— 32 — 
b) The structure of the ganglion ceUs. 
Regarding the structure of the ganglion cells there has been 
the same disagreement. 
A great many writers describe a fibrillous structure, whilst othei 
stick to a homogeneous protoplasm. 
Amongst the adherents of a fibrillous structure Remak comes, 
also here, first. He describes a concentric striation in the proto- 
plasm occasioned by granular fibres circulating round the nucleus. 
These fibres do not, however, enter into the processes. 
WiLL and especially Walter have also described a fibrillous 
structure. Leydig has in Gasteropodes described a concentric fibril- 
lous structure of the protoplasm of the ganglion cells and a stria- 
tion of the processes (1865, vide: list of literature. Taf. XIX fig. 3, 
Ganglienkugeln des Unterhirns von Helix hortensis). 
Further, SCHWALBE can also be named as an adherent of the 
fibrillous structure. 
BuCHHOLZ supposes the protoplasm of the ganglion cells to 
consist of two substances, of which the one can, by squeezing, 
easily be exuded in form of hyaline pearls. 
This hyaline »Grundsubstanz«, »in welcher gleichmåssig suspen- 
dirt ein anderer, in Form feiner Piinktchen erscheinender Korper er- 
scheint«, is »in allen ihren physikalischen und chemischen Eigen- 
schaften auf das VoUkommenste iibereinstimmend mit derjenigen, 
welche die Zellenfortsatze bildet, sowie auch . . . mit derjenigen, 
welche fibrillar angeordnet den Inhalt der peripherischen Nerven- 
stamme bildet. « ^) 
^) It is really astonishing that so conscientious a writer, as Hans Schultze 
seems to be, can so seriously misunderstand another author, as he has done, when 
he says that Buchholz describes »an der Ganglienzellen zwei Substanzen, von denen 
die eine leicht durch Druck in Form hyahne Tropfen auspresbar, die zuriick- 
bleibende, kornige Masse aber durchaus gleichwerthig der fibrillar geordneten In- 
haltsmasse der Nervenståmme erschien.* As will be seen, that is quite the con- 
trary of what Buchholz, has really, said. That and similar misunderstandings 
regarding Buchholz seem, also, to have descended to other writers. In the quite 
recently pubHshed paper by JRawitZ we find a similar confusion. This writer com- 
pares »Buchholz's hyaline Grundsubstanze« with the reticular substance described 
by himself ; a mistake which certainly ought to have been very difficult if Rawitz had 
looked a little more carefully at the description of »der in feinen Piinktchen er- 
scheinenden Substanz ... in der hyalinen Grundmasse gleichmåssig vertheilt« given 
by Buchholz in his excellent paper (p. 252). In reference to the report of Buchholz's 
paper given by Vignal, there is, indeed, little else to say, than that it is thoroughly 
misleading. 
