Herrick, Cranial Nefves of the Cod Fish. 267 



scopical study of these sections was conducted mainly in the 

 Fish Commission Laboratory at Woods Hole during the sum- 

 mer of 1899. This work was, moreover, controlled by the 

 dissection of various species of gadoid fishes made at the same 

 time by my assistant, Mr. E. C. McKibben. 



Attention was especially directed to the trigemino-facial 

 complex, and these roots, together with the proximal courses 

 of the rami, have been carefully plotted. In order to give to 

 the reader some of the more important data upon which the 

 plot is constructed a series of transections through this complex 

 is also figured. Our dissections have shown, what previous 

 workers have found, that the gross method is quite inadequate 

 to unravel the intricate mesh of fibers and ganglia presented by 

 such a root complex, and Cole's results have also shown that 

 the microscopical method is also inadequate unless the condi- 

 tions are especially favorable. He states that his sections did 

 not permit a complete analysis of the complex, and suggests in 

 another place that some of the details could be made out only 

 by the careful study of good Weigert sections — a point in which 

 I quite concur. I think that I have had somewhat better suc- 

 cess in this analysis than my colleague, and submit the follow- 

 ing general results of a comparison of my findings with his : 



1. In general there is a very close agreement in the peri- 

 pheral nervous systems of Menidia and Gadus, even down to 

 rather trivial details — closer than would be supposed by a com- 

 parison of my Menidia paper with Cole's Gadus paper, 



2. There are a few structural differences between the two 

 fishes which are of considerable importance. 



3. I am, however, forced to conclude that there were 

 some defective and some erronious observations on Cole's part, 

 due apparently, to the limitations of his methods of research, 



4. And, finally, there are a few cases growing out ot the 

 latter point in which I must take issue with Cole's morphologi- 

 cal interpretations. 



This work has been done on the basis of my previous anal- 

 ysis of the components in Menidia and, as stated above, by 

 the same methods. To avoid repetition I shall therefore throw 



