Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-54gsr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-07T14:08:17.549Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Origin of the Pineal Body as an Amesial Structure, deduced from the study of its Development in Amphibia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2014

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

Extract

The pineal body or epiphysis has provided a favourite subject of study for many workers at research, and much discussion has arisen with regard to both its ontogeny and its phylogeny. Up to within recent years this structure proved a sort of enigma, and its true significance was not really understood until the researches of De Graaf (15) and Baldwin Spencer (27) during the eighties. Since then an extensive amount of work has been published on the subject, so that it almost appeared quite unnecessary for one to again enter upon this field of research.

Information

Type
Proceedings
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 24 , 1904 , pp. 572 - 581
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1904

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature

(1)Balfour, F. M., Comparative Embryology, vol. ii., 1881, p. 418.Google Scholar
(2)Beard, J., “The Parietal Eye in Fishes,” Nature, vol. xxxvi., 1887, pp. 246 and 340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Beard, J., “Morphological Studies.–I. The Parietal Eye of the Cyclostome Fishes,” Quart. Jour. Micr. Sci., vol. xxix., p. 55.Google Scholar
(4)Béraneck, E., “Parietal Eye and Nerve,” Abstract in the Jour. of the Roy. Micr. Soc., 1892, p. 761.Google Scholar
(5)Bernard, H. M., “An Attempt to deduce the Vertebrate. Eyes from the Skin,” Quart. Jour. Micr. Sci., vol. xxxix., 1897, p. 343.Google Scholar
(6)Burckhardt, B., “Die Homologien des Zwischenhirndaches und ihre Bedeutung ftir die Morphologie des Hirns bei nie deren Vertebraten,” Anatom. Anzeiger, Bd. ix., 1894, p. 152.Google Scholar
(7)Burckhardt, E., “Die Homologien des Zwischenhirndaches Lei Eeptilien und Vogeln,” Anat. Am., Bd. ix., 1894, p. 320.Google Scholar
(8)Burckhardt, E., “Der Bauplan des Wirbelthiergehirns,” Morpholog. Arbeit., 1894, Bd. iv. p. 131.Google Scholar
(9)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
(10)Dendy, A., “Outlines of the Development of the Tuatara, Sphenodon (Hatteria) Punctatus,” Quart. Jour. Micr. Sci., vol. xlii., 1899, p. 1.Google Scholar
(11)Dexter, F., “The Development of the Paraphysis in the Common Fowl,” Amer. Jour. of Anatomy, vol. ii. p. 13.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)Gaskell, W. H., Opening Address, Physiolog. Sect., British Association, Nature, vol. liv., 1896, p. 551.Google Scholar
(14)Gaskell, W. H., “On the Origin of Vertebrates, deduced from the Study of Ammocoetes,” Jour, of Anat. and Physiology, vol. xxxii., 1898, p. 573, aud vol. xxxv., 1901, p. 224.Google Scholar
(15)De Graff, H. W., “Zur Anatomie und Entwickelung der Epiphyse bei Amphibien und Reptilien,” Zoolog. Am., Bd. ix., 1886, p. 191.Google Scholar
(16)Hill, C, “Development of the Epiphysis in Coregonus Albus,” Jour, of Morphology, vol. v., 1891, p. 503.Google Scholar
(17)Hill, C, “The Epiphysis of Teleosts and Amia,” Jour, of Morphology, vol. ix., 1894, p. 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(18)Leydig, F., “Das Parietalorgan der Wirbelthiere,” Zoolog. Anzeiger, Bd. x., 1887, p. 534.Google Scholar
(19)Locy, W. A., “The Derivation of the Pineal Eye,” Anat. Anzeiger, Bd. ix., 1894, pp. 169 and 231.Google Scholar
(20)Locy, W. A., “The Mid-Brain ami the Accessory Optic Vesicles,” Anat. Anzeiger, Bd. ix., 1894, p. 486.Google Scholar
(21)Looy, W. A., “Accessory Optic Vesicles in Chick Embryo,” Abstract in Jour. of the Roy. Micr. Soc., Feb. 1898.Google Scholar
(22)Marshall, A. M., “Vertebrate Embryology,” 1893, p. 123.Google Scholar
(23)Minot, C. S., “On the Morphology of the Pineal Region, based upon its Development in Acanthias,” Amer. Jour, of Anatomy, vol. i. p. 81.Google Scholar
(24)Prenant, A., “Sur l'ceil parietal accessoire,” Anat. Anzeiger, Bd. ix., 1894, p. 103.Google Scholar
(25)Ritter, W. E., “On the Presence of a Parapineal Organ in Phrynosoma,” Anat. Anzeiger, vol. ix., 1894, p. 776.Google Scholar
(26)Rabl-Ruckhard, H., “Zur Deutung der Zirbeldrüse,” Zoolog. Anzeiger, Bd. ix., 1886, p. 405.Google Scholar
(27)Spencer, W. B., “On the Presence and Structure of the-Pineal Eye in Lacertilia,” Quart. Jour. Micr. Sei., vol. xxvii., 1887,. p. 165.Google Scholar
(28)Spencer, W. B., “The Parietal Eye of Hatteria,” Nature, vol. xxxiv., 1886, p. 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(29)Spencer, W. B., “Preliminary Communication on the Structure and Presence in Sphenodon and other Lizards of the Median Eye described by von Graaf in Angius Fragilis,” Proc. of the Roy. Soc., 1886, p. 559.Google Scholar
(30)Thomas, A. P. W., “Preliminary Note on the Development of the Tuatara (Sphenodon Punctatus), Proc. of the Roy. Soc, vol. xlviii., 1890, p. 152.Google Scholar