Literary Notices. ' xi 



Chimasra also requires further analysis, as well as some minor fusions, 

 to completely establish from observation as well as from inference the 

 exclusive innervation of this system by these roots. 



While Cole must be regarded as justified in thus strongly uphold- 

 ing the independence of the lateral line nerves, yet his corollary that 

 the lateralis must not only be associated with the other lateral line 

 nerves but also " considered a component of the Vllth cranial nerve" 

 is open to the criticism made by Herrick — there is really no more ground 

 for considering the lateralis "Vllth" than the preauditory lateral line 

 roots " IXth " or " Xth." It would be more justifiable to extend the 

 term " Vlllth " to cover the whole complex (somewhat as Mayser 

 suggested) if the doctrine in question must be indicated in a numerical 

 rearrangement, but the best course is that suggested by Herrick, viz, 

 to simply denominate the whole complex the acustico-lateral system. 

 There are however problems still awaiting solution before any fundamen- 

 tal remodeling of cranial nerve nomenclature can be undertaken — if 

 indeed it is advisable that it should be undertaken. 



One fact that attracts attention in looking at Cole's figures of the 

 preauditory roots of the facial is the remarkably ventral position of the 

 more ventral lateral line root — the superficial ophthalmic root — which 

 has its exit directly below the VIII. The intra-meduUary course of 

 this root should be investigated. Its extremely ventral exit would 

 appear to offer difficulties to its having a common internal center with 

 the other lateral line roots. It is also interesting to note that while 

 here it is the most dorsal of the preauditory lateral fine roots which 

 composes the buccalis ; in Elasmobranchs, judging from Ewart's fig- 

 ures it is the more ventral root which goes over into this nerve. 



Cole contributes also an interesting discussion of the homology of 

 the chorda tympani. He upholds the view that the representative of 

 the chorda in fishes is the pre-spiracular branch of the Vllth. While 

 admitting that the nerve described by Strong in Amphibia as the man- 

 dibularis internus and homologized with the chorda is the chorda 

 tympani, he denies its homology with the mandibularis internus of car- 

 tilaginous fishes, which is a post-spiracular nerve. Cole makes a care- 

 ful examination of the morphological characteristics of the chorda in 

 mammals and adduces reasons of weight in favor of his view. These 

 cannot all be summarized here but consist partly in the relation of the 

 branch in question to the mandibular arch, in the fact that it is com- 

 posed principally of splanchnic sensory fibers while the post-branchials 

 are principally splanchnic motor and in the inherent probability that so 



