FINER STRUCTURE OF SYNAPSE 141 



work — the Golgi net and the nervous pericellular terminal net — 

 which are quite distinct in their relation to other elements of 

 gray substance and in their functions. 



Held furnished as an argument for this hypothesis the fact 

 that the nodal points of each net-work are distinct from each 

 other. He figured round or star-shaped formations in the mesh 

 of the Golgi net, connected among each other by delicate threads, 

 which lay above or beneath the beams of Golgi net. He further 

 claimed, pointing to the figures and statement of Bethe (7) , that 

 some round or oval specks, which are visible here and there as 

 the contents of some meshes, might well be interpreted as the 

 residue of discoloration of those star-shaped formations, which 

 remained stained in his own preparations. Held (17) stated 

 formerly that the surface of the ganglion cells are covered by 

 the variably densely scattered and variably large protoplasm 

 pieces, which have granular structure and are connected among 

 each other with fine threads so as to form a net-work. At that 

 time he spoke of them as the neurosome conglomerations on ac- 

 count of their thick granulations, and he identified them with the 

 nodal points of his nervous terminal net, which he demonstrated 

 by means of the Golgi method. Later he (18) identified these 

 neurosome conglomerations with the contents of the Golgi net 

 meshes referred to. Bethe (7) tried to argue that the neurosome 

 conglomerations of Held must be regarded as the broken prod- 

 ucts of his Golgi net. Against this opinion, however, Held 

 (18) furnished the proof that his neurosome conglomerations 

 could be pretty clearly demonstrated in sections, which were 

 prepared for Bethe's molybden method II by means of other 

 stains, whereas in the alternating sections the intact Golgi net 

 could be demonstrated by Bethe's stain. 



In the following I wish to describe my results in Mauthner's 

 cell in comparison with the findings of other authors in other 

 cells. My observations led me to many interesting conclusions, 

 which could not be brought into conformity with the findings 

 of other authors without herein wanting to generalize those re- 

 sults in the fish brain immediately. In the first place, attention 



