368 



8) Arnold , Julius, Ueber Teilungsvorgänge an den Wanderzellen, 

 ihre progressiven und regressiven Metamorphosen. Arch. f. mikr. 

 Anat., Bd. 30, 1897, Taf. XII— XVI. 



9) Montgomery, H., Comparative cytological studies, with special 

 regard to the morphology of the nucleolus. Journ. Morph., Vol. 15, 

 No. 2, p. 265—582, mit 10 Taf. 



10) Oarnoy, J. B., La biologie cellulaire, etude comparee de la cellule 

 dans les deux regnes, Ease. 1. 



11) v. Bardeleben, K., Beiträge zur Histologie des Hodens und zur 

 Spermatogenese beim Menschen. Arch. f. Anat. u. Entw., 1897. 

 Suppl. 



12) Holmgren, Emil, Studien in der feineren Anatomie der Nerven- 

 zellen. Sonderabdruck aus Merkel-Bonnets Anatomischen Heften, 

 1900. 



Nachdruck verboten. 



Further Observations on the Natural Mode of Subdivision of 

 the Mammalian Cerebellum. 



By Gr. Elliot Smith, Cairo. 

 With 25 Figures. 



Recent research (see bibliography) has shown that it is possible 

 to institute accurate comparisons between the various parts of the 

 cerebellum in all the Mammalia (excepting the Monotremata only), 

 because the organ becomes subdivided in each mammal by a series 

 of fundamental fissures, the homologues of which can be recognised 

 with certainty in all the others. There are, however, many details 

 relating k to the exact mode of subdivision which still await a satis- 

 factory explanation. It is with these obscure points that these notes 

 are chiefly concerned ; but at the same time I hope to be able to still 

 further elucidate the general plan of the mammalian cerebellum and 

 explain the apparent divergences from this plan, which occur in several 

 genera and especially in Man. 



At the outset it will facilitate the proper comprehension of this 

 somewhat involved and difficult subject if I present in a schematic 

 manner the fundamental fissures of the cerebellum in a diagram 1 ) of 

 the organ spread out in one plane (Fig. 1). 



1) This diagram is a modification of those previously made by 

 Stroud (op. cit., 5 Fig. 701, p. 160) and the writer (op. cit., 7, p. 382). 

 It differs from both in some important respects. 



