8 

 publication of Stieda's pa^er, did not, fully accept ttie work 

 of that author, but took a position almost between the errors 

 of Miclucho-Waclay on the one hand, and the truth on the other. 

 While giving the cerebellun its proper recognition as a brain- 

 segment, he apparently annexed his regie uentricu lo tertii to 

 the forebrain, thus leaving the mitlbrain standing for two whole 

 segments. His z'viechen him, therefore, embraced the dorsal 

 portion of the optic lobes above, and the hypothalamus below; 

 while he located the mi t telhirn between and behind these two 

 divisions of his zwischenKirn. Such an interpretatioi' was 

 certainly reiiarkable for the ingenuity with which a place was 

 found where an error might be lodged, but it wis almost, if 

 not guite equaled by the general homologies drawn by Fritsch 

 ('73), who took the whole midbrain for a secondary vorderKirn . 



These several errors, curious as some of them certainly 

 are, might have little more than a passing interest for us to 

 day, were it not that they continue to reappear at intervals, 

 tinging the work of those making claims to a certain degree of 

 authoritative treatment. As an instance of this kind, it may 

 be noted that one of our most recent treatises on comparative 

 anatomy contains a figui-e of the selachian brain with the cere- 

 bellum designated lobe oitique, and the anterior end of the 

 oblongata the cervelet' . 



•Roule.r; I. ' Ana tomi e Comparee des Anim&ux, Toire 2, P i i» . 1 1 5 7 . 

 Paris. 1R98. 



