KiNGSLEY, Nervous Anatomy of Amphibians. 57 



gion a canal, one tenth of a millimeter long, which is walled by 

 columnar epithelial cells extremely regular in outline. Exter- 

 nal to the epithelial wall there is seen a thick layer inferiorly of 

 degenerated tissue, which is bounded by a thin layer of fibrous 

 connective tissue. In three other specimens, eighty eight, 

 ninety and ninety two millimeters respectively, no trace of this 

 degenerate canal could be discovered, and in the smallest spec- 

 imen I was able to detect it on the right side only." 



In all probability it is this structure to which he refers later 

 in his paper (p. 405). After briefly summarising Wiedersheim's 

 observations on the tentacular apparatus of the Gymnophiona 

 he says : ' 'As I have already shown, there exists in my young- 

 est specimen of Amphiuma the atrophied remnants of the ten- 

 tacular apparatus. The columnar epithelial lining of the canal 

 is very distinct in about one dozen transverse sections through 

 the orbits. In some of the sections I have discovered what I 

 believe to be the degenerated retractor muscle. This apparatus 

 in Amphiuma has precisely the same relative location as in the 

 Coecilians. For some unexplainable reason neither Hay nor 

 Kingsley found this organ in the young embryo. . . The 

 occurrence of this degenerated structure in the young Amphi- 

 uma and its complete disappearance in the adult gives unmis- 

 takable evidence of the relationship of the Coeciliidae and 

 Amphiumidae. " A single figure illustrates the point made. 



Were it true that Amphiuma possesses, either in the young 

 or the adult, rudiments of a tentacular apparatus, the fact would 

 prove of great value to those who would recognize in the Gym- 

 nophiona only degenerate Amphiumae. It is not, however, 

 " unexplainable" why neither Hay nor myself found such a 

 structure for no tentacular apparatus exists in Ampliiuma. I 

 have considerable material in the way of young Amphiumse — 

 possibly forty specimens — embracing both younger and older 

 material than that in the possession of Mr. Davison and includ- 

 ing some from the same lot as the four specimens at his com- 

 mand. In the first place the structures described and figured 

 by him are not in the proper position for the tentacular appara- 

 tus, as a little careful reading of the Sarasin's monograph would 



