鱼类三叉神经节的形态及神经节细胞的分布

目的:观察三叉神经节的形态结构及神经节细胞的分布。方法:用罗非鱼,进行40g/L甲醛灌注固定,观察三叉神经节的位置及分支分布,取三叉神经节,根及分支进行连续切片制作三维立体图像,观察神经节细胞的分布。结果:①三叉神经根在菱脑高度进出脑。②三叉神经节位于眼眶与颅腔之间的骨组织中。③从神经节发出的第一支(眼神经)通过眼眶的背侧分布于吻侧部,第二支(上颌神经)通过眼眶的腹侧分布于上颌部,第三支(下颌神经)通过眼眶的最腹侧分布于下颌部。④神经节细胞在神经节内背腹方向排列的一群细胞团。结论:罗非鱼三叉神经节是独立存在的,与其它鱼类的神经节有明显差异。     

猕猴属种间颅骨差异的探讨

为了研究狒猴属的颅骨差异性,从面探讨种间在形态、功能和系统分化方面联系,测定了１１１个猕猴种类的７７个颅骨变量,用于主成分分析和判别分析。应用巢式分析方法,分析过程包括３个步骤。所有变量根据功能和部位的不同首先分为７个单位：下颌、下颌齿、上颌齿、上面颅、下面颅,、面颅后部和颅腔。第２步根据它们所揭示的相似性（具有相同的种间及种内差异性类型）合并为３个解剖区域：咀嚼器官（下颌、下颌齿、上颌齿）,面颅     

川金丝猴冠状动脉的解剖

为了阐明金丝猴心脏冠状动脉的分支分布特征与血供情况,用血管铸型和组织透明方法观察了川金丝猴心脏左、右冠状动脉的分支分布情况。结果表明：川金丝猴心脏左冠状动脉分为前隆支和旋支。左缘支较粗,是前降支的主要分支,分支分布于左室侧壁和后壁的大部分。川金丝猴有单独的室间隔支,起于左冠状动脉前降支,供应室间隔的大部分。右冠状动脉分为动脉圆锥支、右室前支、右缘支及右室后支,其主干延续为后室间支。川金丝猴的前室间支由动脉圆锥支延续而来。冠状动脉在隔面的分布类型属均衡型。川金丝猴左心由左冠状动脉及其分支前降支和旋支提供营养,右心由右冠状动脉及其分支提供营养。     

人类胚胎三叉神经节细胞的局在性分布

目的:应用三维重建方法对人类胚胎三叉神经节细胞的局在性分布进行研究。方法:本研究选用非疾病死亡的引产胚胎标本8例,胎龄20-26周,在获取标本1-4小时内,对标本进行灌流固定。其中2例标本在手术显微镜下开颅取出三叉圣经节,石蜡包埋、冰冻切片、HE染色、光学显微镜下观察、照相,用三位重建技术制作三维立体图片。其余6例标本在手术显微镜下开颅、找出三叉神经三大分支眼神经、上颌神经及下颌神经,各选2例分别注入DiI结晶体、在37℃恒温箱内保存3个月,取出标本、明胶包埋、冰冻切片,在荧光显微镜下观察、照相,用三位重建技术制作三维立体图片。结果:(1)眼神经的节细胞分布于神经节的前内侧、下颌神经的节细胞在神经节的后外侧、上颌神经的节细胞位于眼神经和下颌神经节细胞之间。(2)上颌神经和下颌神经节细胞之间存在少量的重叠。结论:三叉神经节细胞在神经节内由前内侧向后外侧分别为眼神经、上颌神经、下颌神经的顺序排列;上颌神经和下颌神经的起始细胞之间存在少量的重叠现象;三维重建图片结果显示人胚胎三叉神经节细胞即眼神经、上颌神经及下颌神经的起始细胞存在明显的局在性分布特征。     

川金丝猴脊神经背侧支观察

本文较详细叙述了川金丝猴（Ｒｈｉｎｏｐｉｔｈｅｃｕｓｒｏｘｅｌｌａｎａｅ）脊神经背侧支的分支分布,并发现第４－７腰神经背内侧支有纤细分支于背侧正中线附近穿出供应皮肤,同时发现第１颈神经具有背侧根及脊神经节。此外,本文对背内、背外侧支的分布规律作了讨论。     

