24 ILUNOIS BIOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS (24 



palatine cartilage as Gaupp interprets it." Gaupp (1893, footnote p. 430) 

 says: "Hierzu mochte ich bemerken, dass ich die beiden Namen 'Antor- 

 bital-fortsatz' und 'Cartilago palatina' durchaus fiir dasselbe Gebilde 

 gebraucht habe (17, p. 115: 'die Cartilage palatina' oder wie die englischen 

 Autoren Huxley und Parker den Knorpel nennen, den 'Processus antor- 

 bitalis'). Als 'Processus palatinus' wird der Knorpel aber z.B. von 

 Friedreich und Gegenbaur bezeichnet (14, p. 29), auch Hertwig (24)*nennt 

 ihn auf den Figuren 'Cartilago palatina' (C.p.), und Wiedersheim (58, p. 

 483) spricht von einen Antorbitalfortsatz oder 'Gaumenfortsatz' der 

 deutschen Autoren. Da ich beide Bezeichnungen in der Literatur vorfand, 

 so erwahnte ich sie auch beide, habe aber nicht etwa einem bekannten 

 Gebilde eine neue Deutung geben wollen. Kingsley scheint unter 'Palatine 

 cartilage' hier etwas Besonderes zu verstehen; was das ist, kann ich aus 

 seinen Angaben nicht ersehen." 



Winslow (1898) discussed the question, and concluded that until it was 

 shown that the process in Urodeles arising from the trabecula in front of the 

 orbit was actually a part of the pterygoquadrate the name antorbital 

 should be retained. A further point is that the term palatine cartilage is 

 misleading, implying that it is the rudiment of the palatine bone, which is 

 not cartilaginous in origin. 



With the evidence now presented by Cryptobranchus, it would seem as 

 if the basal part of the process here, and by implication in all Urodeles, is 

 really an anterior prolongation of the pterygoquadrate. But the anterior 

 portion of this process is something additional, and although possibly 

 pterygoidal in origin, may retain the name antorbital. Then in all other 

 groups, where the posterior connection to the quadrate is lost, the entire 

 outgrowth, although partly pterygoidal, is best known as the antorbital 

 process. Of course this retention of the anterior part of the pterygoid in 

 both Cryptobranchus and Ranodon larvae is an ancestral feature lost 

 elsewhere among the Urodeles. As stated in the above, the adults of both 

 species of Cryptobranchus have lost the connection of the pterygoid with 

 the side of the cranial wall, and in both the direction of the posterior 

 plainly pterygoidal part of the cartilage would not suggest that in the larva 

 there was any such connection with the trabecula or any relation with the 

 palatine bone. 



Of the Urodeles thus far described, Cryptobranchus stands alone in the 

 origin of the planum verticale, which arises as a medial dorsal growth from 

 the planum basale, subsequently uniting to the medial margins of the 

 columnae ethmoidales and closing off the cavum cranii from the internasal 

 space. Thus at no time does a pons ethmoidalis or a fenestra ethmoidalis 

 exist in Cryptobranchus, like that in Amblystoma and Salamandra. On 

 the other hand the columna ethmoidalis in Cryptobranchus recalls that 

 structure in Salamandra which, arising in both from the medial margin of 



