45 
expression gave any Satisfaction to the writer thereof, it has certainly 
afforded me some amusement. The facts are as follows: On p. 628 of 
Aruıs’ last work, the last paragraph relates to the “great recurrent 
branch of the facialis”!). Throughout that paragraph, in order to 
avoid repetition, this branch is referred as “the nerve”. Towards the 
end of the paragraph the following expression occurs: “The nerve in 
Gadus has, contrary to the arrangement of the branches in Amia, 
an intra-cranial course.” My procedure here is quite obvious. The ex- 
pression “the nerve” I interpreted in the meaning it had conveyed all 
through the paragraph, overlooking for the moment the fact that as 
Auuis had missed the posterior root of Gadus, it could only possibly 
refer to the anterior root of that nerve. AurLıs’ passage is necessarily 
ambiguous owing to this oversight, and I consequently misunderstood it. 
Substitute in the above sentence the expression “anterior root” for 
‘nerve” and the ambiguity due to imperfect observation on Aurıs’ part at 
once disappears. I make the amende honorable with great pleasure, 
and trust that at least one “bit of special pleading” has now been 
removed from my work. — With regard to the last paragraph of this 
section I do not, like Arrıs, formulate an homology on the geography 
of a nerve, nor do I consider it permissible to reject one on such 
grounds; but this question cannot be discussed here. I cannot under- 
take to discuss Hatter without his work to refer to, but as my remarks 
were only of the nature of a “provisional interpretation” and as I point- 
ed out that Harrer’s nerve A was anomalous on that interpretation, 
I am not inclined, as far as my own work goes, to attach much import- 
ance to the passage. If the quotation from Harrer refers to the 
anterior root, which however is difficult to comprehend, it cannot be 
sympathetic any more than it can be a part of the lateralis accessorius. 
9) Here I have to acknowledge, with due expressions of regret, 
having made a bibliographical error of some importance. That is to 
say I was not entitled to assert that the terms internal mandibular 
and hyoideus were synonyms. Without wishing in any way to palliate 
this offence, I may be permitted to point out that as this part of my 
work is done during short visits to London, and as there is a con- 
siderable quantity of it to be got through, it is not possible to do it as 
thoroughly as I could wish. This is, as far as I am aware, the 
only noteworthy blunder in this portion of my work that has been 
committed, it had already been pointed out to me by Prof. Jupson 
Herrick, and I had taken the necessary steps to acknowledge it. 
Whilst therefore I would prefer not to discuss the details of this section 
of Aurıs’ criticism without independently going over the ground again, 
I am free to admit the justice of several of the points he has made 
against me. I may however in the meantime point out that I did not, 
as he charges me, overlook his r. mand. int. trigemini, and indeed the 
very passages of his work he refers me to are in my copy strongly 
marked with pencil. As however the chorda tympani is essentially a. 
component of the facial, and as the nerve he identifies as the chorda is 
a branch of the trigeminus, the facts of its sensory nature and topo- 
1) This of course has an anterior and posterior root according to 
PoLLArD. 