鳜牙齿形态结构及与不同种属间比较观察

牙齿是肉食性鱼类重要的摄食器官。为探究鳜(Siniperca chuatsi)牙齿形态结构,采用解剖镜观察了鳜牙齿分布、形态与数量。并比较其与大眼鳜(S. kneri)、斑鳜(S. scherzeri)及中国少鳞鳜(Coreoperca whiteheadi)牙齿差异。采用茜素红染色、组织切片、扫描电镜、X射线能谱及红外光谱观察并检测了鳜牙齿结构、元素组成和化学成分。结果显示,鳜牙齿具上颌齿、下颌齿、犁齿、腭齿和咽齿。其中,上颌齿前端有犬齿,其余为绒毛状齿;下颌齿最内列有犬齿,其余为绒毛状齿;犁齿、腭齿、咽齿均为绒毛状齿。鳜和大眼鳜下颌齿列数为3列,斑鳜和中国少鳞鳜为4列。茜素红染色显示,犬齿和绒毛状齿外层均为透明的牙釉质,内层为包裹髓腔的牙本质;组织切片显示,牙本质结构疏松,内有许多孔隙;牙尖部分形成牙釉质帽;中央为髓腔,内有牙髓组织。扫描电镜显示,犬齿和绒毛状齿表面均由釉柱组成,釉质层有釉柱横纹。X射线能谱显示,犬齿和绒毛状齿主要元素都为碳(C)、氧(O)、氮(N)、钙(Ca)和磷(P)。红外光谱显示,犬齿和绒毛状齿主要无机成分为碳酸羟基磷灰石。结果表明,鳜牙齿较发达,上、下颌齿有犬齿,犬齿和绒毛状齿结构与组成基本相似。     

辽宁早白垩世义县组一原始鸟脚类恐龙

初步记述了采自辽西地区早白垩世义县组新的原始鸟脚类恐龙化石材料,并依此建立一新属新种上园热河龙（Jeholosaurus shangyuanensis gen. et sp. nov.）。化石产于北票市上园镇陆家屯义县组下部第一段灰白色凝灰质砂岩中,同一层位产出过大量鹦鹉嘴龙化石。上园热河龙的主要鉴定特征包括6个前上颌齿,鼻骨背面发育小孔,前齿骨约为前上颌骨主体长度的1.5倍、未发育股骨前髁间沟、骨不在一平面上,第三趾趾节中第四节最长。上园热河龙具有一些真鸟脚类恐龙的近裔性状,比如眶前孔小,方骨孔大,位于方颧骨侧面,外下颌孔缺失。另外,上园热河龙的股骨近端形态非常接近进步的鸟脚类恐龙。但是上园热河龙发育有6个前上颌齿,上下颌关节处与齿列位于同一水平线,前上颌齿列与上颌齿列位于同一水平线,这些原始特征未见于已知鸟脚类恐龙。上园热河龙确切系统分类位置需要进一步确定。 上园热河龙是义县组中发现的第二种鸟臀类恐龙,增加了这类恐龙在热河生物群中的分异度。     

双峰驼趾部血管构筑的研究

采用血管内灌注颜料的方法和显微解剖学技术观察了１７条双峰驼后肢趾部的血管构筑,（１）在双峰驼未见有趾背侧固有动脉：（２）趾跖远轴侧固有动脉是趾跖轴侧固有动脉的近趾节跖侧支的直接延续,（３）趾跖侧第３总动脉是趾部的动脉主干;（４）在趾枕真皮中有一动脉网,在趾枕真皮和趾枕深筋膜之间有一发达的静脉网,（５）趾部的血液由外侧隐静脉的前支和趾跖侧第２－４总静脉导引,（６）趾枕真皮中动静脉吻合丰富,汗腺多而且     

ET-1神经分布异常与高血压鼠脑动脉神经源性调节的关系

目的探讨ET-1（Endothelin-1,ET-1）能神经纤维分布与高血压鼠脑血管的神经源性调节的关系,探讨ET-1神经是否参与高血压时期脑血流的调节。方法应用免疫组织化学技术观察自发性高血压鼠和Wistar正常血压鼠脑底动脉（包括大脑前动脉、大脑中动脉、大脑后动脉和基底动脉）ET-1能神经纤维的分布密度和走行方式。结果自发性高血压鼠和Wistar正常血压鼠脑底动脉均可见棕褐色的ET-1能免疫反应阳性纤维,似细线状,攀附于血管壁上,自发性高血压鼠脑底动脉各主要分支ET-1能免疫反应阳性纤维密度较Wistar正常血压鼠明显增加,纤维走行大多呈网状。结论实验结果提示自发性高血压鼠脑底动脉增加的ET-1能免疫反应阳性纤维可能与脑血管的神经源性调节有关;高密度的ET-1能神经纤维可能涉及高血压时期脑血流的调节。     

江豚腰尾神经的解剖学研究

江豚脊神经式：Ｃ８Ｔ１３Ｌｃ２３。脊神经腹根较背根粗;腰尾神经根入入脊髓时呈内、外侧两束或单束连于脊神经节。背支与腹支分别分布于水平隔上方和下方。背支中的肌支分布至升尾肌（背棘肌、背最长肌、髂肋肌和尾上肌）。腹支在椎体两侧横突间,分支数目少于背支,其肌支分布至降尾肌（尾下肌、轴下肌和坐导肌）。Ｌｃ７￣Ｌｃ１０神经腹支形成异常粗大的外阴神经,并有掌状分支至坐尾肌;Ｌｃ１０￣Ｌｃ２０神经腹支在脊柱腹面     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor