SUBJECT INDEX — MORPHOLOGICAL SECTION 



597 



W. 1892.1; •Piper, H. 1902.2; Poso, 0. 

 1906.1. 



Development in — Teleosts. iHrLaguesse, 

 G. E. 1S87.1, 1890.2. — Ceratodus. Neu- 

 mayer.L. 1904.1, .3. — Adpenser. Nicolas, 

 A. 1904.1. — Amia. Piper, H. 1902.1,-3, 

 1903.1. —Selachii. Ruffini, A. 1904.1. 



Histology. Hoyer, H. 1892.1. —Of 

 spleen capsule. Selachians. Laguesse, G. 

 E. 1903.1, .2, Add. 18S8.1. 



Physiology. •Whiting, A. J. 1897.1; 

 Phisalix, C. 1SS5.1. — Changes under- 

 gone in salmon spleen while in freshwater, 

 Miescher-Rueseh, F. 1881.1. — Role in 

 formation of blood. Phisalix, 0. 1902.1. 



Physiological effects of removal. — 

 Tissue hyperplasia following removal of 

 spleen. Drzewina, A. & Pettit, A. 1904.1. 

 — Fusiform cells, occurrence in blood after 

 removal of spleen. Pettit, A. 1904. 2, .3. 



SUPRARENAL ORGANS {SURRE- 

 NAL SYSTEM OF FISHES) 



Including the " Interrenal body " (or 

 cortical tissue), and the " Suprarenal 

 bodies ' ' (medullary tissue) or Chro- 

 mophile bodies. 



It is now well established that the mamma- 

 lian adrenal or suprarenal organs, represented 

 by an asymmetrical pair of bodies which siur- 

 mount the kidneys, each of which is composed 

 of a central medullary tissue and an outer 

 cortical tissue, are represented in hshes by two 

 morphologically independent structures. The 

 determination of these homologies has been 

 a matter of gradual growth but is largely due 

 to Swale Vincent. 



Introductory 



Because of the importance of the subject 

 from the medical standpoint, the structure and 

 especially the functions of the suprarenals, in 

 all groups of vertebrates and especially in the 

 mammaU, has, in recent years, been made the 

 subject of profound and exhaustive inquiry. 

 The number of titles of such researches, included 

 in the bibliographies of the general works about 

 to be mentioned, mounts into the hundreds. 



In order to properly orient the follow- 

 ing account, which pertains exclvisively to 

 fishes, reference may advantageously be 

 made to the following general eummaries 

 of our present knowledge of the supra- 

 renal system, which include also much 

 material on fishes. 



These are •Artur Biedl's " Innere 

 Sekretion " and its English translation, 

 and •Swale Vincent's " Internal Secre- 

 tions and the Ductless Glands." 

 Principal literature 



The most recent summary (in German), of 

 the morphology and development of the su- 

 prarenal system in vertebrates, with extensive 

 bibliography, is •Poll, H. 1906.1. 



For the best papers in English, although 

 somewhat obsolete, see •Vincent, Swale 

 1896.1-1907.1. An excellent historical re- 

 sume and numerous outline drawings of these 

 organs in various fishes are given in •Vin- 

 cent, S. 1898.1. 



Historical resum§ 



In man, the suprarenals were first recognized 

 as separate organs, by Eustachius, in the year 

 1563. 



" The earliest account respecting these bodies 

 in fishes [quoting from Collinge & Vincent, 

 1897.1, with necessary adaptations in reference 

 numbers] is that given in 1819 by Retzius 

 (A. A. 1819.1) who described them in certain 

 species of dog-fish and skate. Stannius in 1839 

 (1839.2) discovered similar bodies in teleostean 

 fishes, and in 1846 (1846.2) he gave a general 

 account of them in elasmobranchs, teleosts, and 

 the sturgeon. [They have been subsequently 

 very generally known as the " Corpuscles of 

 Stannius."] In the same year Ecker verified 

 Stannius' observations and gave a description 

 of the minute anatomy of the bodies. Hyrtl 

 (C. J. 1851.2) and Leydig (F. Add. 1851.1) 

 contributed further papers to the subject, the 

 former deahng with teleosts, and the latter with 

 Chimcera. 



" In 1852 Frey published a general r6sum6 of 

 what was known of these bodies, in Todd's 

 Cyclopedia. Leydig in 1852 (1^62.1) pointed 

 out their segmental arrangement; and a further 

 contribution was made by Stannius. In 1875 

 Semper (C. G. 1875.3), in a very valuable paper, 

 emphasised the importance of the segmental 

 arrangement. F. M. Balfour in 1878 (1878.1) 

 gave an account of the morphology and de- 

 velopment of the suprarenal bodies in elasmo- 

 branchs in his well known ' Monograph.' It is 

 to this writer that we owe the term ' interrenal.' 

 A description of the suprarenals of Amiurus 

 waspubUshedby M'Kenziein 1884 (T. 1884.1)." 



An early paper, not seen by us, is Jacob- 

 son, L. L. 1828.1. 



Suprarenal organs of Elasmobranchii 



It was in this group that the two distinct 

 sets of structures which have been called " su- 

 prarenale " were first distinguished. 



The one type, first noticed by Retzius (A. -A. 

 1819.1), who called it a " suprarenal " because 

 of its resemlalance in texture to the suprarenal 

 of birds, " is an ' ochre-yellow ' rod-shaped 

 structure, paired in the Rays, unpaired in the 

 Sharks, lying usually in the region of the pos- 

 terior part of the kidney but sometimes extend- 

 ing as far forward as its anterior extremity" 

 (Vincent, S. 1898.1, p. 63}. 



Somewhat later, Leydig (F. 1852.1) insisted 

 that the so-called axillary hearts of Duvernoy 

 (G. L. 1837.1) and their continuations on the 

 sympathetic gangha were the true suprarenals. 

 These segmentally arranged . bodies described 

 by Leydig are, in the words of Vincent, " paired 

 bodies, placed on the intercostal or parietal 

 branches of tne aorta, and extending in many 

 cases throughout the whole length of the ab- 

 dominal cavity." 



Balfour in order to distinguish the two sets 

 of structures applied the term " interrenal " 

 to the first and limited the term " suprarenal " 

 to the segmentally-arranged bodies. He believed 

 that he could distinguish medulla and cortex in 

 the latter and was inclined to view the " supra- 

 renale " -as homologous with the mammalian 

 suprarenal. , - .^^ j ^i. ,. ^^ 



It is now 'almost generally admitted that the 

 mammalian suprarenal is a compound organ, of 

 which the medullary (or chromophile tissue) is 

 derived from or is homologous with the paired 

 segmental bodies, while the cortical tissue is 

 homologous with the interrenal bodies. 



The determination of these homologies we 

 owe largely to Vincent. From its histological 

 appearance, he noted (1898.1, p. 79^ the re- 

 semblance or " analogy " of the interrenal 

 tissue of Elasmobranchs to the mammalian 

 cortical tissue and concluded that it possessed a 

 *' secretory nature." About the same time, 

 bat quite independently, Diamare (V. 1899.1) 

 reached almost identical conclusions. 



When referring, at one time, to the proba- 

 bility of the correspondence of the interrenal 



