RESEARCHES 
INTO THE 
PHYSIOLOGY OF THE BRAIN 
BY 
EUGENE M. D., 
CORRESPONDING MEMBER OF THE SOCIKTE DE BIOLOGIE OF PARIS; MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN NECRO- 
LOGICAL ASSOCIATION; 1st VICE PRESIDENT OF THE N. Y. NECROLOGICAL SOCIETY, ETC. 
\ REPRINTED, WITH CORRECTIONS, FROM TI1E LONDON MEDICAL TIMES AND 
GAZETTE, Nos. 1410, 1411. 1413,1422 and 1427.—1877.] 
NEW YORK: 
G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS 
182 FIFTH AVENUE. 
1878. RESEARCHES 
INTO THE 
PHYSIOLOGY OF THE BRAIN 
BY 
EUGfeNE DUPUY, M. D„ 
CORRESPONDING MEMBER OF THE SOCIETK DE BIOLOGIE OF PARIS; MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN NECRO- 
LOGICAL ASSOCIATION; 1st VICE president of the n. w. necrological society, etc. 
fREPRINTED, WITH CORRECTIONS, FROM THE LONDON MEDICAL TIMES AND 
GAZETTE, Noa. 1410,1411. 1413,1432 and 142T.—1877.] 
NEW YORK: 
G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS, 
182 FIFTH AVENUE. 
1878. A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE 
PREVAILING THEORIES CONCERNING 
THE PHYSIOLOGY AND THE PATHOLOGY OF THE BRAIN: 
LOCALISATION OF FUNCTIONS, AND MODE OF PRODUCTION 
OF SYMPTOMS. 
RESEARCHES INTO THE PHYSIOLOGY 
OF THE BRAIN. 
Our knowledge of the functions of the brain, although extensive, is so 
inaccurate, the attempts made by different authors to elucidate some of the 
most important problems of cerebral physiology are so one-sided, and the 
writers for the most part appear to have been so much influenced one by 
another, on account of the numerous difficulties lying in the way of con- 
trolling by experiment the experimental data, added to the natural disin- 
clination of most men to undertake the tedious labour of critical investiga- 
tions, that both physicians and physiologists have come to accept most 
eagerly any work written by any author who ignores all doubt as to the abso- 
lute truth of his theories, as an inexhaustible mine of arguments and facts 
for the support of their own speculations, and in this manner they elevate 
such an author to the position of a universally accepted authority. 
Such has already been the fortune of Dr. Ferrier, and it is for that 
reason that I undertake to write the present review of the whole question 
of localisation of functions in the brain. 
We have in Dr. Ferrier’s book(a) all the experimental data discovered 
both by Fritzsch and Hitzig,(b) and later by Dr. Ferrier. These data have 
led those physiologists to bring forward this doctrine, which is, unequally 
expressed in their respective books : that the cortex cerebri is a region 
which can be excited into activity by electrical stimuli ; that each and 
every convolution of the brain contains one and more centres, the anterior 
and antero-parietal convolutions contain centres which govern motion, and 
the posterior and postero-parietal convolutions contain centres for common 
and special sensations. The existence of all these centres can be made ap- 
parent by irritating the areas of the cortex with electricity. Dr. Ferrier has 
even gone further than Hitzig, for besides the sensory centres he describes 
also centres of inhibition, of visceral sensation, of the senses of thirst, hun- 
(a) David Ferrior, Functions of the Brain.” 1876. 
(b) Ilitzig, “ Untorsuchuugen u. das Gehirn,” 1871. 4 
ger, etc. All those experimental facts, however, were known to the profes- 
sion before their appearance in book form. Those of Dr. Ferrier have 
attracted so much attention from the very beginning, that we have since 
read every day of pathological cases and othei facts which are said to find 
their true interpretation in the theories of that physiologist, at the same time 
that they are constantly being published with the view of strengthening the 
deductions arrived at by him. 
