Ivi Journal of Comparative Neurology. 



descriptions for cortical localization, this chapter might be shortened 

 considerably. The gyrus fornicatus is not described; the whole gyrus 

 limbicus and the mesial margin of the cortex co uld hardly be under- 

 stood by a novice from the description given on p. 19 and 27-29, nor 

 would the relation of the N. amygdalae become clear. These parts 

 are not infrequently diseased, but clinically they are sufificiently un- 

 known to excuse certain defects of this description (such as the state- 

 ment that the granules of the fascia dentata are comparable with those 

 of the cerebellum). 



On p. 31, the iissura choroidea (a term used by v. Monakow for 

 the choroid plexus connecting the fimbria with the thalamus) is said 

 to form a very loose wall, forming a chief communication for the cere- 

 bro-spinal fluid between the lateral ventricles and the subarachnoid 

 spaces. I have good evidence that such a communication is absent 

 in a number of my cases (dilatation of lat. ventricles due to occlusion 

 of the third ventricle, etc.); a positive demonstration of one is limited 

 to small opening in the inferior horn (Key and Luschka). The study 

 of the plexus is practically impossible with the simple embedding after 

 v. Gudden ; and in celloidin specimens I have never yet seen a com- 

 munication. 



With page 34, we enter upon the internal capsule and thalamus, 

 subjects in which we owe so much to v. Monakow, and the whole 

 anatomy of the midbrain and hindbrain follows. The description is 

 in the main what can be seen with low powers in serial sections of 

 normal brains, with comparison with the results of secondary degen- 

 eration. The general attitude is very conservative ; the main lines are 

 given from the results of the Gudden school, of which v. Monakow 

 is undoubtedly the most active representative. To enter upon the dif- 

 ferences between v. Monakow and KoUiker and others would lead 

 too far. 



On pages 90-99, v. Monakow sketches his histological views. He 

 refuses Nissl's suggestion of a classification of nerve-cells according 

 to the structure of the cell-body, adducing as an argument against it 

 that the midbrain root of the fifth nerve was motor (with what proof 

 he does not say), while Nissl is inclined to call it sensory merely from 

 the structure of the cell. While Nissl's first classification can hardly 

 be looked upon as more than an attempt in a worthy direction, if not 

 carried out too dogmatically, v. Monakow's classification appears to 

 be a step backwards. He follows Golgi with (i) neurones of the first 

 category — cells with long neurites ; (2) neurones of the second cat- 

 egory — cells whose neurites loose their individuality after a short course 



