46 
graphical position, though important, are by no means sufficient to establish 
the homology claimed. It was for this reason that I did not mention it. 
10) No comment necessary. 
11) With regard to the “prophecy” incident I have read the two 
passages over again, and am so confident that the unprejudiced reader 
will detect no essential difference between them, that I leave the matter 
in this position. As to the lateral line branch of the IXth in Amia 
it would perhaps be better that I should briefly recapitulate the facts. 
In his first Amia paper Aruıs states that the lateral line branch of 
the IXth has in the larva a separate root, a separate foramen in the 
skull (often), and a separate ganglion. On what substantial grounds, 
therefore, this nerve was associated with the glossopharyngeus, except 
for the purpose of pure convenience, it is difficult to imagine. In his 
second Amia paper these facts are restated, but without mention of 
the separate root, with the additional information however that the 
nerve in the adult is derived from the root of the lateralis, and that 
after its origin it accompanied the IXth and entered its ganglion. If 
any additional evidence had been necessary to establish the independ- 
ence of this nerve from the glossopharyngeus the latter fact surely 
supplies it, and I confidently believe that the morphologists are few who 
would, like Anis, have still described this nerve as a branch of the 
TXth, How is this procedure justified? Passing over the first statement 
on p. 376, in which my critic conveniently refuses to recognise the 
obvious sense of the passage quoted from me, the first reason given is 
that he does not see why the fact that the nerve arises from the 
lateralis should cause it to be disassociated from the IXth. If this 
is intended to be an obscure blow at the discrete nature of the 
cranial nerves, I am heartily in accord with my critic. So long 
however as the independence of the cranial nerves is maintained, and 
this I take it is the view adopted by Aruıs, so long for example must 
a nerve issuing from the brain in company with the trigeminus be kept 
distinct from the facialis. The second reason is sufficiently important 
to be quoted in extenso. “Whether its association with the glosso- 
pharyngeus is primary or secondary I do not pretend to judge, but 
that the branch in Amia has the same relation to that nerve, be it 
segmental or not, that the so-called facial and vagal branches of the 
lateral system have to the facialis and vagus I consider as unquestion- 
able.” This passage is the truth but not the whole trath. The lateral 
line nerves have peripheral relations with the VIIth and Xth it is true, 
but, as Annis describes and figures himself, they also enter into the 
same relations with the trigeminus. We hence have the interesting 
anomaly of our critic disagreeing with CorLinGe in the latter’s association 
of the buccal nerve with the trigeminus, whilst he himself associates 
a nerve with the glossopharyngeus on precisely the very same grounds 1). 
— Regarding the concluding portion of this paragraph it is either ir- 
relevant, or is (by implication) based ‘on a misunderstanding of my position 
1) Of course the most rational explanation of the lateral line nerves, 
and one now held by several workers in the subject, is that they are 
not branches of any cranial nerve. The condition of the lateral nerve 
of the IXth of Amia fits in admirably with this view. 
