136 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE NEUROLOGY. 
ing a derivative of the lobus vagi) and I also have unpublished 
observations on Anguilla, Carassius and other fishes in sufficient 
numbers to make it plain that it is true generally that in all 
teleosts possessing terminal buds these organs are innervated 
from the lobus vagi or its derivative, the lobus facialis. And 
there are no precise observations on the other side. 
(2) The second point I think is abundantly established by 
the works of all recent students of nerve components, particu- 
larly those of StrRonG, JoHNSTON and HeErRIck. 
(3) The third point is stated perhaps rather more strongly 
than the facts at command permit; nevertheless, I think it 
must be admitted that the metamorphosis of organs of touch, 
particularly tactile hairs, into end organs for the perception of 
mass movements of water (lateral line organs; cf. PARKER, ’03), 
for the maintenance of bodily equilibrium (semi-circular ‘canals) 
and for hearing presents far less of difficulty than the transfor- 
mation of any of the organs of this series into gustatory organs. 
For the organs of the first series are all stimulated by impacts 
of a common type, differing only in mode of application, 
rythmic character, etc., while the gustatory organ belongs to a 
totally different modality. 
(4) The fourth point we have touched upon above. What- 
ever may be conceived abstractly as ‘‘possible,”’ it is clear that 
in point of fact these two types of organs do not resemble each 
other either in structure, innervation or central connections. 
(5) Finally that the terminal buds are organs of taste is no 
longer a matter of conjecture, but a fact of proof. 
We may, then, summarize our examination as follows: 
The morphological rank and functional significance of the terminal 
bud system of sense organs is definitely fixed. They are in no 
way related to any organs of the lateral line system (pit 
organs, nerve hillocks, ampullary organs, etc.) but on the other 
hand they are most intimately related to the taste buds within 
the mouth. This relationship is shown by their identity in 
structure, innervation, central connections and functions. On 
the other hand, the phylogeny of the terminal buds is by no 
means on so secure a foundation as that of the sense organs of 
