SCIENCE. 
251 
magnificent instrument by Alvan Clark, and 
lastly, Mr. Sawyer, of Cambridgeport, undertakes 
to report on his interesting systematic observations 
of meteoric phenomena. 
As “Science” is published weekly this informa- 
tion will be mailed to astronomers every Friday 
evening, and should important astronomical infor- 
mation reach us early in the week, we undertake 
to mail a special despatch, giving the information 
mentioned by Professor Swift. We think this pro- 
gramme will be a prompt compliance on our part, 
with the request made in Professor Swift’s letter, 
and we trust will be acceptable to astronomers ; 
we further ask the co-operation of all possessing, or 
in charge of, observatories to put themselves in 
communication with us and make suggestions, as 
it is our desire to make the most perfect arrange- 
ments, and to offer in “ Science ” a medium for 
universal intercourse for those engaged in astrono- 
mical studies. 
In regard to other branches of science, equally 
important arrangements are being made and will 
be shortly announced. 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO ENCEPHALIC ANATOMY. 
—THE OBJECTS AND METHODS OF A 
STUDY OF THE ICHTHYOPSIDEAN BRAIN. 
By E. C. Spitzka, M. D., New York. 
II. 
Inasmuch as Huxley’s class of the Ichthyopsida 
contains the lowest of the living vertebrate forms, 
it would appear one of the most important under- 
takings for the cerebral anatomist to determine the 
structural relations of the brain, spinal chord and 
principal nerves in that class. In fact, a priori , 
the student might conclude that the anatomy of a 
a simple brain like that of a fish would represent a 
sort of rough and rudimentary sketch of the funda- 
mental features of the higher mammalian brain, 
and that for this reason alone, its studv would be 
essential to the human anatomist. 
Nothing could be more erroneous ! 
Any one familiar with the visceral and osteo- 
logical anatomy of the fish tribes will bear me out 
in the statement, that however convenient it may 
be to pigeon-hole the Amphibia, Elasmobranchi, 
Teliosts, Ganoids, Dipnoi and Marsipobranchi in 
one great class, on the strength of the formal com- 
mon character, that they have no amnion at the 
embryonic period, and always have gills at some 
time of or throughout life,* that there are actually 
* These are the only constant characters separating them from other 
groups, and it is even doubtful whether we are justified in denying the 
existence of the morphological representative of the amnion in all the an- 
amnia. 
more fundamental diversities between the different 
primary groups of this class than between at least 
one group of this class and the Sauropsida. 
As it would be difficult to find an archetype of 
the vertebral skeleton in any ichthyopsidean, so it 
is a task requiring far more discrimination and 
careful study than is generally devoted to this sub- 
ject to determine the cerebro-spinal archetype in 
any member of this group, aside from the protean 
amphibians. For there are greater differences be- 
tween the architecture of a shark’s and a pike’s, a 
herring’s and a sturgeon’s, an electric eel’s and a 
lamprey’s, than between an amphibian and a mam- 
malian brain. While the differences between the 
brain of a frog and of a man can almost all be re- 
ferred to quantitative variations in the relative pro- 
portions of similar and homologous parts, the dif- 
ferences between the brains of the other animals 
named are of a qualitative character. It actually 
becomes a question whether a homology between 
the parts of an amphibian and of a shark’s brain 
can be established. 
Notwithstanding the difficulties enshrouding this 
subject, both writers on human and on comparative 
cerebral anatomy skim over the subject with a re- 
markable nonchalance. The latest compilation on 
the human brain * neglects any mention of the fact 
that the cerebral lobes of fishes are commonly solid, 
informs the student that thei'e are symmetrical 
halves in these animals constituting a cerebellum, 
and repeats the statements of as old an author as 
Cuvier without the slightest reference to the recent 
controversy on the homology of the fish’s brain, in 
which Gegenbaur, Fritch, Stieda and Maclay have 
taken part. 
The text book on Zoology used at most of our 
colleges, Packard’s work, on passing through the 
ordeal of criticism at the hands of Wilder, is shorn 
of nearly every statement it makes regarding the 
fish’s brain, since scarcely a reliable one is con- 
tained in the volume. 
The question of the true homology of the fish’s 
brain being still sub judice , the human cerebral 
anatomist can only lose time, and writers on the 
human brain only confuse their students by de- 
voting attention to this problematical subject. 
It is a legitimate field of study for the zootomist 
alone, and in its morphological respects the subject 
bids fair to prove rich in surprising and suggestive 
results, which, when once established on the basis 
of observation, may be utilized by the human anat- 
omist and physiologist in generalization. 
The questions to be determined will appear from 
the following; their answer is as yet a desideratum. 
1 st. A careful surface study of the brain of at 
least one representative of each great group should 
be made. Careful and enlarged representations of 
each such brain as projected in the five cardinal 
views, namely, the dorsal, ventral, lateral, anterior 
and posterior should be drawn, and the brains pre- 
served for reference, in the manner to be detailed. 
2d. A median section of each such brain should 
be made, and delineated, in order to expose the 
axis contours of the ventricular cavities. 
* “ The Brain as an Organ of the Mind,” by H. Charlton Bastian, 1880. 
