;^68 Journal of Comparative Neurology. 



peripherally and some confusion of the relations, but I pre- 

 dict that microscopical examination will reveal essentially 

 the arrangement which I have given and that the nerves 

 will not prove to be serially homologous structures as 

 Goronowitsch assumes. In Acipenser there is also a 

 r. palatinus which comes from the facial and is doubtless 

 purely communis, as usual. The r. mandibularis V is 

 derived wholly from trigeminus I. Goronowitsch regards 

 it apparently as a pure motor nerve ('88, p. 479), and that, 

 too, in spite of the fact that he found ganglion cells run- 

 ning out into its trunk. It doubtless contains general 

 cutaneous fibres also. 



In Lota, Esox and Gobio the first two rostral nerves 

 were found (viz., my maxillary — the general cutaneous 

 portion — and my buccal), but the facial (communis) rostral 

 nerve was not found. Lota has a palatine nerve which is 

 strictly typical. There is in addition a large bundle of 

 facial (communis) fibres which joins itself to general cuta- 

 neous fibres from the trigeminus I and enters the r. man- 

 dibularis V. Now, Goronowitsch, impressed with the 

 necessity of finding a homologue in Lota of the rostral 

 nerve of his third segment in Acipenser, identifies the r. 

 palatinus of Lota with the r. rostri interni of Acipenser 

 and then assumes that the facialis fibres which enter the 

 r. mandibularis V in Lota correspond to the r. palatinus 

 of Acipenser. These homologies seem impossible, for the 

 distribution area of the r. palatinus is not at all that of the 

 r. rostri interni, and how can a lower jaw nerve be homol- 

 ogous with an upper jaw nerve? Allis ('97) finds com- 

 munis fibres entering the r. mandibularis V in Amia 

 and these distribute to terminal buds of the outer skin 

 and mucous surfaces in the mouth, both of the hyoid 

 region, and not at all to the palatine region, and it is 



