— 146 — 
lenses resolved itself into an optical illusion. In a few cases I have 
certainly observed short bridges extending between neighbouring 
cells, these bridges have, however, in my opinion, evidently been 
remnants of cell-divisions, and are therefore of but little interest 
to our present subject; they had not the appearance of common 
processes. 
If a direct combination is the common mode of combination 
between the cells, as most authors suppose, direct anastomoses 
between their processes ought, of course, to be quite common. 
When one has examined so many preparations (stained by the 
most perfect methods) as I have, without finding one anastomosis 
of indubitable' nature, I think one must be entitled to say, that 
direct anastomosis between the processes of the ganglion cells does not 
exist, as a rule. What previous writers have supposed to be 
anastomoses is, in my opinion, probably the neuroglia-reticulation 
generally extending between the ganglion cells, and the fibres of 
which are often difficult to distinguish from the processes of the latter. 
Another objection against a direct combination, and which does 
not seem to have been thought of by a great many authors, is the 
existence of unipolar ganglion cells. How is it possible to explain 
an existence of unipolar cells, when we believe in a direct combina- 
tion by anastomosing processes.^ Certainly we will be obliged to 
say with ViRCHOW, and others, that — the closer we examine the 
nervous systems — the fewer unipolar cells do we find; in other 
words we can not believe in the usual existence of unipolar cells. ^) 
^) A good instance of the results to which the common theory of the func- 
tion and combination of the ganghon cells must bring us is a recent paper by 
Fl'itsch (op. cit, Arch. mikr. Anat. 1886). This author says, that the apolar gang- 
lion cells have «lange genug in unserer Litteratur gespukt.« Improved methods of 
investigations have taught us that they were creation of our imagination. And he 
continues (1. c. p. 24): »Wenn ich jetzt nach reiflicher Ueberlegung erkliire, das^ 
die unipolaren Ganglienzellen denselben Weg wie die apolaren wandern werden, 
so muss ich fiirchten, augenblichlich noch dem energichsten Wiederspruch zu be- 
gegnen.« I agree with the author in the latter point, he will certainly meet 
opposition. Further on in the same paper he says (p. 29): »dass es der Natur der 
Ganglienzellen tiberhaupt wiederspricht, als einzelnes Element nur eine Verbindung 
mit der Peripherie zu haben.« And: «Eine wirchlich unipolare Zelle ist flir den 
Organismus nicht viel mehr werth als eine apolare Zelle. « This is in my opinion a 
quite logic conclusion ifwe suppose that the common view of the nature of the gang- 
lion cells is correct. When now, however, unipolar ganglion cells actually exist, 
can that easily be supposed to be the fault of the ganglion cells? or is there not 
a possibility that our view of the nature of the ganglion cells is incorrect? We 
can not change the the reality according to our ideas but we can change our ideas 
