a as 
eversion more than a year after my book was published. In view of 
these facts the reader may judge of the charge of tardiness in this 
matter made by KAPPERS. 
In supporting this charge KArpers has misrepresented my position 
in three particulars. First, the quotation (p. 11) of a single sentence 
from ‘my book gives a wholly wrong impression of my meaning, as an 
examination of the context will show. I argued there that the mem- 
branous pallium of teleosts was more extensive than in selachians be- 
cause of the “receding of the lateral walls”, but that the membranous 
roof did not represent true pallium in any case. This was essentially 
the view of SrupniGKA and is the view which I have consistently 
Fig. 5. Diagrammatic transverse sections of the brains of A, a petromyzont, 
B, Acipenser, C, a teleost, D, Chimaera, E, Squalus acanthias, F, Necturus. The coarse 
dots indicate how the primordium hippocampi is involved in the changes of form of the 
forebrain as conceived by the writer in 1904. 
held since. I have more recently pointed out that not only the rela- 
tively slight development of the olfactory apparatus but the great de- 
velopment of the gustatory apparatus is necessary to explain the con- 
dition of the forebrain in teleosts. 
Second, KAPPERS states that I describe the tractus taeniae in 
Chimaera as arising “in dem Teil, welchen dieser Autor als den dor- 
salen Teil des Striatum betrachtet”. This statement is false. I plainly 
stated that “It certainly comes from the basal region as in other 
fishes” (this Journal, Bd. 36, p. 237) and referred to the fact that 
Kappers had described it in the same way in Galeus (KAPPERS 1906). 
It was one of the chief points of my short Chimaera paper to show 
that the tractus taeniae (tr. olfacto- habenularis) has its origin from 
