SCIENCE. 



251 



magnificent instrument by Alvan Clark, and 

 lastly, Mr. Sawyer, of Cambridgeport, undertakes 

 to report on his interesting systematic observations 

 of meteoric phenomena. 



As "Science" is published weekly this informa- 

 tion will be mailed to astronomers every Friday 

 evening, and should important astronomical infor- 

 mation reach us early in the week, we undertake 

 to mail a special despatch, giving the information 

 mentioned by Professor Swift. We think this pro- 

 gramme will be a prompt compliance on our part, 

 with the request made in Professor Swift's letter, 

 and we trust will be acceptable to astronomers ; 

 we further ask the co-operation of all possessing, or 

 in charge of, observatories to put themselves in 

 communication with us and make suggestions, as 

 it is our desire to make the most perfect arrange- 

 ments, and to offer in " Science " a medium for 

 universal intercourse for those engaged in astrono- 

 mical studies. 



In regard to other branches of science, equally 

 important arrangements are being made and will 

 be shortly announced. 



CONTRIBUTIONS TO ENCEPHALIC ANATOMY. 

 —THE OBJECTS AND METHODS OF A 

 STUDY OF THE ICHTHYOPSIDEAN BRAIN. 

 By E. C. Spitzka, M.D., New York. 



II. 



Inasmuch as Huxley's class of the Ichthyopsida 

 contains the lowest of the living vertebrate forms, 

 it would appear one of the most important under- 

 takings for the cerebral anatomist to determine the 

 structural relations of the brain, spinal chord and 

 principal nerves in that class. In fact, a priori, 

 the student might conclude that the anatomy of a 

 a simple brain like that of a fish would represent a 

 sort of rough and rudimentary sketch of the funda- 

 mental features of the higher mammalian brain, 

 and that for this reason alone, its study would be 

 essential to the human anatomist. 



Nothing could be more erroneous ! 



Any one familiar with the visceral and osteo- 

 logical anatomy of the fish tribes will bear me out 

 in the statement, that however convenient it may 

 be to pigeon-hole the Amphibia, Elasmobranchi, 

 Teliosts, Ganoids, Dipnoi and Marsipobranchi in 

 one great class, on the strength of the formal com- 

 mon character, that they have no amnion at the 

 embryonic period, and always have gills at some 

 time of or throughout life,* that there are actually 



* These are the only constant characters separating them from other 

 groups, and it is even doubtful whether we are justified in denying the 

 existence of the morphological representative of the amnion in all the an- 

 amnia. 



more fundamental diversities between the different 

 primary groups of this class than between at least 

 one group of this class and the Sauropsida. 



As it would be difficult to find an archetype of 

 the vertebral skeleton in any ichthyopsidean, so it 

 is a task requiring far more discrimination and 

 careful study than is generally devoted to this sub- 

 ject to determine the cerebro-spinal archetype in 

 any member of this group, aside from the protean 

 amphibians. For there are greater differences be- 

 tween the architecture of a shark's and a pike's, a 

 herring's and a sturgeon's, an electric eel's and a 

 lamprey's, than between an amphibian and a mam- 

 malian brain. While the differences between the 

 brain of a frog and of a man can almost all be re- 

 ferred to quantitative variations in the relative pro- 

 portions of similar and homologous parts, the dif- 

 ferences between the brains of the other animals 

 named are of a qualitative character. It actually 

 becomes a question whether a homology between 

 the parts of an amphibian and of a shark's brain 

 can be established. 



Notwithstanding the difficulties enshrouding this 

 subject, both writers on human and on comparative 

 cerebral anatomy skim over the subject with a re- 

 markable nonchalance. The latest compilation on 

 the human brain * neglects any mention of the fact 

 that the cerebral lobes of fishes are commonly solid, 

 informs the student that there are symmetrical 

 halves in these animals constituting a cerebellum, 

 and repeats the statements of as old an author as 

 Cuvier without the slightest reference to the recent 

 controversy on the homology of the fish's brain, in 

 which Gegenbaur, Fritch, Stieda and Maclay have 

 taken part. 



The text book on Zoology used at most of our 

 colleges, Packard's work, on passing through the 

 ordeal of criticism at the hands of Wilder, is shorn 

 of nearly every statement it makes regarding the 

 fish's brain, since scarcely a reliable one is con- 

 tained in the volume. 



The question of the true homology of the fish's 

 brain being still sub judice, the human cerebral 

 anatomist can only lose time, and writers on the 

 human brain only confuse their students by de- 

 voting attention to this problematical subject. 



It is a legitimate field of study for the zootomist 

 alone, and in its morphological respects the subject 

 bids fair to prove rich in surprising and suggestive 

 results, which, when once established on the basis 

 of observation, may be utilized by the human anat- 

 omist and physiologist in generalization. 



The questions to be determined will appear from 

 the following; their answer is as yet a desideratum. 



1 st. A careful surface study of the brain of at 

 least one representative of each great group should 

 be made. Careful and enlarged representations of 

 each such brain as projected in the five cardinal 

 views, namely, the dorsal, ventral, lateral, anterior 

 and posterior should be drawn, and the brains pre- 

 served for reference, in the manner to be detailed. 



2d. A median section of each such brain should 

 be made, and delineated, in order to expose the 

 axis contours of the ventricular cavities. 



* "The Brain as an Organ of the Mind," by H. Charlton Bastian, 1880. 



