xviii Journal of Comparative Neurology. 



on the external side of the whole nasal apparatus" (p. 105). The 

 author has implicitly recognized the force of the above when he says, 

 " It seems unnecessary to make any comparisons with the Urodeles 

 farther than to point out that in some respects Pipa seems to be inter- 

 mediate between these and the Anura, especially in the relationships 

 of what I have called the nasal canal, which agrees well in some re- 

 spects with what Seydel calls the respiratory duct. Again the position 

 of Jacobson's organ is nearer that found in Urodeles than that occur- 

 ring in Rana and Pelobates." ^ 



The author says truly, "It is yet too early to say how much 

 weight is to be placed upon the varying conditions of the olfactory 

 organ in settling the vexed question of the inter-relationships of the 

 Amphibia. Too few forms have as yet been studied to allow of any 

 broader generalizations. Naturally one would expect to find more 

 points of resemblance between the conditions occuring in Pipa and 

 in Rana than between Pipa and the Urodeles, but from the foregoing 

 account it will be seen that Pipa is about as widely removed in its 

 nasal structure from the one as from the other. Certainly, if much 

 weight is to be given these structures, naturalists are justified in the 

 separation of the Aglossa from the other Anura." 



A few typographical or orthographical errors must not confuse 

 the reader, especially, in figure 6, the jo just to the right of the figure 

 should doubtless be jd. Again, on page 103 the point of view ( fol- 

 lowing Seydel in beginning at the choana) which was ostensibly 

 adopted in the description is not strictly adhered to. 



The statements made concerning the naso-lachrymal duct (p. 104) 

 seem to conflict with Balfour's description of the development of this 

 structure in Amphibia, ^ since it is figured here (fig. 5) as having 

 already become a hollow tube although its connection is not estab- 

 lished with the cavum nasale, while Balfour describes the latter pro- 

 cess as preceding the former. 



The author does not escape the error into which almost everyone 

 falls more or less in reconstructing by the use of models — that of in- 

 sufficient orientation. But this is somewhat alleviated by drawings of 

 carefully selected representative sections. Too much emphasis can- 

 not be laid upon the value of accurate modeling in morphological 



' It is instructive to compare the author's figures with the series of camera 

 drawings of Amblystoma contained in the article to which reference has been 

 made (Jour. Compar. Neurol., July, 1894, Plate V). 



- Balfour, F. M. Compar. Embryol., II, pp. 506-507. 



