Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T12:25:46.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Origin of the Epiphysis Cerebri as a Bilateral Structure in the Chick

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2014

John Cameron
John Cameron
Affiliation:
United College, University of St Andrews
Get access

Extract

Till within recent years the epiphysis cerebri has been generally regarded as a mesial outgrowth from the roof of the thalamencephalon in Vertebrates. The researches of Béraneck (5), Dendy (11), Hill (17), and Locy (19), however, tend to demonstrate the fact that this structure arises in the form of two bilateral outgrowths; while Gaskell (12) has drawn attention to its bilateral nature in Ammocœtes. Some observations which the author made on the development of the epiphysis in Amphibia (8 and 9) were found to agree in the main with those of the above-mentioned workers. The present research was therefore undertaken with the view of corroborating the results which had been obtained in the Amphibia, and it was found that these received support in the case of the chick.

Type
Proceedings
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , 1906 , pp. 160 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1906

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

(1)Balfour, F. M., Comparative Embryology, vol. ii., 1881.Google Scholar
(2)Beard, J., “The Parietal Eye in Fishes,” Nature, vol. xxxvi., 1887, pp. 246 and 340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Beard, J., “The Parietal Eye of the Cyclostome Fishes,” Quart. Jour. Micr. Set., vol. xxix., 1888, p. 55.Google Scholar
(4)Béraneck, E., “Sur le nerf pariétal et la morphologie du troisième œil des Vertébrés,” Anat. Anz., Bd. vii., 1892, s. 674.Google Scholar
(5)Béraneck, E., “L'individualité de l'œil pariétal,” Anat. Anz., Bd. viii., 1893, s. 669.Google Scholar
(6)Burckhardt, R., “Die Homologien des Zwischenhirndaches, und ihre Bedeutung für die Morphologie des Hirns bei niederen Vertebraten,” Anat. Am., Bd. ix., 1894, s. 152.Google Scholar
(7)Burckhardt, R., “Die Homologien des Zwischenhirndaches bei Reptilien und Vögeln,” Anat. Anz., Bd. ix., 1894, s. 320.Google Scholar
(8)Cameron, J., “On the Origin of the Pineal Body as an Amesial Structure, deduced from the Study of its Development in Amphibia,” Anat. Anz., Bd. xxiii., 1905, s. 394. Also in Proc. Roy. Soe. of Edin., vol. xxiv., 1905, p. 572; and in Proc. Scot. Micr. Soc, vol. iii., 1905.Google Scholar
(9)Cameron, J., “On the Bilateral Origin of the Epiphysis in Amphibia,” Proc. of Brit. Assoa, 1905, Section D.Google Scholar
(10)Dendy, A., “Summary of the Principal Results obtained in a Study of the Development of the Tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus),” Proc. Roy. Soc, vol. lxiii., 1898, p. 440.Google Scholar
(11)Dendy, A., “On the Development of the Parietal Eye and Adjacent Organs in Sphenodon (Hatteria),” Quart. Jour. Micr. Sci., vol. xlii., 1899, p. 111.Google Scholar
(12)Gaskell, W. H., “On the Origin of Vertebrates from a Crustacean-like Ancestor,” Quart. Jour. Micr. Sci., vol. xxxi., 1890, p. 379..Google Scholar
(13)Graaf, H. W. de, “Zur Anatomie und Entwickelungsgeschichte der Epiphyse bei Amphibien und Reptilien,” Zool. Anz., Bd. ix., 1886, s. 191.Google Scholar
(14)Hill, C, “Development of the Epiphysis in Coregonus albus,” Jour, of Morph., vol. v., 1891, p. 503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(15)Hill, C, “The Epiphysis of Teleosts and Amia,” Jour, of Morph., vol. ix., 1894, p. 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(16)Leydig, F., “Das Parietal Organ der “Wirbelthiere,” Zool. Anz., Bd. x., 1887, s. 534.Google Scholar
(17)Locy, W. A., “The Derivation of the Pineal Eye,” Anat. Anz., Bd. ix., 1894, s. 169, s. 231.Google Scholar
(18)Locy, W. A., “The Mid-brain and the Accessory Optic Vesicles,” Anat. Anz., Bd. ix., 1894, s. 486.Google Scholar
(19)Locy, W. A., “Accessory Optic Vesicles in Chickembryo,” Abstract in Jour, of Roy. Micr. Soc, 1898.Google Scholar
(20)Marshall, A. M., “Vertebrate Embryology,” 1893.Google Scholar
(21)Prenant, A., “Sur l'œil pariétal accessoire,” Anat. Anz., Bd. ix., 1894, s. 103.Google Scholar
(22)Rabl-Rückhardt, H., “Zur Deutung der Zirbeldrüse (Epiphysis),” Zool. Anz., Bd. ix., 1886, s. 405.Google Scholar
(23)Ritter, W. E., “On the Presence of a Parapineal Organ in Phrynosoma,” Anat. Anz., Bd. ix., 1894, s. 766.Google Scholar
(24)Spencer, W. B., “The Parietal Eye of Hatteria,” Nature, vol. xxxiv., 1886, p. 559.Google Scholar
(25)Spencer, W. B., “Preliminary Communication on the Structure and Presence in Sphenodon and other Lizards of the Median Eye described by de Graaf in Anguis fragilis,” Proc. Roy. Soc, 1886, p. 559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(26)Spencer, W. B., “On the Presence and Structure of the Pineal Eye in Lacertilia,” Quart. Jour. Micr. Sci., vol. xxvii., 1886, p. 165.Google Scholar