Ixviii Journal of Comparative Neurology. 



nerve is less exclusively anatomical and gives in part at least more clin- 

 ical evidence. 



The description of the optic apparatus begins with a comparison 

 of the optic nerve with the posterior columns. The physiological and 

 pathological similarities are evident ; but it is incorrect to claim them 

 also for the anatomical arrangements. In order to do this the common 

 afferent neurone is described with van Gehuchten as follows : The pos- 

 terior column process of the cell corresponds to the axis-cylinder, and 

 the peripheral process to the dendritic process. Experimental tests, 

 more important than speculative ones, would favor just the reverse con- 

 clusion (Lugaro, etc.) The retina is very well sketched. P. 750-753 

 are not distinguished by the same simplicity and clearness, since highly 

 improbable and unessential connections of the optic nerves are mixed 

 in promiscuously among the established facts. The support of the par- 

 tial decussation rests much less on the clinical facts, tlaan on this, that 

 the experimental and pathological reaction of degeneration cannot be ex- 

 plained in any other way without throwing overboard the neurone-con- 

 cept. As to the central localization of vision, Mills, unlike most of his 

 countrymen, sides with Ferrier and Gowers without adducing adequate 

 proof. Considering the amount of anatomical data available on the 

 visual apparatus, Mills gives this part little attention. 



Chapter VIII deals with the ocular movements. The introduction 

 (anatomy, etc.) covers p. 795-809. The general review of the cranial 

 nerves in this essay is largely based on Hill's plan. This is followed 

 by an enumeration of the ocular muscles and the nerves supplying 

 them, and by a description of the nerves and their supposed nuclei. It 

 is of interest to compare this chapter with the corresponding one of v. 

 Monakow, in its whole plan and spirit. 



The remaining anatomical parts (trigeminus, facial, glossopharyn- 

 geal, pneumogasric, hypoglossal, pons and preoblongata, etc.) are 

 largely based on Cajal and can hardly be said to facilitate the task of 

 the student as much as ought to be the case with a better arrangement 

 and digestion of the data of other writers as well. 



■A comparison between v. Monakow's work and the one of Mills 

 is quite instructive. In Monakow we see one of the most experienced 

 investigators of neural anatomy give a relatively very short account of 

 the anatomy, physiology, and general pathology, and the great share 

 to clinical data. Mills gives an apparently encyclopaedic account of 

 anatomical data from literature and allows anatomical concepts to gov- 

 ern the clinical part to a great extent, and instead of starting from clin- 

 ical pictures, gives whole paragraphs on what might be observed on 

 lesions of parts mentioned anatomically, but for which no clinical data 

 are yet available. Either way has its special merits. In view of the 

 controversies in anatomy and the great inclination towards tendencial 

 fabrications, the truly clinical method, with anatomy as a check, help 

 and safe-guard, might form the safest guide for the practitioner. The 

 presentation too becomes more logical. Not infrequently anatomo- 

 physiological claims have their best and only safe basis in clinical ob- 

 servations ; and it seems odd to see on the contrary the clinical fact 

 derived from the anatomical. adolf mever. 



