GEDGE, ON MOTOR NERVE. 193 
during conjugation, will be readily able to satisfy himself on 
this point. 
That, as in other Desmidiez, the new growth, in Spirote- 
nia during self-division, is produced between the two older 
halves, seems evidenced by the blunt extremities as seen after 
division, and by the varying position of the nucleus as regards 
the extremities. The genus Spiroteenia, in fact, seems as truly 
to belong to Desmidiaceze as do Penium, Cylindrocystis, or 
Mesotzenium ; the place, in fact, which has been assigned to 
this genus so long, even though it were but provisionally, 
seems to be its legitimate position, sustained as that view is 
by the fact, now here for the first time recorded in two 
species, that its fructification takes place by conjugation. 
ANOTHER INTERPRETATION Of Dr. Moxon’s Discvorry. 
By J. Grper, M.R.C.S. 
In the number of this Journal for October, 1866, Dr. Moxon 
brought forward a valuable paper on the distribution of the 
antennal nerve in a Culex larva. The value of this paper, 
to my mind, however, consisted in the accurate account and 
delineation he gave us of what he saw... With Dr. Moxon’s 
observations I find no fault, but with his conclusions I can- 
not agree. On these latter I had hoped that some more able 
and better-known observer than myself would have come 
forward and given his opinion; but as the last number of the 
Journal was silent, I feel bound to show that consent to his 
views is not universal—that his observation may bear another 
interpretation. 
Dr. Moxon supports Kitihne’s views on the termination of 
motor nerves, and he seems to consider his observation on 
this dipterous larva quite a convincing fact, which will prove 
for eyer the disputed point concerning the peripheral termi- 
nation of motor nerves. He thus states his conclusions :— 
** The neryous contents of the neurilemma are, then, con- 
tinuous witha pellucid material disposed along the same side of 
the fibre, between the sarcous substances and the neurilemma.”’ 
Though here Dr. Moxon only mentions the “ pellucid 
material,”’ elsewhere he tells us of certain “nuclei in the 
space between the edge of the sarcous substance and the 
sarcolemma.” And he ends his paper by saying that this 
single *‘ proof” (z. e. the observation of an insect larva) is 
