MORPHOLOGICAL STUDIES. 
203 
have uo existence ; and he says in a passage which on another 
page I have quoted in full, “ Ich verwerfe iiberdies, wie 
ich schou an auderem Orte ausgesprochen liabe, das von 
manchen Embryologen so freigebig benutzte Princip dcr lokalen 
Wurcherungen ” (No. 34, p. 4G5). The reference to another 
place in this passage is to the “ Briefe iiber unsere Korperform ” 
p. 67, u. f . — a work in which the foldings, &c., of au elastic 
plate are used to explain fully the development of all the organs 
of a Vertebrate embryo. By this declaration Professor His 
gives the coup de grace to any possibility of the acceptance 
of his account of the cranial ganglia in the Chick as a solution 
of their origin. The two diagrammatic figures which are re- 
presented ou p. 465 of Professor His's paper oil the peripheral 
nervous system have been referred to recently (No. 34, p. 394, 
Aumerkung) by him as representing really the true facts, and 
as agreeing essentially with the x-esults of other iuvestigators ; 
but that 1 may not be accused of an unfairness, which is far 
from my thoughts, I quote the passage : “ Wie jedes Schema, 
so ist auch dieses iu Betriff absoluter Correctheit 1 anfechtbar, 
aber, dass die untere Lamelle des dort ausgebogenen Streifeus 
mit der von Kolliker, Sagemehl, u. A. abgebildeten Ganglien- 
anlage zusammeufallt, bedarf kaum eine Erlaiiterung.” As 
these figures show au epiblastic invagination to form the 
ganglionic Aulagen, iu conformity with the elastic plate theory, 
— an appearance which has no existence iu fact, — it is difficult 
to see how the lower layer of this structure can be identical 
with the ganglionic Aulagen of Kolliker, Sagemehl, and others. 
This is as near being the case as any fancy figure drawn in the 
same position would be. The principle of the epiblastic origin 
of the ganglia, apart from the central nervous system, is one on 
which His has long been in the right; the mode in which he 
believes this origin takes place is one in which he has been 
further from the true facts than anyone else. I have quoted 
before the following passage from Professor His’s recent paper 
(p. 380), and as we now see that the facts are not so much 
1 This “Schema” of His’s is not relatively correct, it is absolutely 
incorrect ! 
