[233] I believe that Götte, amongst his very numerous valuable remarks in the Entwicklungsgeschichte der Unke, has put forward a view similar to this, though I cannot put my hand on the reference.
[234] The difference between Dr Götte's account of the development of the muscles and my own consists mainly in my attributing to the somatic layer of the muscle-plates a share in the formation of the great lateral muscles, which he denies to it. In an earlier section of this Monograph, pp. [333], [334], too much stress was unintentionally laid on the divergence of our views; a divergence which appears to have, in part at least, arisen, not from our observations being opposed, but from Dr Götte's having taken the highly differentiated Bombinator as his type instead of the less differentiated Elasmobranch.
[235] Das Kopfskelet d. Selachier, p. 123.
[236] Entwicklungsgeschichte d. Unke, pp. 433-4.
[237] Zeitschrift f. Wiss. Anat. Bd.XXV., Supplement.
[239] None of my specimens resembles this figure, and the layer when first formed is in my embryos much thinner than represented by Gegenbaur, and the histological structure of the embryonic cartilage is very different from that of the cartilage in the figures alluded to. Götte's very valuable researches with reference to the origin of this layer in Amphibians tend to confirm the view advocated in the text.
[240] In the adult Scyllium it is well known that the posterior root pierces the intercalated cartilage and the anterior root the true neural arch. This however does not seem to be the case in the embryo at stage P.
[241] A good representation of a longitudinal section at this stage is given by Cartier (Zeitschrift f. Wiss. Zoologie, Bd. XXV., Supplement Pl. IV. fig. 1), who also gives a fair description of the succeeding changes of the vertebral column.
[242] Jenaische Zeitschrift, Vol. VI.