Dr. Ferrier has made the doctrine of localisation of functions in the 
brain almost his own. He has so elaborately varied the former experiments 
of Fritzsch and Hitzig—the experimental starting-point of localisation of 
functions in the brain,—and so laboriously contrived to support by his dis- 
coveries the very original deductions of Dr. Hughlings-Jackson,—all with 
such partial success,—that I very sincerely believe his book to be a new 
departure in experimental cerebral physiology. It is therefore not without 
hesitation that I presume to offer some points of criticism on the deductions 
contained in Dr. Ferrier’s work. I think that the facts which I am enabled 
to bring forward belong to the other side,—Dr. Ferrier having, notwithstand- 
ing his high merits, fallen into the common error of being I 
desire only to present some facts which cannot be interpreted by the theories 
ot Drs. Ferrier and Hitzig—some deductions which, if they are logically 
deducted from true premises, as 1 believe, cannot be explained by the theo- 
ries of Rughlings-Iackson. 
I shall take successively, and in the same order, as far as I can, as they 
are put forth by him, the points on which I differ from Dr. Ferrier. I have 
in the beginning to take issue with him on his exposition of the anatomy of 
the medulla oblongata. This point is not without great importance. The 
decussation of the conductors of motor impulses, in the anterior pyramids, 
goes strongly to support the principal deductions of Dr. Ferrier. But it so 
happens that in man, as in the other animals, the conductors of the order of 
the will to the muscles do not decussate entirely in the anterior pyramids. 
Few of these conductors decussate there, and superficially too. Before the 
demonstration of that fact by Sappey and Duval,(c) the experiments of 
Schiff, Vulpian, and Philippeaux,(d) and a few cases of lesion of one pyra- 
mid without loss of motion in man, constituted strong evidence of the fallacy 
of the accepted teaching. The cases, therefore, which I shall adduce further 
—of lesions of different parts of one hemisphere causing paralysis of motion 
on the corresponding side of the body instead of the opposite—will not be 
disposed of (to suit his theory) by Dr. Ferrier, on the ground that they are 
exceptional, “just as there are exceptions to the rule that the heart is situated 
to the left and the liver to the right.” And, even were it so, 1 have collected 
some cases which I shall adduce further, and which militate against such 
an assumption. 
The next subject refers to reflex actions. I take notice of the fact, ac- 
cepted by Dr. Ferrier, that the reflex action which would otherwise result 
from a stimulus is altogether restrained or inhibited if a sensory nerve in 
some other part of the body is simultaneously irritated. Also that he at- 
tempts to weaken Pfluger’s doctrine of psychical or intelligent action on the 
part of the spinal cord. His arguments are those of Goltz and others. 
Ptliiger’s doctrine is the same which was most forcibly advocated, chiefly 
by Legallois, Dug£s, of Montpellier, and latterly illustrated by some clever 
experiments of Vulpian. The weight of arguments and facts given by some 
authors goes to show that in man, if not as clearly substantiated as in other 
(c) Sappey and Duval, C, K. Soci6t6 de Biologie, 1870 passim. 
(d) Vulpian and Philippoauz, C. R. Soci6t6 do Biologic, 180. 5 
animals, the doctrine is virtually true. The deductions arrived at by Durand 
de Gros,(e) and latterly by Claude Bernard,(f) are proof of what I advance. 
