Nuclei Tuheris Laterales and the Ganrjlwn Opticum Basale. 33 



in the present article. The exact extent is, however, not clear, and we have 

 no assurance that he distinguished between this cell group and the nucleus 

 tubero-manimillaris, or that he included all portions of the basal optic 

 ganglion. Moreover he was unable to observe the union of the ganglia of 

 opposite sides, a fact which makes it almost certain that he failed to include 

 the medial portion of each ganglion. 



When we attempt to understand the article of von Lenhossek, in which 

 he divides, in man, the basal optic ganglion of Meynert into a nucleus supra- 

 opticus and two nuclei tuheris, we are confronted with an impossible 

 task. We are informed that all three nuclei are composed of small, spindle- 

 shaped, multipolar nerve cells, as well as neuroglia; this is a most disturb- 

 ing statement and renders it absolutely impossible to form any idea as to 

 what cell groups the author had in mind. For by no means can the cells 

 of the basal optic ganglion be termed small, since they measure up to 35 m 

 in diameter, and compared with the cells of the nuclei tuheris and the 

 substantia grisea their large size is most evident (Fig. 37). Accordingly 

 the word " small " would seem to make it certain that Lenhossek's nucleus 

 supraopticus cannot be a portion of Meynert's basal optic ganglion: and 

 yet after Meynert's description and illustrations it would seem remarkable 

 for anyone to overlook such a prominent cell group as the oral portion of 

 the basal optic ganglion. Again we are informed that the nucleus anterior 

 of the tuber cinereum is the largest of all three nuclei (nucleus supra- 

 opticus and the anterior and postero-lateral nuclei of the tuber) " und 

 Mldet eigentUch den Hauptbestandteil des Tuber." and that apparently it 

 reaches the median line. What can this mean? Can the " small " cells of 

 this anterior nucleus be the large cells of the nucleus tubero-mammillaris, 

 or is this nucleus a portion of the substantia grisea? One is almost tempted 

 to infer from Lenhossek's description that his three portions of Meynert's 

 basal optic ganglion are a complex of what I have described as the basal 

 optic ganglion and portions of the nucleus tubero-mammillaris, all of which 

 are composed of large cells, and that the cells of the substantia grisea he 

 may possibly have considered neuroglia; since he employed the Weigert 

 stain such a mistake is by no means improbable. But just what the three 

 nuclei of Lenhossek represent is absolutely impossible to determine. 



Kolliker's description of the nuclei tuberis and the basal optic ganglion I 

 have in a previous article termed vortrefflich ; this implies a uniform 

 excellence which this description by no means possesses. It were more 

 fitting to term Kolliker's account of these nuclei " remarkable," for it is 

 remarkable as to insight into this complicated region, and at the same time 

 remarkable for the contradictions, incorrectly labeled figures, and other 

 faults which detract from its value. Only to one who has made a thorough 

 study of this region is the difference apparent between the unintelligible 

 description of von Lenhossek and the essential excellence of that of 

 KoUiker, and from 1S96 until 1910 no one has made himself sufficiently 

 familiar with this region to realize the many excellent points in Kolliker's 

 work. The real contributions of Kolliker are as follows: 



