42 Mr. A. Ucnfrey 07t VeffctubU' Cell-fur mat ion. 



t\(f. 4. Tlu' homy cutting; tooth : a, soniewliat enhujjjcd to show its cha- 

 riii'toi" more thsfiiutly ; b, nutural sizf. 



Fig. 5. a. Sevoii hiiguiil pUites tiikiu from the middle portion of a traus- 

 versc series. The riidimeiitarv and hihd central tooth presents a 

 remarkable contrast to the others, b. shows the curvatures of the 

 transverse rows of teeth, the longitudinal series in every case 

 being rectilinear. 



Fi(/. 6. A simple dissection, in which the internal orpins are merely unra- 

 velled as it were, so as to afford a tout ensemble of the digestive 

 and ijenerative systems in particular : ri, the retracted tentacula ; 

 b, buccal mass, with the commencement of the oesophagus^ and 

 the tortuous ducts of the salivary glands; c, a kind of crop or 

 proventriculus, to the exterior of which a looj) of intestine is 

 bound down by areolar tissue ; (/, stomach ; e, a small sacculus, 

 which is probably the rudiment of a jiancreas. It is the homo- 

 loguc of the sacculated and internally plaited organ of Nautilus 

 Poinpilius. rci)resented by a more highly developed glandular ap- 

 paratus in Sepia, f, the liver, which is divisible into four distinct 

 lobes, each giving rise to a biliary duct opening separately into 

 the alimentary canal near the glandular sacculus, e. The intestinal 

 canal, ff, is rather lengthy, winding round the liver, passing first 

 forwards and then backwards uj)on the stomach, forming a loop 

 ujjon the proventriculus as above noticed, and, finally, termina- 

 ting in the anus at ti, near the respiratory orifice. 



VII. — Oil [Vegetable Cell-formation. 

 13y Prof. Arthur Henfrey, F.R.S. 



To the Editors of the Annals of Natural History. 



Gentlemen, 



Your Number for this month (June) contains some remarks by 

 Dr. Carpenter relating to my letter which appeared in the pre- 

 ceding Xumber (2nd Ser. xvii. p. 41 7). I am obliged to trouble 

 you with a few lines more on this subject, as \)v. Carpenter ap- 

 pears to have misconceived the purport of my communication. 

 With me it was no question of " gcmeral ideas of the process of 

 cell-formation/' although I humbly submit that my 'general 

 ideas ' form as good materials for argument as references to un- 

 published investigations. General and long experience in obser- 

 vations of the process did indeed render Mr. Wenham^s account 

 quite incredible in my eyes : but if Dr. Carpenter reads my letter 

 carefully, he will see that I founded my criticism on a repetition 

 of the observations, and that the main feature of my letter was 

 a denial of the correctness of the statements and of the accuracy 

 of the drawings. 



I am, Gentlemen, yours obediently, 



Arthur Henfrey. 



