1909-10.] Nervous Mechanism of Alimentary Canal of the Bird. 333 
the movements of the intestine before and after degenerative section of the 
mesenteric nerves. Observations were made on the descending colon of 
the rabbit and the jejunum and ileum of the cat. It was found that in the 
case of three cats and two rabbits, in which almost complete isolation of 
the intestinal loops was secured, the reaction of the intestine to adrenalin 
and nicotine was normal, but subnormal to atropine, strychnine, and 
cocaine. 
Elliot (21), in his paper on the innervation of the bladder and urethra, 
dealt with the question of the origin of the visceral ganglia. He pointed 
out that in the two varieties of efferent nerves from the anterior root, that 
going to striated muscle had no ganglionic station en route, while the other 
to non-striated muscle invariably had. This being the case, the proto- 
plasmic nucleated mass at the nerve ending in striated muscle must be the 
homologue of the ganglionic cell, or the ganglionic cell must be developed 
peripherally. The various points of divergence between the ganglia of the 
central nervous system and those of the viscera as regards their reaction to 
nicotine and curare were emphasised, whilst the embryological evidence of 
the origin of the visceral ganglionic cells was described as equivocal. 
In conclusion, Elliot regarded the balance of evidence to be in favour of 
the visceral ganglia being separate developmental units, and not outgrowths 
from the sympathetic chain. 
Yanase (22), in a description of observations on the intestine of embryonic 
porpoises, made an interesting note to the effect that movement in the 
intestinal canal only occurred after the development of Auerbach’s plexus. 
In 1908 Magnus (23), from the results of experiments, described the 
pendulum movements of the intestine as due to the agency of Auerbach’s 
plexus. In this connection he criticised the view of Bayliss and Starling 
that this movement was myogenic, since it persisted after the application of 
cocaine. Magnus pointed out that the pharmacological proof was not suffi- 
ciently convincing, as only one function of Auerbach’s plexus might be 
affected by the drug. In proof of his theory Magnus separated the two 
muscle coats of the intestine, and found that in the longitudinal coat, to 
which Auerbach’s plexus adhered, the pendulum movements continued, 
whereas they were quite wanting in the circular coat. Further, on stimu- 
lating a preparation free of Auerbach’s plexus, either by continuous chemical 
or electrical stimuli, it was found that there was an absence of rhythmical 
movements, and of a refractory period, while the preparation might be 
tetanised. On the other hand, when an Auerbach plexus preparation was 
subjected to the same stimuli it showed rhythmical movements, a refractory 
period, and a complete absence of the tetanic condition. From this it was 
