pass into one another by gradual mod- 

 ifications. The writer has objected (71) that this statement is 

 not borne out by the descriptions of these organs by various 

 workers* but that there is a fundamental difference in their 

 structure as shown in the above table. Maurer (89) has been 

 quoted (5) as witnessing the similarity of structure. I am un- 

 able to see that the paragraph quoted (p. 300) offers such evi- 

 dence. The context shows that in zvriting that paragraph 

 Maurer had in mind only the various forms of acknowledged 

 lateral line organs. In fact the whole paper give one the im- 



