200 Dr. II. F. E. Juiigerscn on the Structure 



(/rachialis, as in Urodela and some Reptiles, puts the correct- 

 ness of this view beyond doubt. A-s to the radial bone 

 opinions differ : Gegenbanr supposes the intermedium to 

 have disappeared, and regards it as the radiale, as already 

 stated ; on the other hand, it is interpreted by Born * as 

 intermedium, and the centrale of Gegenbaur as radiale, partly 

 because he thinks he has found another centrale in some 

 Alytes and Pelohates larva3, partly because the disputed 

 centrale in some cases joins the radius. Howes and Ride- 

 wood, however, have confirmed {I. c. p. 150) that it does not 

 originally belong to the proximal series, and besides made it 

 less probable that any importance is to be ascribed to Born's 

 centrale ; they use the indifferent name lunatura, but state 

 that this must be either radiale or radiale + intermedium ; the 

 centrale of Gegenbaur is named naviculare and regarded as 

 a radial centrale. Emery f thinks that the jn'oximal-radial 

 bone is the coalesced radiale and centrale, and that Gegen- 

 baur's centrale belongs to the distal series as a " carpale praj- 

 pollicis," because he thinks he has found in a Pelohates larva 

 a trace of a sixth finger on the ulnar side, whence that finger, 

 which generally is regarded as the first, in his opinion becomes 

 a " pra^pollex ; " the second to fifth fingers are reckoned as 

 first to fourth. Moreover, Emery finds in a group of closer-set 

 cellules in the tissue between the cartilaginous ulnare and 

 radiale in larva? of Bana esculenfa " ein niclit mehr ver- 

 knorpelndes Intcrmediumrudiment." 



In opposition to Emery, however, I may say that in the larval 

 hands of Bonihinator and Rana platyrrhhms^ which I have 

 examined, partly through section-cutting, jjartly in clove-oil, 

 I have not been able to find any trace of a finger on the ulnar 

 side of that which I, in accordance with most authors, have 

 named the fifth, nor have I seen anything like a rudiment of 

 an intermedium ; moreover, I feel convinced that Emery has 

 misinterpreted the preparation on which his fig. 1 (/. c. p. 285) 

 is founded : s is not " scaphoideum (carpale pra^pollicis)," 

 but either carpale 2 or carpale 1 ; ce is scaphoideum (auth.), 

 i. e. centrale of Gegenbaur, which does not at all coalesce 

 with r (radiale), but in later stages appears on the lateral 

 border of the carpus. 



As to the interpretation of the distal series of the anuran 

 carpus, 1 may add that Howes and Ridewood do not admit 



* " Naclitiiige zu ' Caipus uud Tarsus; " Morphol. Jahrb. 6 Cd. 18S0, 

 p. ()1. 



t " Zin Moipliuld^it' dt..> IJaiid- uud i'ustsliek'trs,'" Anal. Auz. T) Jlig. 

 J^tH), \K 28.3. 



