216 EoBEKT Thompson Young, 



the central nervous system, and I must admit the same ignorance 

 regarding the larger branches of the peripheral nervous system. I 

 may repeat that the question is essentially unimportant. 



I shall present now my reasons for supplanting the term 

 "myoblast" by "neuro-muscular cell". I have already shown that 

 the muscles are formed by a grouping of primitive parenchyma 

 fibrillae and are not derivable from any definite cells. Therefore 

 the term "myoblast" or "muscle generator" is certainly inapplicable 

 to any given cell. In the adult state the "myoblasts" do not 

 necessarily lie in close apposition to the muscles, their undulating 

 fibres in close contact with the latter. ^) They often are so placed 

 (Fig. 59), but they may, on the other hand, have any position inter- 

 mediate between such a one and one in which they lie with their 

 long axis perpendicular to the muscle and their cell body considerably 

 removed therefrom (Fig. 50), as in the case of the "myoblasts" 

 of the sub-cuticular muscles, 



A direct connection between a nerve cord and a muscle thru 

 the medium of a "myoblast" is difficult of demonstration without 

 special methods of technique. Such a connection, however, has been 

 established in a few cases, one of which is illustrated in Figs. 56 

 and 58. A direct continuity between the fibrillae of the neuro- 

 muscular cells and the muscles can be demonstrated with certainty 

 only in the embryonic condition, but it is very probable that such 

 a continuity persists in the adult condition as well. The neuro- 

 muscular cell represented in Fig. 59 is very strongly suggestive of 

 the probable continuity of nucleus and neuro-fibrillae. 



The neuro-muscular nature of the sub-cuticular "myoblasts" in 

 Ligula has been proven by Blochmann (1895) and Zernecke (1895) 

 who have shown a connection between these cells and the sub- 

 cuticular muscles on the one hand and the peripheral nerve plexus 

 on the other. I have been unable to locate any such plexus in 

 Cysticercus pisiformis and doubt its existence because of the 

 fact that the inner processes of the sub-cuticular neuro-muscular 

 cells may be traced almost thru the bladder wall without any 

 evident nervous connection. I cannot, however, positively deny its 

 existence. A nervous process of other than the sub-cuticular "myo- 

 blasts" has been shown by Zernecke (1895, figs. 5, 9 — 15). 



Further evidence in favor of the neuro-muscular nature of these 



1) See the account given by Schneider (1902, p. 313). 



