Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:55:49.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XXVII.—Multiple Neuromata of the Central Nervous System: their Structure and Histogenesis*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

Alexander Bruce  and
James W. Dawson
James W. Dawson
Affiliation:
Carnegie Research Fellow
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent investigations have profoundly modified our conception of the value of the histological elements of the nervous system. Conflicting opinions are still held on many points of primary importance, perhaps the chief of which is the relation of the nerve fibre to the nerve cell. The origin of the nerve fibre is a problem of vital interest not only to the embryologist, but also to the physiologist and the pathologist. It has long been the subject of controversy, and, in spite of numerous valuable researches, we are still far from knowing the relation of the nerve fibre to the central neuroblast, a relation of essential importance in the understanding of all neuro-pathological questions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , 1913 , pp. 697 - 798
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1913

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature

I.—Embryogenesis

Apathy, Von, “Bemerkungen zu den Ergebnissen Ramon y Cajal's hinsichtlich der feineren Beschaffenheit des Nervensystems,” Anat. Anz., Bd. xxxi., 1907, pp. 481, 523.Google Scholar
Balfour, , The Development of Elasmobranch Fishes, London, 1878.Google Scholar
Bardeen, , “The Growth and Histogenesis of the Cerebro-spinal Nerves in Mammals,” Amer. Journ. of Anat., vol. ii., 1902–1903, p. 231.Google Scholar
Barile, , “Struttura ed histogenesi di un neuroma fibrillare mielinico,” Lo Sperimentale, t. lxiv., 1910, p. 269.Google Scholar
Beard, , (1) “Morphological Studies,” Quart. Journ. of Microsc. Sc., vol. xxix., N.S., 1889, p. 153.Google Scholar
Beard, , (2) “The Transient Ganglion Cells and their Nerves in Raja batis,” Anat. Anzeiger, Bd. vii., 1892, p. 191.Google Scholar
Bethe, , “Bemerkungen zuv Zellkettentheorie,” Anat. Anzeiger, Bd. xxviii., 1906, p. 604.Google Scholar
Cantelli, , “Su la fina struttura dei neuroblasti nei centri nervosi dei vertebrati,” Annali di Nevrologia, xxv., 1907. From Neurol. Centralblatt, 1908, p. 561.Google Scholar
Capobiancho, , “Ulteriori ricerche sulla genesi delle cellule nervose,” Annali di Nevrologia, 1905, fasc. 1, 2; Rows, Rev. Neurol. and Psychiat., vol. iii., 1905, p. 606.Google Scholar
Carpenter, and Main, , “The Migration of Medullary Cells into the Ventral Nerve Roots of Pig Embryos,” The Anat. Record, vol. i, 1907, p. 63.Google Scholar
Dohrn, , “Die Schwann'schen Kerne der Sclachierembryonen,” Anat. Anzeiger, Bd. vii., 1892, p. 348.Google Scholar
Durante, , “Nerfs,” in Manuel d'Anat. Pathologique, Cornil et Ranvier (Paris), 1907.Google Scholar
Fragnito, , “Su la genesi delle fibre nervose centrali e il loro rapporto con le cellule ganglionari,” Annali di Nevrologia, 1905, fasc. 1, 2; Rows, Rev. Neurol. and Psychiat., vol. iii., 1905, p. 604.Google Scholar
Gurwitsch, , “Die Histogenese der Schwann'schen Scheide,” Archiv für Anat. u. Physiol., Anat. Abt., 1900, p. 85.Google Scholar
Hardesty, , “On the Occurrence of the Sheath Cells and the Nature of the Axone Sheaths in the Central Nervous System,” Amer. Journ. of Anat., vol. iv., 1904–1905, p. 329.Google Scholar
