COMPARISON WITH ACIPENSER AND LOTA. 211 



direct comparison as that which Goronowitsch attempts to 

 draw. 



Goronowitsch's homologies of the rami in the case of 

 Lota are also in some cases confusing. The truncus hyo- 

 mandibularis is, as we have seen, composed exactly as in 

 Menidia, save that the general cutaneous component is 

 larger. This component he states is absent altogether in 

 Acipenser, /. e., there is no anastomosis from the trigem- 

 inus I to the hyomandibularis. The ophthalmicus super- 

 ficialis VII in Lota is as in Menidia. The ophthalmicus 

 superficialis V, which he incorrectly calls the ophthalmicus 

 profundus, has in addition to general cutaneous fibres 

 from trigeminus I, a large bundle from his facialis, which 

 must be of communis nature, and may supply terminal 

 buds of the top of the head as Allis describes in Amia, 



Regarding the maxillary and mandibular nerves there 

 is considerable confusion, which, however, can be cleared 

 up, I think, by comparisons with Menidia. The compo- 

 sition of these nerves in Acipenser is probably as follows : 

 Goronowitsch describes a rostral nerve from each of the 

 three nerves, trigeminus I, trigeminus II and facialis. 

 The first of these is from its origin evidently the proper 

 r. maxillaris (general cutaneous) and it is described as 

 innervating the appropriate cutaneous area. The second 

 is equally clearly the r. buccalis and it accordingly sup- 

 plies the infra- orbital canal organs. The third arises 

 from the facial (geniculate) ganglion and is accordingly a 

 communis nerve. This is the n. rostri interni of Stan- 

 nius. It distributes to the upper lip and particularly to 

 the barbels. It is, I think, the homologue of the com- 

 munis fibres contained in the r. maxillaris of Menidia and 

 distributed to the taste buds of the upper lip. In 

 Acipenser there is anastomosis of these three nerves 



