24 
Proceedings of Royal Society of Edinburgh. [sess. 
fact (as well as from its large size) expect that it should possess an 
extensive system of fibres connecting it with other parts of the 
central nervous system, more especially with such parts as have a 
similar function ; hut it is a striking illustration of the difficulty 
of the histological investigation of this region, that until quite 
recently only one of these connecting systems had been definitely 
established. 
It has long been known that when one half of the cerebellum is 
congenitally defective, the restiform body of the same side, and the 
inferior olive of the opposite side, are also absent, the development 
of the olive being evidently dependent on the opposite hemisphere 
of the cerebellum. With regard to the other relations of the olive, 
opinions have been very divergent. 
The most generally accepted view is that of Deiters, viz., that the 
olive is a nodal point or ganglion of interruption, between the pos- 
terior columns of the spinal cord (or their nuclei) of one side and the 
restiform body of the opposite side. Deiters thought that the in- 
ternal arcuate fibres which originate in the nuclei of the posterior 
columns ( i.e ., the clavate nucleus, or nucleus of the column of Gall, 
and the cuneate nucleus, or nucleus of the column of Burdach) 
terminate on the convex surface of the olive of the same side ; while 
other fibres, arising from the interior of the same olive, leave it at its 
hilum, and after crossing the raphe, and then passing partly anterior, 
partly through and partly posterior to the opposite olive, enter the 
restiform body. Deiters considered that the fact that the restiform 
body gradually increases in volume in proportion as the posterior 
columns diminishes is an evidence of the intimate association of these 
two structures. 
Meynert, while espousing the opinion of Deiters, pointed out that 
many of the internal arcuate fibres arising from the cuneate and 
clavate nuclei pass behind the olive of the same side, and reach 
spinal cord to the superior olive, and the posterior corpus quadiigeminum. 
The lesions produced in these various strands may therefore be, at least in 
part, responsible for the phenomena attributed to the section of the olivary 
bodies. Ferrier concludes ( Functions of the Brain , 2nd edit., p. 207) that the 
views of Deiters and Meynert, with regard to the connection of the olive and 
the posterior columns, are established by Bechterew’s experiments. In view 
of the possible fallacies in these experiments, and the certain results of embry- 
ological investigations, that connection can no longer, in my opinion, be 
maintained. 