Harrison, , (1) “Further Experiments on the Development of Peripheral Nerves,” Amer. Journ. of Anat., vol. v., 1905–1906, p. 121.Google Scholar
Harrison, , (2) “Experiments on transplanting Limbs and their bearing upon the Problems of the Development of Nerves,” Journ. of Exp. Zoology, vol. iv., 1907, p. 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, , (3) “Embryonic Transplantation and the Development of the Nervous System,” Anat. Record, vol. ii., 1908, p. 385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, , (4) “The Outgrowth of the Nerve Fibre as a Mode of Protoplasmic Movement,” Journ. of Exp. Zoology, vol. ix., 1910, p. 787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Held, , (1) Die Entstehung des Nervengewebes bei den Wirbeltieren, Leipzig, 1908.Google Scholar
Held, , (2) “Zur Histogenese der Nervenleitung,” Anat. Anzeiger, Bd. xxix., Erg. Heft, 1906, p. 185.Google Scholar
Held, , (3) “Kritische Bemerkungen zu der Verteidiguug der Neurohlasten- und der Neuronen-theorie durch R. Cajal,” Anat. Anzeiger, Bd. xxx., 1907, p. 369.Google Scholar
His, , “Die Neuroblasten und deren Entstehung,” Archiv für Anat. u. Physiol., Anat. AM., 1889, p. 290.Google Scholar
Kerr, , (1) “On some Points in the Early Development of the Motor Nerve Trunks, and Myotomes in Lepidosiren paradoxa,” Trans, of the Royal Soc. Edin., vol. xli., 1904, p. 119.Google Scholar
Kerr, , (2) “Presidential Address, Royal Physical Soc. Edin., 1909,” Proc. of the Royal Phys. Soe. Edin., vol. xviii. p. 1.Google Scholar
Kohn, , (1) “Ueber die Entwickelung des peripheren Nervensystems,” Anat. Anzeiger, Erg. Heft, Bd. xxvii., 1905, p. 145.Google Scholar
Kohn, , (2) “Ueber die Entwickelung des sympathischen Nervensystems die Säugetiere,” Archiv für At Her. Anat., Bd. lxx., 1907, p. 266.Google Scholar
Kölliker, , “Ueber die Entwickelung der Nervenfasern,” Anat. Anzeiger, Erg. Heft, 1904, p. 7.Google Scholar
Kolster, , “Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Histogenese der peripheren Nerven,” Beitr. z. path. Anat. u. z. allg. Path., Bd. xxvi., 1899, p. 190.Google Scholar
Kuntz, , “A Contribution to the Histogenesis of the Sympathetic Nervous System,” Anat. Record, vol. iii., 1909, p. 458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenhossek, , “Zur Frage der Entwickelung der periph. Nervenfasern,” Anat. Anzeiger, Bd. xxviii., 1906, p. 287.Google Scholar
Lewis, , “Experimental Evidence in Support of the Theory of the Outgrowth of the Axis-Cylinder,” Amer. Journ. of Anat., vol. vi., 1906–1907.Google Scholar
La Pegna, , “Su la genesi ed i rapporti reciproci degli elementi nervosi nel medullo-spinale di polio,” Annali di Nevrologia, 1904, f. 6Google Scholar
Robertson, Ford, Rev. Neurol. and Psychiat., vol. iii., 1905, p. 608.Google Scholar
Schaper, , “Die frühesten Differenzierungsvorgänge im Centralnervensystem,” Arcliiv für Entwickelungmech., Bd. v., 1897, p. 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultze, , (1) “Ueber die Entwickelung des peripheren Nervensystems,” Anat. Anzeiger, Erg. Heft, 1904, p. 3.Google Scholar
Schultze, , (2) “Beiträge zur Histogenese des Nervensystems,” Archiv für Mikr. Anat., Bd. lxvi., 1905, p. 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultze, , (3) “Zur Histogenese der peripheren Nerven,” Anat. Anzeiger, Erg. Heft, 1906, p. 179.Google Scholar
