- 65 - 
according to both writers produced by the »feinsten Fasersystem « 
in the dotted substance. 
Claus (1879) seems not disposed to believe in a direct com- 
bination, neither VlALLANES, F. v. Wagner and others. 
The writer of the present paper has, also, on several previous 
occasions firmly denied a common existence of direct combinations 
between the cells, not having found any case of indubitable anasto- 
moses between cell-processes. 
As the present paper is just about to be completed, a memoir by 
Dr. Bernhard Rawitz on »Das centralen Nervensystem der Ace- 
phalen« appears in last volume of »Jenaische Zeitschrift«. As it 
treats of our subject, I will mention it here. 
First, it may be said that the powers of magnification used by 
Rawitz do not seem to have been high enough, which he also 
states himself; to this circumstance may perhaps be ascribed some 
of the results at which he has arrived. 
Regarding the structure of the ganglion cells, Rawitz supposes 
like Buchholz, Hermann, Freud and others, their contents to con- 
sist of two substances, »von den der eine eine netzformig angeord- 
neten der andere eine Zåhe unter Umstande olartige Tropfen bildende 
Substanz ist, die in den Maschenråumen der ersteren suspendirt 
ist.« Rawitz's mistake regarding Buchholzs description of the 
protoplasm of the ganglion cells, we have already before mentioned 
(note on p. 32). He is not sure whether the reticulated substance is 
the real nervous one or, »ob m.an nicht vielmehr die in Tropfen aus- 
fliessende Substanz als die eigentlich nervose, die netzformige (Buch- 
holzs hyaline) nur als Stiitzsubstanz anzusehen hat, will ich defini- 
tiv nicht entscheiden, mochte aber die letztere Aufifassung der 
Buchholzshen vorziehen.« As mentioned already, this comparison 
with Buchholz is quite misleading, Rawitz has indeed just the 
same view as Buchholz regarding the hyaline substance, (»in 
Tropfen ausfliessende Substanze«, Buchholz's » hyaline Grundsub- 
stanz«) which Buchholz decidedly supposes to be the really nerv- 
ous one (cfr. my report of Buchholz p. 32). As will be seen from 
my description, I agree with Buchholz and Rawitz in this respect. 
Rawitz does not think a fibrillous arrangement in the cell to 
be very probable. 
It is very strange, indeed, that Rawitz seems not to know 
5 
