Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:55:31.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neurogenesis and the Development of “Synapses”, with Particular Reference to the Conditions in Lepidosiren Paradoxa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2018

Tudor Jones
Tudor Jones*
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the appearance of von Baer's work on animal development in 1828 (1), the mode of origin and development of the nerves has been continuously under discussion. A vast number of observations has been made concerning the visible evidences presented by fixed and sectioned material, and very many experiments have been performed to elucidate the nature of the processes at work. Yet no account of nerve development has so far received general assent, and for some time the advantages ensuing from the adoption of an agreed opinion appear to have been allowed to work in favour of its acceptance. These advantages have been found to be academic rather than real. While the formulation of hypotheses is not a proceeding which can be stigmatized as unscientific or unsound, in the absence of useful developments their retention discourages inquiry. This discouragement is the more likely to occur when, as in neurology, more than a century of effort by many workers has not succeeded in establishing beyond question facts which are of fundamental importance. It is a reason why the central problems of neurogenesis have come to occupy a field not wholly favourable to fruitful discussion.

Type
Part I.—Original Articles
Information
Journal of Mental Science , Volume 84 , Issue 350-351 , May 1938 , pp. 451 - 494
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1938 

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

1 von Baer, K. E.—Ueber Entwicklungsgeschichte der Tiere, i, Königsberg, 1828.Google Scholar
2 His, W.—Die Neurcblasten und deren Entstehung im Embryonalen Mark, Leipzig, 1889.Google Scholar
3 Kerr, J. Graham—“On Some Points in the Early Development of Motor Nerve Trunks and Myotomes in Lepidosiren paradoxa (Fitz.),” Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., xli, pp. 119–127.Google Scholar
4 Held, H. —Die Entwicklung des Nervengeweber bei den Wirbeltieren, Leipzig, 1909.Google Scholar
5 Coghill, G. E.—Anatomy and the Problem of Behaviour, Cambridge, 1929.Google Scholar
6 Paton, Stewart.—“The Reactions of the Vertebrate Embryo to Stimulation and the Associated Changes in the Nervous System,” Mitteilungen a. d. Zoologisc. Sta. Neapel., 1907, xviii, pp. 2 and 3.Google Scholar
7 Kerr, J. Graham.—Normentafeln (Keibel), 1909, p. 10.Google Scholar
8 Kerr, J. Graham.—Text-book of Embryology, ii, London, 1919.Google Scholar
9 Agar, W. E.—“The Development of the Anterior Mesoderm and Paired Fins with their Nerves, in Lepidosiren and Protopterus,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., xlv, III (23), p. 611.Google Scholar
10 Ballantyne, F. M.—“The Continuity of the Vertebrate Nervous System : Studies on Lepidosiren paradoxa,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., liii, III (32), p. 663.Google Scholar
11 Harrison, Ross G.—“Neuroblast versus Sheath Cell in the Development of Peripheral Nerves,” J. Comp. Neurol., xxxvii, 1, p. 123.Google Scholar
12 Balfour, F. M.—Monograph on the Development of Elasmobranch Fishes, London, 1878.Google Scholar
13 Allis, E. P.—J. Morph., 1889, ii.Google Scholar
14 Pinkus, .—“Die Hirnnerven des Protopterus annectens,” Morph. Arbeit, 1895.Google Scholar
15 Jones, Tudor.—“The Structure and Mode of Innervation of Capillary Blood Vessels,” Amer. Journ. Anat., 1936, i, p. 58.Google Scholar
16 Jones, Tudor.—“The Primitive Conducting Mechanisms of the Vertebrate Heart,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., lvii, 1 (6), p. 225.Google Scholar
17 Kerr, J. Graham.—See (8), p. 500.Google Scholar
18 Kerr, J. Graham.—The Work of John Samuel Budgett, Cambridge, 1907.Google Scholar
19 Hertwig, .—Handbuch d. Entwicklungslehre, Jena, 1906.Google Scholar
20 Kerr, J. Graham.—See (8), p. 56.Google Scholar
21 Sedgwick, A.—Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci., 1884, xxiv.Google Scholar
22 Streeter, G. L.—Amer. Journ. Anat., 1905, iv.Google Scholar
23 Bouin, P.—Elements d'histologie, Paris, 1929.Google Scholar
24 Agduhr, E.—“Is the Post-embryonal Growth of the Nervous System Due only to an Increase in Size, or also to the Increase in the Number of Neurones?” Kon. Akad. v. Wet. te Amsterdam, 1919, xxvii.Google Scholar
25 Dart, R. A., and Shellshear, J. L.—“The Origin of the Motor Neuroblasts,” Journ. Anat., 1922, lvi (II), p. 77.Google Scholar
26 Miller, A. E.—“The Cleavage of the Egg of Lepidosiren paradoxa,” Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci., 1923, lxvii, (IV), p. 497.Google Scholar
27 Miller, A. E. (18), p. 218.Google Scholar
28 Jones, Tudor.—“A Note on the Evidence concerning the Minute Structure of Striped Muscle,” Journ. Anat., 1929, xiii, (1), p. 168.Google Scholar
29 Jones, Tudor.—“Behaviour of Bielschowsky-stained Neurofibrillæ between Crossed Nicols,” Nature, Apirl 2, 1932.Google Scholar
30 Cameron, John.—“The Development of the Vertebrate Nerve Cell,” Brain, 1906, cxv, p. 332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 Jones, Tudor.—See (16).Google Scholar
32 Jones, Tudor. (11).Google Scholar
33 Bartelmez, G. W.—“Mauthner's Cell and the Nucleus Motorius Tegmenti,” Journ. Comp. Neurol., 1915, xxv, p. 87.Google Scholar
34 Holmgren, and Horst, .—“Brain of Ceratodus,” Acta Zoolog., 1925, vi, p. 61.Google Scholar
35 Jones, Tudor.—See (29).Google Scholar
36 Da Fano, C.—J. Path., 1927, xxix, p. 500.Google Scholar
37 Noel, R.—“Sur un disposition vasculaire spécial observé au niveau des plaques motrices,” Bull. d'Hist., app. 3, (2), 1926.Google Scholar
38 Op. cit. (8).Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.