Sedgwick, , “On the Inadequacy of the Cellular Theory of Development and on the Early Development of Nerves,” Quart. Journ. of Microsc. Sc., vol. xxxvii., 1895, p. 87.Google Scholar
Alzheimer, , “Über die Degeneration u. Regeneration an der peripheren Nervenfaser,” Neurol. Centralbl., Bd. xxix., 1910, p. 715.Google Scholar
Ballance, and Stewart, , The Healing of Nerves, London, 1901.Google Scholar
Barfurth, , “Die Regeneration peripherer Nerven,” Anat. Anzeiger, Erg. Heft, Bd. xxvii., 1905, p. 160.Google Scholar
Besta, , “Sopra la degenerazione e regenerazione delle fibre nervose periferiche,” Riv. Sperim. di Frenatria, t. xxxii., 1906, p. 99; Neurol. Centralbl., Bd. xxv., 1906, p. 813.Google Scholar
Bethe, , “Neue Versuche über die Regeneration der Nervenfasern,” Archiv für die Physiol., Bd. cxvi., 1907, p. 385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bielschowsky, , (1) “Über der Bau der Spinalganglion unter normalen und pathol. Verhältnissen. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntniss der Regenerationvorgänge an Ganglionzellen und Nerven,” Journ. f. Psychol. u. Neurol., Bd. xi., 1908, p. 188.Google Scholar
Bielschowsky, , (2) “Über Regenerationserscheinungen an centralen Nervenfasern,” Journ. f. Psychol. u. Neurol., Bd. xiv., 1909, p. 131.Google Scholar
Cajal, , (1) “Les métamorphoses précoues des neurofibrilles dans la régénération et la dégénération des nerfs,” Travaux du Laboratoire de Recherches Biologiques, Madrid, t. v., 1907, p. 47.Google Scholar
Cajal, , (2) “Nouvelles observations sur l'évolution des Neuroblastes,” Travaux du Laboratoire de Recherches Biologiques, t. v., 1907, p. 169.Google Scholar
Cajal, , (3) “Die Histogenetisehen Beweise der Neuronentheorie von His und Forel,” Anat. Anzeiger, Bd. xxx, 1907, p. 113.Google Scholar
Durck, , “Untersuchungen über die path. Anat. der Beri-beri,” Beitr. z. path. Anat. u. z. allg. Path., Suppl., Bd. viii., 1908, p. 1.Google Scholar
Fickler, , (1) “Studien zur Path, und path. Anat. des Rückenmarkcompression bei Wirbelcaries,” Deut. Zeit. für Nervenheilk, Bd. xvi., 1900, p. 1.Google Scholar
Fickler, , (2) “Recherches expérimentelles sur l'anatomie de la Dégénération traumatique et la Régénération de la moelle épinière,” Deut. Zeit. für Nervenheilk, Bd. xxix., 1905, p. 1.Google Scholar
Fleming, , “The Peripheral Theory of Nerve Regeneration, with special reference to Peripheral Neuritis,” The Scottish Med. and Surg. Journal, vol. xi., 1902, p. 193.Google Scholar
Galeotti, and Levi, , “Ueber die Neubildung der hervösen Elemente in dem wiederzeugten muskelgewebe,” Beitr. z. path. Anat. u. z. allg. Path., Bd. xvii., 1895, p. 369.Google Scholar
Head, and Ham, , “The Process of Regeneration in an Afferent Nerve,” Journ. of Physiol., vol. xxxii., 1904–1905, p. 9 (Proc).Google Scholar
Head, Rivers, and Sherren, , “The Afferent Nervous System from a New Aspect,” Brain, 1905, vol. xxviii., p. 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, , (1) “Regeneration of Peripheral Nerves,” Trans. Royal Soc. Loud., 1897, B. 188, p. 257.Google Scholar
Kennedy, , (2) “On the Histological Changes occurring in Ununited Divided Nerves,” British Medical Journal, 1904 (2), p. 729.Google Scholar
Krassin, Von, “Zur Frage der Regeneration der periph. Nerven,” Anat. Anzeiger, Bd. xxviii., 1906, p. 449.Google Scholar
