218 EDWAED PHELPS ALLIS, JUN. 



fundus nerve, which receives no fibres from the lateral sen- 

 sory centres, is said to send a branch to the sensory canal in 

 the antorbital bone of the fish, it is evident that the subject 

 needs further investigation. The spinal fifth component of 

 the so-called profundus nerve is evidently the homologue of 

 the portio ophthalmici profundi of my descriptions of Aniia. 



In Amiurus the fasciculus communis system, and especially 

 its pre-auditory portion, that is, root Vllaa, is said by Kings- 

 bury (40) to be enormously developed, giving origin to the 

 lobus trigemini of the fish (p. 30). From this root and system 

 the deeper ophthalmic nerve of Wright's descriptions is said 

 by Kingsbury to derive most of its fibres (p. 14) . By Work- 

 mann (68) this same nerve is said to receive general cutaneous 

 and communis fibres in approximately equal numbers, and 

 the nerve is said to be, in position, an ophthalmicus super- 

 ficialis trigemini, and not a profundus nerve. The two com- 

 ponents that form the nerve are said to arise, one from the 

 sensory trigeminus root, and the other from the communis 

 root of the facialis, the former thus being the probable homo- 

 logue of the portio ophthalmici profundi of my descriptions 

 of Amia, and the latter the homologue of the ophthalmicus 

 superficialis trigemini. 



In Menidia Herrick (30, p. 428) says that the " r. oph. sup. 

 VII and the r. oph. sup. V are fused throughout their entire 

 course, but each can be easily distinguished and separately 

 followed by difference in the calibre of the fibres." The 

 ophthalmicus superficialis facialis is a lateral line nerve, and is 

 said to arise from the dorsal one of two lateral line roots of the 

 V — VII complex, a root which must accordingly be the homo- 

 logue of the dorso-median stem of Trigeminus II of Gorono- 

 witsch's descriptions of Lota. No communis fibres are here 

 said to accompany those nerves. 



In a later work (31) Herrick says that some fasciculus 

 communis fibres " probably run forward with the ophthal- 

 micus superficialis," while in his still later and complete work 

 (32) these communis fibres are said to be so completely 

 united with the ophthalmicus trigemini that it is impossible 



