126 Journal of Comparative Neurology. 



It is somewhat difficult to see why the omissions of the 

 \vTiters succeeding Golgi, even when conceded, should furnish 

 so much evidence against the general trend of their explana- 

 tions. Monti aud Golgi undoubtedly demonstrate by their 

 work a spirit of great accuracy and conservatism, but it appears 

 almost as if it were sufficient to state the case as a warning 

 against too hasty and schematic generalizations rather than as 

 proof for a strict negation of the newer working hypotheses. 

 Van Gehuchten and Cajal must look for more evidence, it is 

 true, to make an undeniable law out of their hypothesis ; in 

 this we agree with Monti. 



Golgi's chief objection rests on his interpretation of the 

 character off the diffuse network of the end fibrils. He claims 

 that his opponents have not the true scientific spirit of accuracy 

 when they consider the question settled in favor of the forest 

 simile with an absolute denial of anastomoses. He himself 

 stops before the inextricable maze and leaves the question un- 

 decided. He favors the presence of a real network but does 

 not deny Forel's and Cajal's views absolutely, as his opponents 

 do the view of the network with anastomosis. 



Another objection is raised by Dogiel who maintains the 

 presence of anastomoses in the cells of the retina. The over- 

 whelming denial by other investigators of the retina would, 

 however, invalidate his evidence considerably. 



As a very serious objection we mention the ever recurring 

 description of regenerating fibers in the cut-off end of a nerve, 

 before the central nerve processes have reached the portion 

 peripheral to the cut. Boivlby", and again Kennedy-, claim to 

 have seen new nerve fibers formed within the peripheral stump, 

 not coming from the central stump, and later growing together 

 with the fibers of the central stump. This would imply the 

 growth of nerve fibers from something else than nerve cells and 

 the possibility would hit fatally the dogma that no nerve fiber 



' Bowl by : Injuries and diseases of nerves ; London, 1889. 



^Kennedy: On the regeneration of nerves. Troceedings of the Royal So- 

 ciety, March 11, 1897. 