Langlby, and Anderson, , “On Autogenetic Regeneration in the Nerves of Limbs,” Journ. of Physiol., vol. xxxi., 1904, p. 418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapinsky, , “Über Degeneration u. Regeneration peripherischer Nerven,” Virchow's Archiv, Bd. clxxxi., 1905, p. 452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lugaro, , (1) “Zur Frage der autog. Regeneration der Nervenfasern,” Neurol. Centralbl., Bd. xxiv., 1905, p. 1143.Google Scholar
Lugaro, , (2) “Weiteres zur Frage der autog. Regeneration der Nervenfasern,” Neurol. Centralbl., Bd. xxv., 1906, p. 786.Google Scholar
Margulies, , “Zur Frage der Regeneration in einem dauernd von seinem Zentrum abgetrennten peripherischen Nervenstumpf,” Virchow's Archiv, Bd. 191, 1908, p. 94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marinesco, , “Recherches sur la Régénérescence autogène,” Revue Neurol., t. xiii., 1905, p. 1125.Google Scholar
Marinesco, and Minea, , (1) “Recherches sur la régénérescence des nerfs peripheriques,” Revue Neurol., t. xiv., 1906, p. 301.Google Scholar
Marinesco, and Minea, (2) “Recherches sur la régénérescence de la Moelle,” Nouvelle Icon, de la Salpétrière, t. xix., 1906, p. 417.Google Scholar
Miyake, , “Zur Frage der Regeneration der Nervenfasern im Zentralen Nervensystem,” Arb. a. d. Wiener Neurol. Inst., Bd. xiv., 1908, p. 1.Google Scholar
Modena, , “Die Degeneration u. Regen. des periph. Nerven nach Lesion desselben,” Arb. a. d. Wiener Neurol. Inst., Bd. xii., 1905.Google Scholar
Mott, Halliburton, and Edmunds, , “Regeneration of Nerves,” Journ. of Physiol., vol. xxxi., 1904, p. vii. (Proc.); Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., vol. lxxvii., 1906, p. 259.Google Scholar
Munzer, and Fischer, , “Giebt es eine autogene Regeneration der Nervenfasern?” Neurol. Centralbl., Bd. xxiv., 1905, p. 1013.Google Scholar
Nageotte, , “Régénération collatérale des fibres nerveuses terminées par les massues de croissance,” Nouv. Icon, de la Salpêtrière, t. xix., 1906, p. 217.Google Scholar
Perrero, , “Contribution à l'étude de la régénération des fibres nerveuses du système nerveux central de l'homme,” Arch. Ital. de Biol., t. liii., 1910, p. 21.Google Scholar
Perroncito, , “Die Regeneration der Nerven,” Beitr. z. path. Anat. u. z. ally. Path., Bd. xlii., 1907, p. 354.Google Scholar
Poscharisky, , “Über die histol. Vorgänge an den peripherischen Nerven nach Kontinuitätstrennung,” Beitr. z. path, Anat. u. z. allg. Path., Bd. xli., 1907, p. 52.Google Scholar
Raimann, , “Zur Frage der autog. Regeneration der Nervenfasern,” Neurol. Centralbl. Bd. xxv., p. 263.Google Scholar
Rossi, , “Processus régénératifs et dégénératifs consecutifs à des blessures aseptiques du système nerveux central,” Arch. Ital. de Biol., t. li., 1909, p. 413.Google Scholar
Stroebe, , “Experimentelle Untersuchungen über Degeneration und Regeneration peripherer Nerven nach Verletzungen,” Beitr. z. path. Anat. u. z. allg. Path., Bd. xiii., 1893, p. 160.Google Scholar
Barile, , “Struttura ed Histogenesi di un neuroma fibrillare mielinico,” Lo Sperimentale, t. lxiv., 1910, p. 269.Google Scholar
Beneke, , “Zwei Falle von Ganglioneurom.,” Beitr. z. path. Anat. u. z. allg. Path., Bd. xxx., 1901, p. 1.Google Scholar
Bisohofswerder, , “Névrornes intramédullaires,” Revue Neurol., t. ix., 1901, p. 178.Google Scholar
Busse, , “Ein grosses Neuroma gangliocellulare des Nervus sympathicus,” Virchow's Archiv., Bd. cli., Suppl., 1898, p. 66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dercum, and Spiller, , “Fibres nerveuses à myéline dans la pie-mére de la moelle épinière,” Revue Neurol. t. ix., 1901, p. 222.Google Scholar