The counter-experiments of Goltz are susceptible of another explanation 
that given them than by him. He did not eliminate this great source of error, 
which is disposed of by careful differentiation of phenomena due to irritation 
from those due to loss of function. The inhibitory action of the spinal cord 
upon itself is not considered; no more is the different influence of each and 
every part of the cerebrum upon the medulla oblongata, and also the result 
of ablation of that last organ, considered as a respiratory and circulatory 
centre, which has strong tearing on the point at issue. For the manifesta- 
tions of their functions, parts are entirely dependent upon the properties of 
their tissues, and the properties of the tissues are a mere result of their nu- 
trition. It is out of place to argue at any length on that subject just now; but 
not so, however, to remember the acceptance by Dr. Ferrier of the theory of 
physiological association in the spinal cord between the centres of move- 
ments of the same kind in both limbs, due either to their commissural con- 
nexions or the organisation of past experience.” There are certain experi- 
ments of Weir Mitchell,(g) which he quotes for another purpose, but which 
I think can receive explanation by that theory. Weir Mitchell has seen that 
on suddenly faradising the brachial plexus in a case of amputation of the 
shoulder-joint, in which all consciousness of the limb had long since 
vanished, the patient said at once, “ My hand is there again; it is all bent 
up ; it hurts me.” Ferrier says that the explanation of these curious 
phenomena is correctly given by Weir Mitchell, who writes that the excita- 
tion of the sensory nerves calls up in idea the correlated movement—i.e., the 
movement which in the actuality of past experience had coincided with the 
sensation now revived by the faradic stimulus. I believe that this important 
fact, together with the theory offered in explanation, comes within the theory 
of Legallois, of Dug&s, of Pfluger, and others. I may be mistaken. I only 
put in apposition Legallois, Dug£s and Pfluger’s experiments with that of 
Weir Mitchell. It is a landmark of which the utility will be seen when I 
come to examine Dr. Ferrier’s views on the nature of conscious sensation. 
It seems to me even now, however, that if he considers that experiment of 
Weir Mitchell together with the explanation offered, he accepts implicitly the 
doctrine of psychical or intelligent action on the spinal cord. In science we 
have to take the consequences of our logical deductions; and it is not con- 
trary to sound logic to say that the phenomena of memory and “partant” of 
volition can be explained by the theory of the “ organisation of past ex- 
perience.” When an impression is transmitted towards the centre it reaches 
a group of nerve-cells. These cells only become affected by the impression 
through a nutritive process. Now, if an impression is frequently sent through 
one channel, to one centre, it happens that that centre becomes more and 
more apt to be affected by that impression. We know, on the other hand, 
that nerve-cells are not permanent structures any more than other structures, 
—they are potentially permanent. The process of nutrition, i.e., assimilation 
and disassimilation, make all structures imperceptibly but constantly undergo 
a process ot destruction and reconstruction, so that after the lapse of some 
period we happen to have a cell materially different from the first one (the 
materials of which it is made, however, being composed of the same ele- 
ments), yet endowed with the same function, but better adapted. It is un- 
necessary for me to dilate on that subjet. Let me give an illustration. 
The respiratory function is carried on through a reflex process. Our volun- 
(e) Durand (do Gros), ‘‘Electro-Dynamisme vital,” “ Les Origines animalos do 
I’Hommo,” “Du Polyzo'ismo,” etc. __ 
(f) Claude Bernard, “ Discours do Reception 3, l’Acad6mio Frangaiso.” 
(g) Weir Mitcholl, “ Injuries of Norvos,” otc., p. 359. 6 
tary control over the respiratory movements is of a limited extent. If the 
inspiration is delayed beyond a certain period, the besoin de respirer be- 
comes so urgent that voluntary control is no longer capable of restraining 
the reflex or automatic activity of the respiratory centres. Dr. Ferrier very 
nicely puts it—“Respiratory movements may continue after all afferent 
nerves connected with the centre have been divided. In this case there is 
a true automatic activity conditioned by the state of the blood itself. 
The diminution of oxygen and accumulation of oxidation products in the 
blood act as a stimulus to the inspiratory centre, and this again reflexly 
excites the expiratory movements. When the blood is artificially hyperox- 
ygenated, the movements of respiration come to a complete standstill— 
a condition termed apnoea. Non-aeration of the blood, resulting from ob- 
struction of the function of respiration, powerfully excites the movements 
both of inspiration and expiration; and ultimately, if the obstruction is 
not overcome, causes general convulsions of the whole body, as in as- 
phyxia.” Brown-Sdquard has the merit of having been the first to establish 
that theory on experimental data more than twenty years ago. It is clear 
that the besoin de respirer, which is supposed to overcome the force used 
by the will in order to stop inspiration, is not a force. The will is not 
overcome by another force. The will, considered physiologically, must have 
its seat in anatomical structures; and anatomical structures cannot fulfil 
their functions when their nutrition becomes impaired. Therefore, the force 
of the will disappears as soon as the conditions of existence of the will are 
altered, and the automatic activity which governs the respiratory function 
comes into play. That automatic activity is organised past experience. But 
I do not intend to enlarge on that subject. I am only dealing with it in the 
physiological point of view; not the metaphysical. 
