140 Victor E. Emmel. 
that “Das Bindegewebe ist an den Muskelenden als typisches Faser- 
gewebe entwickelt, das sich vom faserigen Zellengewebe durch reich- 
liche Entwicklung extracellulirer fibrillirer Bindesubstanz, im Um- 
kreis spindeliger Bindezellen scharf unterscheidet. Die Myofibrillen 
einerseits und die Deckzellenfibrillen andererseits senken sich in eine 
dicke Lamelle ein, in der Bindefibrillen in dichter Anordung, von 
sparlicher Grundsubstanz verkittet, entsprechend den Myo- und Stiitz- 
fibrillen verlaufen” (p. 494). On the other hand, Claus (’86) in 
his study of Branchipus finds that ‘‘An vielen Stellen heften sich 
aber die Muskelsehnen nicht direct mittelst Connectivfaden am Inte- 
gument an, sondern gehen in einer durch solche suspendirte Lamelle. 
iiber, welche sich der Integumentflache parallel als Basalplatte unter- 
halb jener ausbreitet” (p. 29). 
The critical question here is in regard to the continuity of the 
muscle fibers within the epidermal cells. If the muscle fibers can 
be traced below the level of the inner surface of the epidermis, inde- 
pendent of any connective tissue elements, evidently the third mode 
of attachment may be eliminated from further consideration. That 
such is certainly the case in the regenerating musculature of the 
lobster’s limb has already been indicated, and the crucial fact remains 
that this relation of the myofibrille was already evident at a stage 
of development before there was any differentiation of connective 
tissue elements or of a ‘““Grenzlamelle.” Consequently, at this time 
at least, the muscle fibrils are found passing into the epidermis unac- 
companied by any connective tissue elements. The apparently close 
relation, which is later established between the muscle fibers and the 
connective tissue, may perhaps be not incorrectly regarded as a sec- 
ondary development resulting from a later differentiation of connec- 
tive tissue around the already formed muscle fibrils, rather than as 
a primary functional relation. It is of interest to observe that 
even in the fully developed lobster, as admitted by Dahlgren and 
Kepner (’08), the connective tissue elements are in some places “so 
small as to be apparently absent, and it would seem possible that in 
some attachments they were absent altogether and the muscle joined 
directly with the epithelium” (p. 66). 
Jn considering the twe remaining modes of attachment, certain 
