208 
J. BEARD. 
Froriep published his researches on the rudiments of sense 
organs in connection with several cranial ganglia in Mammalia 
(No. 17). Without committing himself very definitely to the 
matter Professor Froriep did not think it impossible that the 
ganglia derived form-elements from the epiblastic fusion 
(No. 17, p. 40), and the cranial ganglia concerned were re- 
garded by him as the remains of the ganglia of sense organs 
which in the course of phylogenetic development had got lost. 
He says (p. 45) : “An der drei Nerven iibereinstimmend 
gehen aus der Kiemeuspaltenorganen keine definitiven Bil- 
dungen hervor, was von ihnen iibrigbleibt, ist lediglich die 
gangliose Anscliwellung des Nerven, welche urspriinglich 
die nervose Unterlage des Sinnesepitheliums gewesen ist. 
Diese Ganglien, Ggl. genicule, Ggl. petrorsum, und Ggl. 
nodosum, sind demnach als rudimeutare Organe zu betrachten, 
sie stellen die Ueberreste phylogenetisch verloreugegangener 
Sinneswerkzeuge dar.” 
Professor Froriep was undoubtedly the first in point of time 
to describe this fusion of cranial ganglia with the epiblast, and 
to draw the conclusion that the modified epiblast at the point 
of fusion was the remains of a special branchial sense organ. 
He hesitated (p. 35, et seq.) to homologise them with the 
sense organs of the lateral line in Fishes, considering it possible 
that they corresponded with rudiments of other sense organs 
connected with the ventral branches in Fishes as in Mammalia, 
and which, as in Mammalia, probably disappeared in later 
development. 
The identification of the ganglion fusion with the “Anlagen” 
of the sense organs of the lateral line for head and trunk in 
Elasmobranchii, was first made by me (No. 5) independently 
of Professor Froriep, and at that time also — a point which I 
afterwards developed more fully — I was quite aware of the 
relations of the sense organs to the gill-clefts, for I homo- 
logised the nose with such a ganglionic epiblastic fusion, and 
called it “ the modified sense organ of a gill-cleft rather than 
a gill-cleft itself and in my note-book there still stands the 
notice from which I wrote that conclusion, which shows, I 
