3i8 Journal of Comparative Neurology. 



fully under a i inch dissecting microscope. T. J. Parker ("Zoo- 

 omy," p. 125, Fig. A) seems also to have found it. 



3. Facial Gajiglion. In his Menidia paper Prof. Herrick 

 says (p. 248 of the reprint, p. 404 in the Journal of Comp, 

 Neurology) : ' ' The geniculate ganglion [of Gadiis\ is wholly 

 intra-cranial and so closely joined to the Gasserian ganglion that 

 Cole failed to differentiate them and mistook the extra-cranial 

 sympathetic ganghon for the geniculate." Again, in the me- 

 moir now under consideration it is stated that, "this descrip- 

 tion [of the facial ganglion] was most puzzling to me until I 

 discovered that the ' facial ' ganglion here referred to is in real- 

 ity the sympathetic ganglion." Now, if we refer to my actual 

 statements on this question, we find (p. 136): "When I first 

 recognized it in my sections, and saw that its cells were small 

 and corresponded precisely to the cells in the ciliary ganglion, 

 with which I compared it, / concluded at once that it must be the 

 antetiot' sympathetic ganglion of the cephalic system described by 

 the oldcf anatomists " (italics now added). Again on p. 143 : 

 • * We have seen that the facial ganglion is a ganglion placed on 

 fibers that undoubtedly belong to the seventh or facial cranial 

 nerve. It seems therefore to belong to the trigemino-facial 

 complex, and cannot, in face of this fact, be considered a purely 

 sympathetic ganglion. But we have further seen that it has 

 many sympathetic characters, for in the first place it is con- 

 nected with the fibers of the fasciculus communis system, which 

 we know to be essentially sympathetic in character ; in the sec- 

 ond, its cells are small and correspond to the cells found in the 

 ciliary and true sympathetic ganglia; and in the third, it gives ori- 

 gin to the cephalic sympathetic trunk." These quotations prove 

 that I took up the position that I did with my eyes open, and 

 was not guilty of the gross error implied to me. That is to say, 

 I was fully alive to the fact that the "facial " ganglion (which 

 observe, together with the "trigeminal" ganglion, is printed 

 in inverted commas on p. 133) had been described as, and 

 might be, a sympathetic ganglion. In fact my statement of the 

 trigemino-facial ganglia on p. 133 is much the same as Prof. 

 Herrick's except: (i) that he confirms my surmise that the 



