3), which might be taken for hyaline visual rods, fibers, in transverse section, but in such spaces I could usually see a small dot to one side of the space that I take to be the rod (fiber) proper. Fig. 14 also shows such small circular spaces that have very much the semblance of hyaline rods. This figure is a transverse section of the vitreous body of the proximal complex eye, in which no long pigment cells or pyramid cells are present, but it serves well to illustrate the point. The above explanation also accounts for the large size of the visual rods (fibers) in Schewiakoff’s figures. That the fibers of the pyramid cells (visual rods of Schewiakoff) do not extend to the lens is quite evident in my Figs. 4 and 7. Again, since the long pigment cells are often not seen to terminate in a fiber, but a part of the fiber can often be seen in the distal part of the vitreous body and in the capsule, it will be quite readily seen how Schewiakoff should associate his visual rods, or fibers, with these distal parts of the fibers of the long pigment cells and suppose his visual rods to extend to the lens. Again, since the long pigment cells sometimes cannot be seen to terminate distally in a fiber, while the vitreous body at the same time may be broken away from the pigmented zone (Fig. 4), it is quite evident how Schewiakoff should have interpreted the parts of the long pigment cells in the vitreous body as conical pigmented caps placed opposite his supporting cells (long pigment cells). Finally, since Schewiakoff had only twelve marginal bodies to study, and since this tissue is difficult to preserve properly, I do not believe that I am doing Schewiakoff any injustice by explaining away his results as I have done. This fact remains, that Conant and myself agree in all points in which we differ from Schewiakoff.