194 GEDGE, ON MOTOR NERVE, 
sufficient, for ‘‘no one can doubt that muscle and nerve, 
universally identical in their construction, have an equally 
universal identity in their manner of connection.” 
Dr. Moxon, then, believes that the nerves of insects are 
formed on a similar plan to those of the higher animals, but 
his admirable drawing shows that he is no more able to prove 
this fact than other observers. 
His nerve-trunks are represented as homogeneous in struc- 
ture ; still, it appears he believes them to be bundles of fibres. 
Again, his ganglion is a mere mass of ganglion-corpuscles ; 
but he is bound to believe that every one of these corpuscles 
has fibres in connection with it, as we find to be the case in 
the higher animals. In my own observations on the minute 
anatomy of insects, I cannot claim to be in advance of Dr. 
Moxon. In Hymenoptera I have traced the nerves from the 
ganglionic columns, branching and rebranching again and 
again, have followed extremely small branches into and 
through the ganglia of the sympathetic system, but never 
have I been able to see what I believe to be actual nerve- 
fibres, or to detect any relation between the fine nerves and 
the ganglion-cells, except that of contiguity. Still, from the 
fact of the nerve-trunks branching in an exactly similar man- 
ner to what we observe in higher animals, I feel sure that 
these nerves are made up of fibres which probably never 
branch, except at their terminal distribution. And I have no 
doubt that the ganglion-corpuscles, so similar in appearance 
to those of the frog, though differing considerably in size and 
texture, have nerve-fibres connected with them ; but though 
I have been able to demonstrate this connection in the frog, 
I have been unable to see any similar arrangement in the 
msect. 
Now, it is to me surprising that any one who cannot see 
that the nerve-trunks are bundles of nerve-fibres, but only 
define the outline of their sheath, should know when he is 
looking at a nerve-fibre. It is true that Dr. Moxon never 
speaks of a nerve-fibre; he is careful not to commit himself. 
And so he only makes use of the collective or general term— 
nerve. But it is impossible that Dr. Moxon can believe in 
the sudden termination at one point of a whole bundle of 
nerve-fibres, and therefore I take it for granted that he uses 
nerve in the sense of nerve-fibre. 
The nuclei and the “ pellucid material” are said to be 
within the sarcolemma, and are represented in the drawing 
between the muscular fibre and its puckered sheath. These 
nuclei are so accurately delineated, that I was at once able to 
recognise them as nuclei with which I was familiar; but I 
