34 Edward F. Malone. 



Es miissen 'Nuclei tuberis von den Nuclei supraoptici unterschieden wer- 

 den (p. 602) . . .Die Nuclei tuberis kommen mehr in den medialen Gegenden 

 vor, besitzen kleine Nervenzellen, etc. (p. 603) . . .Die Nuclei supraoptici ha- 

 ben grossere Zellen, etc. (p. 603). Moreover Figs. 704 and 705 are correctly 

 labeled and entirely intelligible. Fig. 702 shows the nuclei tuberis laterales 

 excellently, but unfortunately they are termed "ganglia optica basalia"; 

 on p. 599 these groups are correctly termed nuclei tuberis, while on p. 519 

 they are incorrectly termed (in text) "ganglia optica basalia." This 

 uncorrected error in Fig. 702 is unfortunately characteristic of the incon- 

 sistent nature of Kolliker's description. But in Fig. 631 we meet a further 

 difficulty, since the cell mass of the tuber which in tig. 631 (rabbit) is termed 

 " Ganglion opticum basale " is stated on p. 603 to represent the " Ganglia 

 tuberis"; in reality this cell mass is simply a portion of the substantia 

 grisea and is not the nuclei tuberis laterales (which are shown in Figs. 

 702, G. o. b., and 705, G. t). On p. 599 he has incorrectly stated that the 

 nuclei tuberis are continued more or less definitely into two of the groups 

 of the corpus mammillare, nucleus intercalatus (or possibly a separated 

 portion of the medial nucleus as discussed in my monograph on the 

 diencephalon) and the nucleus tubero-mammillaris; this proves beyond 

 doubt that Kolliker's nuclei tuberis are to be regarded as topographical 

 groups rather than determined by a definite cell character. On the other 

 hand he has confused a portion of the nucleus tubero-mammillaris with 

 the basal optic ganglion; on p. 600 he says: Dieser Kern ist schon in der 

 Fig. 703 in der Grenzlage zwi-schen dem Tract us opticus, dem Reste des 

 Pes pedunculi und dem Nucleus Tuberis lateralis in den ersten Anfdngen 

 vorhanden und zwar me in der Linsenkernschlinge drin, wird aber nach 

 vorn immer grosser, etc. Accordingly Kolliker has included portions of 

 the nucleus tubero-mammillaris with the nuclei tuberis on the one 

 hand, and on the other with the basal optic ganglion. The vacant space 

 surrounding the third ventricle in his figures raises the question as to how 

 he regarded the substantia grisea of the third ventricle; its relations to the 

 other nuclei he has failed to point out, and in how far he confused this 

 cell mass with the nuclei tuberis we cannot determine, except in Fig. 631 

 in case of the rabbit, where this error is apparent; this cell group of the 

 rabbit is the substantia grisea and does not correspond to the nuclei tuberis 

 as shown in his figures of man. In conclusion, Kolliker's description and 

 figures are often very faulty, but on the other hand in his figures may be 

 recognized in many cases cell groups correctly represented. 



Cajal (pp. 756-757) describes in rodents a cell group under the name 

 ganglia peri-kiasmatico o tangencial which without doubt is homologous 

 with the basal optic ganglion of higher mammals. He is in doubt as to 

 whether it corresponds to the supraoptic nucleus of Lenhossek and the 

 supraoptic complex of Kolliker. As previously explained it is impossible to 

 identify the supraoptic nucleus of Lenhossek, especially since he says that 

 it is composed of " small " cells; the description of Cajal as well as his 

 excellent illustration (Fig. 640) shows that the ganglio peri-kiasmiitico is 