Falk, , “Untersuchungen an einem wahren Ganglioneurom.,” Beitr. z. path. Anat. u. z. allg. Path., Bd. xl., 1907, p. 601.Google Scholar
Fickler, , “Studien zur Pathologie und path. Anat. der Rückenmarkcompression bei Wirbelcaries,” Dent. Zeit. für Nervenheilk., Bd. xvi., 1900, p. 1.Google Scholar
Froenkel, and Hunt, , “Tumours of the Ponto-Medullo-Cerebellar Space (Acoustic Neuromata),” Med. Record, vol. lxiv., 1903, p. 1001.Google Scholar
Hamilton, and Thomas, , “The Clinical Course and Pathological Histology of a Case of Neuroglioma of the Brain,” Journal of Exp. Med., vol. ii., 1897, p. 635.Google Scholar
Hauser, , “Des Névromes intramédullaires dans la Syringomyélie,” Revue Neurol., t. ix., 1901, p. 1098.Google Scholar
Hellich, , “Ueber die sogenannten Neurome und Leio-myome des Rückenmarks,” Arch, bohém. de méd. clin., iii., 1902, p. 261; Neurol. Centralbl., Bd. xxi., 1902, p. 1038.Google Scholar
Hebveroch, , “Tumeur de la moelle épinière dans un cas de Syringomyélie,” Revue Neurol., t. viii., 1900, p. 790.Google Scholar
Knauss, , “Zur Kenntniss der ächten Neurome,” Virchow's Archiv., Bd. cliii., 1898, p. 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nageotte, , “Note sur la présence de fibres à myéline dans la pie-mère spinale des tabétiques, en rapport avec la régénération de fibres radiculaires antérieures,” Comptes Rendus de la Soc. Biol., 1899, p. 738.Google Scholar
Oberndorfer, , “Beitrag zur Frage der Ganglio-neurome,” Beitr. z. path. Anat. u. z. allg. Path., Bd. xli., 1907, p. 269.Google Scholar
Orzechowski, , “Ein Fall von Missbildung des Lateral recessus,” Arb. aus dem neurol. Inst., Bd. xiv. p. 406.Google Scholar
Pick, , “Ueber umschrieben Wucherungen glatten muskelfasern an den Gefässen des Rückenmarks,” Neurol. Centralbl., Bd. xix., 1900, p. 194.Google Scholar
Raymond, , “Contribution à l'étude des tumeurs névrogliques de la moelle épiniére,” Arch, de Nenrologie, t. xxvi., 1893, p. 97.Google Scholar
Reich, , “Die Neuromenfrage,” Arb. a. d. neurol. Inst., Bd. xviii. p. 228.Google Scholar
Risel, , “Über multiple Ganglio-neurogliome der Gasserschen Ganglion und der Hirnnerven,” Verh. der deutsch. path. Gesellsehaft Jg. xiii., 1909.Google Scholar
Saxer, , “Anat. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der sogenannten Syringomyelie,” Beitr. z. path. Anat. u. z. allg. Path., Bd. xx., 1896, p. 332.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, , “Ueber das wahre Neurome des Rückenmarks,” Arb. a. d. neurol. Inst. d. Univ. Wien., Bd. iii., 1895, p. 171.Google Scholar
Schmincke, , “Beitrag zur Lehre der Ganglio-neurome,” Beitr. z. path. Anat. u. z. allg. Path., Bd. xlvii., 1910, p. 354.Google Scholar
Switalski, , “Ueber wahre Neurome des Rückenmarks und ihre Pathogenese,” Polnisches Archiv., Bd. ii. 1903, p. 158.Google Scholar
Thomas, Touche, and Jacob, , “Des Névromes de Régénération au cours du Mal de Pott,” Revue Neurol., t. ix., 1901, p. 708.Google Scholar
Thomson, (Alexis), On Neuroma and Neuro fibromatosis, Edin., 1900.Google Scholar
Verocay, , “Zur Kenntniss der ‘Neurofibrome,’” Beitr. z. path. Anat. u. z. allg. Path., Bd. xlviii., 1910, p. 1.Google Scholar
Wegelin, , “Über ein Ganglio-neurom des Sympathicus,” Beitr. z. path. Anat. u. z. allg. Path., Bd. xlvi., 1909, p. 403.Google Scholar
Wright, , “Neurocytoma or Neuroblastoma,” Journal of Exp. Med., vol. xii., 1910, p. 556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar