The arrangement of the vessels in the membrane is shewn diagrammatically in Plate 38, fig. 49, while the characteristic form of the capillary plexus is represented in Plate 38, fig. 50.
The arterial supply appears to be derived from a vessel perforating the retina close to the optic nerve, and obviously homologous with the artery of the processus falciformis and pecten of Teleostei and Birds, and with the arteria centralis retinæ of Mammals. From this vessel branches diverge and pursue a course towards the periphery. They give off numerous branches, the blood from which enters a capillary plexus (Plate 38, figs. 49 and 50) and is collected again by veins, which pass outwards and finally bend over and fall into (Plate 38, fig. 49) a circular vein (cr.v.) placed at the outer edge of the retina along the insertion of the iris (ir). The terminal branches of some of the main arteries appear also to fall directly into this vein.
The membrane supporting the vessels just described is composed of a transparent matrix, in which numerous cells are embedded (Plate 38, fig. 50).
Development.—In the account of the first stages of development of Lepidosteus, the mode of formation of the optic cup, the lens, &c., have been described (vide Plates 35 and 36, figs. 23, 26, 35). With reference to the later stages in the development of the eye, the only subject with which we propose to deal is the growth of the mesoblastic processes which enter the cavity of the vitreous humour through the choroid slit.
Lepidosteus is very remarkable for the great number of mesoblast cells which thus enter the cavity of the vitreous humour, and for the fact that these cells are at first unaccompanied by any vascular structures (Plate 37, fig. 43, v.h). The mesoblast cells are scattered through the vitreous humour, and there can be no doubt that during early larval life, at a period however when the larva is certainly able to see, every histologist would consider the vitreous humour to be a tissue formed of scattered cells, with a large amount of intercellular substance; and the fact that it is so appears to us to demonstrate that Kessler's view of the vitreous humour being a mere transudation is not tenable.
In the larva five or six days after hatching, and about 15 millims. in length, the choroid slit is open for its whole length. The edges of the slit near the lens are folded, so as to form a ridge projecting into the cavity of the vitreous humour, while nearer the insertion of the optic nerve they cease to exhibit any such structure. The mesoblast, though it projects between the lips of the ridge near the lens, only extends through the choroid slit into the cavity of the vitreous humour in the neighbourhood of the optic nerve. Here it forms a lamina with a thickened edge, from which scattered cells in the cavity of the vitreous humour seem to radiate.
At a slightly later stage than that just described, blood-vessels become developed within the cavity of the vitreous humour, and form the vascular membrane already described in the adult, placed close to the layer of nerve-fibres of the retina, but separated from this layer by the hyaloid membrane (Plate 38, fig. 48, v.sh.). The artery bringing the blood to the above vascular membrane is bound up in the same sheath as the optic nerve, and passes through the choroid slit very close to the optic nerve. Its entrance into the cavity of the vitreous humour is shewn in Plate 38, fig. 48 (vs.); its relation to the optic nerve in Plate 37, fig. 46, C and D (vs.).
The above sheath has, so far as we know, its nearest analogue in the eye of Alytes, where, however, it is only found in the larva.
The reader who will take the trouble to refer to the account of the imperfectly-developed processus falciformis of the Elasmobranch eye in the treatise On Comparative Embryology, by one of us[520], will not fail to recognize that the folds of the retina at the sides of the choroid slit, and the mesoblastic process passing through this slit, are strikingly similar in Lepidosteus and Elasmobranchii; and that, if we are justified in holding them to be an imperfectly-developed processus falciformis in the one case, we are equally so in the other.
Johannes Müller mentions the absence of a processus falciformis as one of the features distinguishing Ganoids and Teleostei. So far as the systematic separation of the two groups is concerned, he is probably perfectly justified in this course; but it is interesting to notice that both in Ganoids and Elasmobranchii we have traces of a structure which undergoes a very special development in the Teleostei, and that the processus falciformis of Teleostei is therefore to be regarded, not as an organ peculiar to them, but as the peculiar modification within the group of a primitive Vertebrate organ.