1282 
by the growing out of the fibers of the central end into the old 
path of the peripheral nerve-portion became better and better known. 
It was seen how the new nerve-fibers growing out from the cut-end 
may extend to the organs normally supplied by the nerve in question, 
form new end-organs and how thus even a functional regeneration 
may take place. Ii was seen how regenerating nerve-fibers may even 
grow into a nerve-path belonging to another (cut) nerve, and how 
motor fibers from the cut-end of the nervus accessorius for example 
may grow into the peripheral degenerated portion of a cut facialis 
nerve and thus in the end provide with motor nerve-endings the 
atrophying muscle-fibers of the mimic muscles. 
This phenomenon leads naturally up to the question, whether it 
would be possible, after a nerve containing motor and receptive 
fibers has been severed in its course, that motor nerve-fibers from 
the cut-end grow into degenerated receptive fibers of the peripheral 
portion of the nerve, and vice-versa. 
This question, which was studied for the first time by Bipper in 
1849 and more closely by Prmaprauvx and VurpranN in 1863 and 
1873, and by different authors in the course of the years, has been 
answered almost universally in a negative sense. Even LANGLEY and 
ANDERSON, who studied the question as late as 1904, denied the 
functional and trophic regenerative union of motor and receptive 
fibers, and Berap, who studied the question for (as far as I could 
gather) the last time in 1907 '), gives as the results of his investi- 
gations the following statement: “dass auch unter den für die Ver- 
einiging günstigeren Bedingungen (nach Durchschneidung der moto- 
rischen Wurzeln) eine functionelle oder auch nur trophische Ver- 
wachsung zwischen rezeptorischen und motorischen Fasern nicht 
eintritt.” (Ll. ce. page 481). 
And yet, notwithstanding these statements, the question must be 
answered in a positive sense, 
To study the question, the same course was taken as that followed 
by Parrpravx and Vurpran making their classic experiments in 1863 
and 1873 (Verpran). The nervus lingualis and the nervus hy poglossus 
of the same side were both cut through. Only I did not join the 
central end of the lingualis to the peripheral portion of the nervus 
hypoglossus *), as was done by the investigators mentioned above, 
but followed the example given by Buran in 1903, and joined the 
1) Prtuszas Aieniv; 1i6 Bd. 12907. 
.*) In a second note [ hope to describe the results of this line of experiments. 