After considering the nature of reflex action, I come to speak of equili- 
brium. As I differ from Dr. Ferrier on the preceding subject, I am driven 
to dirier from him again when he states that, “ without the labyrinthine im- 
pressions, optic and tactile impressions are of themselves unable to excite 
the harmonious activity of the sense of equilibrium.” The sense of touch 
and the sense of sight are made subservient to a sense of equilibrium, Goltz 
has the credit for the discovery of that new sense. But, is there a sense of 
equilibrium? and is there a centre of equilibrium in the encephalon? It 
would have been good first to establish in the most irrefutable manner 
the existence of that sense; but this I consider that the experiments 
of Goltz and his followers fail to do. They can be interpreted in ano- 
ther and more rational manner: they must, in fact, be interpreted in that 
other manner. To say nothing of the experiments of Brown-Sdquard(h) 
and the deductions which he has drawn from them, I will only say that 
Cyon(i) has proved beyond dispute that the labyrinth is not a centre of equi- 
librium. He has at the same time, therefore, given the true explanation of 
Goltz’s experiments. Cyon shows that those disorders of the motor appara- 
tus induced by operations on the semicircular canals do not occur in a uni- 
form manner in different species of animals. In frogs these disorders are 
almost exclusively limited to the muscles of the trunk; in pigeons, the mus- 
cles of the head are those principally involved; in rabbits, those of the eye- 
balls. Each semicircular canal influences in a special manner the move- 
ments of the eyeballs. The excitation of one canal always produces ocular 
movements in the two eyes; but in the eyeball on the opposite side to 
the canal operated upon the movements take place in a contrary way to 
those on the same side. The pupil contracts on the side of the operation, 
(h) Brown-Sequard, “Experimental Researches applied to Physiology and Pathology” 
1853, paga 189; and elsewhere. (i) Cyon, Oaz. Med,, de Paris, 1870, page 201. 7 
and remains dilated on the opposite side. The oscillatory movements which 
follow tetanic contractions of the muscles of the eyeballs after irritation of 
the canals disappear when the acoustic nerve on the sound side is divided. 
When a rabbit, having had section of both acoustic nerves performed, is 
put on a rotating plane describing rotatory movements, the same phenomena 
are observed which have been described by Purkinje, and which lately have 
ve been made the object of interesting researches by Mach. This proves 
that those phenomena do not arise from the displacement of the endo-lymph 
of the semicircular canals, as that physicist laboured to show. The pheno- 
mena of Purkinje are due to cerebral disorders produced by grave altera- 
tion of the circulation which the animals undergo, in the experiment refer- 
red to, chiefly in intracranial vessels farthest from the axis of rotation, (k) 
I have to examine now the functions of every cerebral organ taken indi- 
vidually. The optic lobes, or corpora quadrigemina, come first. It is unne- 
cessary to draw conclusions based upon facts of comparative anatomy. Dr. 
