304 Journal of Comparative Neurology. 



condition in Gadus, as here described, and I have now nothing 

 to add to that argument. 



Cole gives the origin of the post-branchial, or hyoidean 

 branch of the facial "as doubtful from the 'trigeminal' gan- 

 glion." This I have confirmed so far as the sensory portion is 

 concerned and can assert positively that these are general cuta- 

 neous fibers. 



He follows with an exhaustive examination and criticism 

 of the literature of the facial ganglion, in which he tries to 

 show that the pre-spiracular ganglion of the elasmobranchs 

 (which here is ' ' still in very close association with the main 

 facial ganglion ") has in the more highly specialized teleosts 

 become completely separate from the trigemino-facial complex, 

 though still retaining many of the characterists of a cerebro- 

 spinal ganglion. " In short the facial ganglion of the cod is an 

 exemplification of the principle of evolution, and shows us a 

 stationary ganglion becoming converted into a vagrant or true 

 sympathetic ganglion." 



It is not necessary for us to review the details of this argu- 

 ment, for it is evident that its foundation has been totally de- 

 stroyed by the discovery that Cole's "facial" ganglion is 

 already a true sympathetic ganglion and as perfectly differen- 

 tiated as such in Gadus as in any other vertebrate, and that it 

 does not give rise to the palatine and other visceral sensory 

 rami of the facialis. These on the other hand, arise from a 

 totally distinct ganglion, the geniculate, which conforms in every 

 way to a cerebro-spinal ganglion. There is no more evidence 

 here than in any other vertebrate that the communis ganglion 

 is becoming transformed into a sympathetic ganglion. The 

 problem of the relation of the communis system to the sympa- 

 thetic is a very important and a very difficult one, and Cole 

 may be right that the sensory sympathetic is an off-shoot of this 

 system ; but before this conclusion can be accepted more evi- 

 dence must be furnished. 



Another important discrepancy m Cole's work is his failure 

 to recognize that the r. lateralis accessorius takes its first, or 

 pre-auditory, root-complex from the geniculate (facial) ganglion 



