48 
pare the two accounts in detail, but it is quite easy to conceive how 
they may be harmonised. In the meantime Jonnsronx fails to describe 
in Acipenser a lateral line branch belonging definitely and morpho- 
logically to the IXth, and Kiyessury says: “it [the lateral line nerve] 
also receives a small contingent of fine fibres from the IXth and in 
turn gives to it a small bundle of its coarse [i. e. lateral line] fibres.” 
In a footnote it is pointed out that the fibres thus contributed to the 
IXth are distributed as they should be to lateral line organs!). How 
this simple statement (also quoted by Arııs) can be converted into the 
assertion that according to Kinessury “lateral fibres are sent, in Aci- 
penser, from the linea lateralis to the glossopharyngeus” is still con- 
tinuing to excite my curiosity, unless indeed “linea lateralis” is a clerical 
error for lateralis vagi. The statement as it stands conveys the im- 
pression that Kixaspury describes a true lateral line branch of the IX th, 
Such a statement is directly contrary to the whole tenor of Kinespury’s 
work, the tendency of which in fact is against the discrete nature of 
the cranial nerves and against the association of the lateral line nerves 
with the cranial nerves sensu stricto, My interpretation of the 
passage on the other hand is precisely the opposite of that given by 
Auris, and it is the one moreover which I am confident Kinespury 
would place on it himself. 
To sum up generally: Whilst I am as far as Auuis could wish 
from presuming to be the parent of unassailable views, and whilst those 
views must I suppose go the way of most in being either modified or 
entirely rejected with advancing knowledge, it still seems to me that, 
apart from the bibliographical error admitted in section 9, my work 
remains in the same position as it did before Aruıs’ criticism was 
published. As to matters of fact there is, it is satisfactory to note, but 
little disagreement. 
Liverpool, March 20, 1899. 
1) On reading the footnote over again it seems to me uncertain 
whether Kinessury’s conclusion in it refers to Acipenser or to Amia, 
but of course it does not affect my point; and this was probably the 
reason why I did not refer to Kinesspury’s statements re Acipenser in 
my criticism of ALCOCK. 
Personalia. 
Pisa. Dr. BERTELLI ist zum Professor der Anatomie in Padua, 
an VLACOVICH’s Stelle, ernannt worden. 
Anatomische Gesellschaft. 
Dr. med. W. Tonxorr, Volontär-Assistent des Anat. Instituts der 
Kaiserl. Militär-Akademie zu St. Petersburg (z. Z. Freiburg im Breis- 
gau) ist in die Gesellschaft eingetreten. 
Berichtigung. 
In No. 1, Band XVI des Anatom, Anzeigers, S. 27, Absatz 2, Zeile 3 (STAHR’s 
Artikel „Bemerkungen etc.“) muß es heißen „beim Hunde‘ statt „beim Kinde“. 
Abgeschlossen am 18. Mai 1899. 
Frommannsche Buchdruckerei (Hermann Pohle) in Jena. 
