xxii Journal of Comparative Neurology. 



Considering the fact that it is by no means clear what a medical 

 student wants from a study of the brain — usually he cares for little 

 more than a vocabulary to cover up his ignorance — it is difficult to say 

 what plan had best be followed by a book. Without a study of brains 

 in the laboratory little of real value is to be gained. But for a guide 

 m laboratory work the book is not arranged systematically enough, and 

 for reading without laboratory facilities, it has not enough illustrations, 

 nor does the text try to keep in the limits of that which the illustrations 

 can show. 



We regret to make this adverse criticism and should probably have 

 judged otherwise without a rather careful reading of the text and fig- 

 ures, and if we had not frequently tried ourselves to find the best way 

 of presentation of this rather difficult topic. In illustration of our 

 criticism, we refer briefly to the disadvantages coming from dividing 

 the brain into five or more vesicles, which leads to an utterly inade- 

 quate description of the forebrain and to such statements as: "In the 

 embryo the isthmus exists as a separate vesicle" (p. 15), the confusing 

 description of the hindbrain and, for instance, of the lateral recesses 

 of the fourth ventricle. I also mention the statement (p. 20) that the 

 corpus geniculum laterale is said to be connected with the anterior arm 

 of the mesencephalon (brachium quadrigeminum superius). In Fig. 

 12 the s. occipitalis transversus of Van Gehuchten's drawing is called 

 parieto-occipital fissure; the central fissure does not cut into the edge 

 of the longitudinal fissure; Fig. 15 could easily be replaced by a clearer 

 and more correct one, and Fig. 9 is probably also too difficult to grasp 

 without several other drawings The sections of the brain stem are 

 over-schematic, and the description fragmentary. The use of the words 

 "anterior," etc. (e. g , anterior olive) is often confusing. 



We wish to say though, that many parts might well take the place 

 of lecture notes and that on the whole the description of the sections is 

 more easily followed than the macroscopic description and the data 

 which require reconstruction. The writer shows that he knows the;:re- 

 cent literature, and especially his van Gehuchten, quite well and he 

 embodies many points which might appear unessential for the student 

 and certainly not easily intelligible without the free use of drawings. 



The experience in the class-room will show to what extent the 

 book will find friends. Its small size will certainly do much to make it 

 attractive to the beginner. a. m. 



