The development of the paraphysis in the common fowl

Franklin Dexter
1902 American Journal of Anatomy  
WITH 9 TEXT FIGURB~. The moment that one begins to examine the literature of this subject he cannot fail to be impressed with the difficulties which present themselves. The forebrain has been a favorite subject for study, consequently a great deal has been written on it, and so it is impossible to feel certain that all pertaining to it has been read. It has been considered from many points of view, by means of different methods, and has received many names, either when considered as a whole, or
more » ... ered as a whole, or in its subdivisions. It does not seem to me to be necessary to mention each individual paper which I have read, so propose to include only those in my list of literature which have an actual bearing upon this special subject. There is a difference of opinion in regard to the best subdivision of the forebrain, but all who have described it, as far as I know, take the velum transversum as its primary subdivider into an anterior division or prosencephalon, and a posterior dividon or diencephalon. The nomenclature lately proposed by Minot (9) although a trifle longer than that adopted by some writers, has the advantage of being more specific, and consequently I shall follow it, with the exception of the first subdivision. H e subdivides the median line of the diencephalic roof into eix divisions. First, the region of the post commissure. As he later points out in his paper, and I thoroughly agree with him, that this commissure is probably developed from the midbrain, and therefore should properly be considered as belonging to that region. Since this is probably the case, I see no reason for describing it as a portion of the diencephalic roof. We will therefore omit this subdivision, and will consider the posterior commissure as a part of the midbrain, and will subdivide the median line of the diencephalic roof into five regions:
doi:10.1002/aja.1000020103 fatcat:v4xbkb4jk5eyrbqna5mwe57tzi