Litetafy Notices. cvii 



background for the newly invented ones. Thus it is difificult to speak 

 patiently of Professor Kupffer's application of the term epencephalon 

 to cerebral hemispheres. 



In the paper before us Professor His has stated his reasons for 

 adopting the system suggested which combines much that is familiar 

 with a number of new usages. As would be expected, these sug- 

 gestions are based on embryological data and are free from the am- 

 biguity of purely topographical terminology. They have much to 

 recommend them. 



The following table indicates the system : 



I. Medulla oblongata Myelencephaloti (i) ~j 



II 2' Cerebellum \ Mctencephalon (2) j- Rhombencephalon (Rautenhirn). 



III. hthinus-rhombencephali {■^ J 



IV I. Pedunc. cerebri "I ,^ ,; , , , ^ 



IV 2. Corp. quadrig. ) Mesencephalon (4) 



V I. Parsmamillaris hypothalami T ^ 



V 2. Thalamus \ \. D' n i)} I {t\^ ^ 



V -i. Metathalamus \ Thalamencephalon \ ^ \ a r- \. 



\i \.- -^x \ Q. ^Cerebrum. 



V 4. bpithalamus j J IS" 



VI I. Pars optici hypothalami i IB 



VI 2. Striatum \ ! Telencephalon (6 M 



VI 3. Rhinencephalon \ Hemisplnvriuni \ ^ 2 



VI 4. Pallium j J fL, J 



One might feel disposed to critcise the system as making too 

 large concessions to anthropotomy in the use of such major groups as 

 rhombencephalon and cerebrum, for, however convenient this may 

 be in the superficial description of the mammalian brain, it expresses 

 false morphology. On the other hand the six prominent divisions 

 are morphological. Even here it may be questioned whether the 

 older terms Prosencephalon, Mesencephalon and Mctencephalon are 

 not more nearly in accord with morphology and embryology. The 

 recognition of a separate segment known as the isthmus has its advan- 

 tages but.on the other hand,serves to separate the niduli of eye-muscle 

 nerves whose close connection scarcely admits of doubt. 



The separation of the pars tnamillaris and pars optica hypothalami 

 in two different major divisions causes some inconvenience. 



While this system certainly recognizes the close relationship of 

 the diencephalon and the hemispheres one could wish that the genetic 

 subordmatton of the latter to the former could be made more promi- 

 nent. It is by repeated attempts that we shall secure a system com- 

 mensurate to the needs of descriptive as well as theoretical anatomy. 



