40 
Le systeme de contention de la piece est le méme que dans le 
microtome de GUDDEN. C’est en réalité un grand microtome de Ran- 
VIER dont les dimensions sont calculées de maniére a permettre de 
débiter en coupes sériées un hémisphére entier dans une direction 
quelconque, et au besoin les deux hémisphéres ensemble. Un dispositif 
special permet de faire tourner la piece ä couper sur son axe vertical, 
de maniére a l’attaquer par le point le plus favorable, eu égard ä la 
direction des fibres dans la région. 3 
Avec cet instrument, dont le volume est moindre que celui du 
microtome de GUDDEN, et dont le prix n’est pas sensiblement supérieur, 
on obtient tres facilement des coupes absolument réguliéres, ce qui pré- 
sente un grand avantage au point de vue de la décoloration lorsqu’ on 
emploie les méthodes colorantes électives de la myéline. Les pieces 
friables se coupent moins mal qu’avec le microtome de GUDDEN. On 
peut pratiquer au moins 100 coupes de suite sans affüter le rasoir. 
Enfin la coupe se fait sous les yeux de l’opérateur qui peut régler la 
vitesse de son rasoir suivant les circonstances et se servir de sa main 
gauche pour éviter les enroulements. 
Nachdruck verboten. 
On the cranial Nerves and Sense Organs of Fishes. 
A Reply. By F. J. Core, University College, Liverpool. 
I hasten to reply to Mr. Aruıs’ criticism of my recent work on 
Gadus (just received), and in order to facilitate a more harmonious dis- 
cussion of the points at issue, let it at once be understood that I regret 
Mr. Auuis should have taken exception to the tone of the criticism I 
passed on his work. It seems that I have failed in the difficult task 
of disagreeing amicably with a distinguished fellow-worker, and trust 
that what was perhaps an excess of zeal may not be taken as a dis- 
courtesy towards an older observer than myself, and one the author 
of two such important, not to say beautiful, memoirs on the subject 
as his works on Amia. At the same time I think I may claim, without 
being accused of ill-humour, that the tone of his reply at least equal- 
ises matters in this respect. 
1) Regarding the definition of the infra-orbital canal I have read 
Auuts’ reply carefully twice, and whilst I should be happy to adapt 
the terms of the objection to the susceptibilities of my opponent, the 
passage in substance represents what I still think. The alleged incon- 
sistency in my Chimaera work is more apparent than real. The upper 
scheme on page 635 is a very general statement, and as such is cer- 
tainly ambiguous, but the lower scheme on the very same page is quite 
consistent, and I must further protest strongly against the passage in 
my Cod paper on page 122 being lifted out of its context. The question 
at issue now is the value of the nerves in classifying the canals. The 
bulk of the reply on this point is to my mind irrelevant to that issue, 
and whether the supra-temporal canal is what Aurıs claims it to be 
