Hatal, Nature of the Pericellular Network. 145 
ganglienzellen, die Zellen der aufsteigenden Trigeminuswurzel 
und des Lobus electricus des Zitterrochens, bei denen bisher 
derartige Netze nicht nachgewiesen werden konnten. Auf die 
Axencylinder (Neuriten) geht das Golginetz nicht tiber. (2) Die 
Golginetze sich berithrender Neurone sind meist einander durch 
Netzmaschen verbunden. (3) Bisweilen kann man Axencylin- 
derzweige direkt in die Golginetze tibergehen sehen.” 
Thus BETrHe was able to seea direct continuation of the 
axis-cylinder to the Golginetz. HELD was also able to see such 
a direct continuation of the two structures just mentioned. 
BETHE, however, believes that the Golginetz is composed of 
the combined bundles of the ‘‘Primitive Neurofibrils’’ which 
form the meshwork by interweaving with one another. He 
strongly opposes the view of HELp who regards the meshwork 
as composed of fine branched filaments which carry the neuro- 
somes. BETHE further denies the existence of the neurosomes 
which, according to him, are produced by the action of the re- 
agents employed. HeELp answers BETHE’s assertion in his 
most recent article (00). There HELD says that there are two 
structures in the pericellular network; one is composed of an 
entirely non-nervous substance or neurokeratin, while the sec- 
ond is the one which is composed of the nervous substance 
or axone terminals. The neurosomes are contained within the 
second nervous network only. He.further says that BreTHE’s 
Golginetz coincides very probably with the non-nervous net- 
work. As a consequence of the technique which he employed, 
BrETHE was unable to see neurosome granules as well as the fine 
meshwork. According to Hetp the non-nervous network is 
derived from the neurokeratin or ‘‘Gliaschnurringe’”’ which ap- 
pear surrounding the medullated sheath at certain intervals. 
He p illustrates the direct continuation of the Gliaschnirringe 
with the neurokeratin meshwork. Concerning the second criti- 
cism offered by BeErTuHeE, that is, the statement that the neuro- 
somes might have been formed as artifacts through the action 
of the chemicals employed he says that there is no reason to 
think that the neurosomes are an artificial product, since all the 
general histological methods for nerve cells bring out this structure 
