spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    


J Embryol Exp Morphol 4, 57-65 (1956)
Published by The Company of Biologists 1956
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Saxén, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Saxén, L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Initial Formation and Subsequent Development of the Double Visual Cells in Amphibia

Lauri Saxén1

Zoological Laboratory of the University of Helsinki

1 Author's address: Zoological Laboratory, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.

Received for publication 31 May 1955.

SUMMARY

In 1867 Schultze described the main types of visual cell in the vertebrates, the rod and the cone, and one year later a third type, the double cone. The two first-mentioned types have subsequently been the objects of a large number of investigations; hence their structure, development, and function are largely understood. On the other hand, the double cells have attracted surprisingly little interest. Many writers apparently do not know of their existence, whilst others mention them only as a rarity, not deserving of particular study. Physiologists, too, speak only of rods and cones, without crediting the double cells with any specific function. The very fact, however, that double cells are extremely common in the vertebrates and compose, as a rule, a considerable proportion of the retinal receptors, should be sufficient evidence that they are not an insignificant rarity, and still less artefacts, as has sometimes been alleged.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?





© The Company of Biologists Ltd 1956