94 



G. J. de F e j e r V a r y : 



bv him as rather epiphytic. This is contrary. indeed, to both the 

 respective views of Nitsche and Gadow, as, according to these 

 authors, the (basal) pedicle and (its distal oiitgrowth) the antlers 

 are likewise apoph\1:ic elements. As regards the development of 

 the cavicornian horn. Weber' s views essentially agree with 

 those emitted by Gadow. which are diametrically opposed to 

 Xit sch e' s interpretation. He pretends the os cornu to derive from 

 the frontal bone, considering its independent centre of ossification 

 as a secondary — though evidently not ..pathologic" — pheno- 



menon. bv which das Os cornii der Cavicornia . . . den 



Charakter eines Cutisknochens annimmt; deutlicher die ihm inkom- 

 plet hom.ologe ..Stange" der Hirsche, die gleichfalls aus kleinen An- 

 fängen der Periodizität sexueller Prozesse untenvorfen wurde . . 

 I dare say that this ..intermediary" Standpoint has been very 

 nebulouslv drawn up. The opinion pronoimced in this latter sen- 

 tence with respect to the cer\-id antlers, does not harmonize much 

 with the preceding one.^^) On p. 22 the author homologizes the 

 cavicornian os comu, designated by him at this place as an epi- 

 physis. with the Rosenstock (Stimzapfenj" i. e. the pedicle of the 

 Ccrvidac, a Statement again containing a contradiction. 



This illogical and vacillating mode to discuss such a 

 complicated problem, even neglecting to undertake any argu- 

 mentation of the quoted ..Statements", is not adapted indeed 

 to further the desirable Solution of the question. 



The Giraffid horns are simply referred to by Weber as ossa 

 cornuum. 



According to Prof. Wiedersheim^') the Stange" (antler) 

 of the Cercidae is hom.ologous with the cavicornian os cornu (i. e. 

 the osseous cone of the hom), whilst the cervid Rosenstock" 

 (pedicle) being homologous with the frontal apophysis (basal 

 ,,stump" of the hom) of the Cavicornia. Up to this point \\'ieder5- 

 heim agrees \\ith Gadow. WTiilst, however. this latter author 

 considers the pedicle and antler of the Cervidae as well as the os 

 cornu of the Cavicornia and Giraffidae as frontal apophyses, 

 i. e. using our present nom^enclature, as belonging to primary 

 dermal bones, Prof. Wiedersheim looks upon both the horns 

 and antlers as built up by two different elements, viz. the apo- 

 phytic Stirnzapfen" and Rosenstock" and the epiph\i:ic ,,os 

 cornu" and ,, Stange". These latter elements are, according to him, 

 ,, dermal bones" (,, Hautknochen"). This might be the fundamental 

 idea the author wanted to express, but, unfortimately, the different 

 term.s are no:: always exactly, i. e. logically used. The explanation 

 of his Fig. 95 gives us a precise idea of his conception; but the text 

 of the same page (p. 137) is not clear at all, and even contains a 

 grave mistake. Prof. \\ iedersheim \mtes there as follows: 



«*) Op. cit. p. 23. 



On p. 20 of op. cit. 

 «") Vergl. Anat. d. Wirbeltiere, 6. Aufl., Jenar 1906, p. 137. 



