574 



I have been induced to give a new name to this ganglion of the 

 ophthalmicus profundus, because of the errors and confusion which 

 arise by giving it, as most observers have done, a name which is 

 a synonym of ganglion oculomotorii. 



The three names ganglion oculomotorii, ciliary, and 

 ophthalmicum are synonymous, and should therefore 

 be kept for one thing, viz. the ciliary ganglion. 



From this account the errors made till now will be obvious 

 enough. 



Maeshall and Schwalbe, His and Remak were wrong in identi- 

 fying the mesocephalic ganglion as the cihary. 



Although Schwalbe was also wrong in supposing the ciliary 

 ganglion to be the aequivalent of a spinal ganglion, his work is none 

 the less valuable as a sohd contribution to our knowledge of the very 

 difficult region with which it deals. 



VAN WijHE, though he appeared to recognise the true facts, retained 

 the name ciliary for something which was not cihary, and further 

 volunteered the information, (which, though correct fromhispoint 

 of view, was still very confusing) that he regarded the cihary ganglion 

 of Elasmobranchs as not homologous with that of higher animals*), 

 and he stated that in a modified sense he accepted Schwalbe's view 

 mentioned above. I, like van Wijhe, recognised the mesocephalic 

 gaughon as belonging to the ophthalmicus profundus, and as being a 

 segmental ganglion; but I still called it cihary, and compared it 

 partially with the ciliary ganglion of the adult. 



DoHRN ^) on this question appears to hold similar views, and to 

 use the term ciliary with the same meaning as van Wijhe. 



Hoffmann assigned the term ciliary to the right thing, viz the 

 ganghon oculomotorii, but called the mesocephalic ganglion or something 

 which is in reptiles partially, at any rate, homologous with it, ganglion 

 ophthalmicum. 



As before pointed out this term is synonymous with ciliary and 

 hence inadmissible. 



Onodi says the ciliary ganglion belongs to the sympathetic, and 

 assuming that he applies the term to the proper ganghon, he is 



1) VAN WuHE. Op. cit. p. 24. note. 



2) DoHKo's view is however uncertain, for lam not sure what he 

 calls ganglion ciliare. He says (op, cit. p. 470) . . . . „das G. ciliare 

 xinzweifelhaft dem Trigeminus zugehört und erst nachträglich, durch 

 Anlagerung mit dem Oculomotoritim verschmilzt." 



