160 
J. BEARD. 
little claim Sageiuehl’s researches on the spinal ganglia really 
have to pose as a solution of the prize problem they were 
undertaken to solve, and will here content myself with the 
assertion that Sagemehl never saw any of the very earliest 
stages of development. Professor His (No. 34) in a paper, 
which in spite of a vast number of differences of opinion as to 
both facts and hypotheses, I cannot regard otherwise than as a 
valuable contribution to the morphology of the cranial nerves, 
has, among other things, endeavoured to establish without 
further observation his celebrated “ Zwischenrinne ” or 
“ Zwischenstrang ” theory, and he believes that all that is 
necessary for its final triumph is its rebaptism under the name 
of Ganglienrinne or strang. As this work also will occupy 
our attention for some time at a later stage of the work, I will 
only express my strong dissension with the following extract 
(p. 380) with which Professor His opens his campaign against 
“ die jiingeren vergleicheudmorphologischen Schulen.” It 
reads thus : “ Bei genauerem Zusehen findet man eben dass die 
Differenzen nicht in dem liegen, was der eine oder der andere 
Beobachtungskreis an thatsachlichen Befunden ergiebt, sondern 
in demjenigeu was die Vertreter der einen und der andern 
Schule zwischen den Zeilen zu leseu sich bemiihen.” 
It will be time enough to consider the lecture which Pro- 
fessor His reads to us younger morphologists, when the facts of 
development which form the very basis of the question are 
placed beyond the reason of dispute. The principle of the 
origin of the ganglia from the epiblast, apart from the central 
nervous system, is one on which I can agree with Professor 
His. Not so with the way in which this takes place; for, 
paradoxical though it may sound, right as Professor His was 
in principle, he is till now further from recognising the true 
facts than any embryologist who has worked on the origin of 
the peripheral nervous system. Sad to relate the Zwischen- 
strang, &c., has as little direct connection with the origin of 
the ganglia as it has with the urinogenital system, as Professor 
His at first supposed. 
Professor His is astonished to notice that his views on this 