Ferrier says “that with the view of breaking up these ganglia in the monkey 
he passed a wire cautery in a horizontal direction through the anterior occi- 
pital fissure, so as to traverse the nates or anterior tubercles of the corpora 
quadrigemina. The result of the procedure was that the nates were ploughed 
up and disorganised by the cautery.” Dr. Ferrier thinks that the concomit- 
ant lesions of the hemisphere had nothing to do with the causation of the 
follwing phenomena. The animal was rendered completely blind.(\) The 
tests applied, however, leave room for some doubt in my mind as to the 
completeness of the loss of sight; for Dr. Ferrier adds, “The pupils were 
dilated and inactive. the left somewhat more than the right.” I am of 
opinion that the dilatation of the pupils beyond the normal limit of dilatation 
is sufficient to prevent the animal from distinguishing objects. I am careful 
not to say that it destroys sight. The sense of sight may be, or may not be, 
lost in the experiment reported above. All I know is this: that I have seen 
a person unable to write, to read, to distinguish anything upon a table cover- 
ed with books and instruments beyond a mass, all because he had taken by 
mistake a toxic dose of belladonna, and suffered consequently with dilata- 
tion of the pupil. Oculists have frequent occasion of treating persons who 
cannot see, not through loss of the sense of sight, but through paralysis of 
the ciliary muscle. I have seen also cats, on which I had performed the 
operation of tying the ends of very fine and long copper wire conductors of a 
faradic machine to both first cervical sympathetic ganglia, become unable 
to distingnish objects, their pupils being excessively dilated by the opera- 
tion. These cats could not find their way in the room; they struck at every 
piece of furniture. I do not desire to be understood to say that the optic 
ganglia and their ganglionic appendages have no relation with the sense of 
sight; I wish only to show that, at the very least, the inability to see for the 
animals operated upon by Dr. Ferrier can be explained by another cause than 
the one he urges; that there was no incapacity through destruction of a 
centre, but through perversion of the external organs of sight. The reasons 
for this view of mine are obvious. It should have been proved first that the 
sense of sight is localised in the parts destroyed by the wire cautery, because, 
as matters stand now, there is begging the question. Nor are other ex- 
periments of Dr. Ferrier’s more conclusive. When he irritated with electri- 
city the exposed optic thalami and corpora quadrigemina, he observed, 
(k) The hypotheses of Goltz, Mach, and Crum-Brown would have much more value 
than they have if they did not consist, as they do, in bogging the question; for it is as- 
sumed that, the liquid of Ootugno does not entirely fill the ampullae. That point i» not granted. 
Therefore, it is not possible to consider their hypotheses any longer; because, if the liquid 
fills the ampulla) ontirely, there can be no notion of direction convoyed. 
(l) The italics throughout are ruino, except whon otherwise indicated. 8 
besides the dilatation of the pupils, movements also. If this experiment proves 
anything, it proves that the parts acted upon are centres for general move- 
ments of the body, as well as for other functions. We know that the cor- 
pora quadrigemina when irritated have a powerfull effect on the viscera. 
Pathological cases up to this time throw a very dim light on the obscurity 
which still exists concerning the special function or functions of the thalami 
optici. We know nothing more certain on that subject now than when Vulpian 
wrote ten years ago that we knew nothing certain concerning them. 
I suppose that the functions of the cerebellum are investigated next be- 
cause of the relation which exists in the mind of Dr. Ferrier between the 
sensory centres, the optic bodies, and the corpora quadrigemina, and the 
cerebellum as co-ordinating centre. I shall say little concerning the ce- 
rebellum. Experiments very carefully conducted have shown that it 
can be removed entirely, and yet the animals spontaneotisly execute all the 
movements of the eyeballs, which, Dr. Ferrier thinks, are incited from that 
organ. Ollivier and Leven (m) have show that pricks in any part of the ce- 
rebellum will give rise to a variety of motor symptoms in the eyeballs—a 
variety of such a kind, that it is impossible to associate any special order of 
motor phenomena with a particular lesion. Diseases have given us cases 
ot all kinds, but none are more obscure than those of the cerebellum. I 
have also seen that irritation of the dura mater in the neighbourhood of the 
pons, in an animal deprived of the greater part of the cerebrum and cerebel- 
lum, and which has not lost too much blood, will give rise to motor pheno- 
mena of the eyeballs identical with those observed by Dr. Ferrier after irri- 
tating the cerebellum. Luys(n) has reported two cases, with autopsy, of 
deafness of long standing. He saw at the autopsy that the acoustic nerves, 
in each of the two cases, were destroyed on both sides. He followed the 
degeneration through the posterior portion of the optic thalami up to the 
fourth ventricle, and also the cuneiform convolusions of the occipital lobule. 
But he writes, “ Sections of the cerebellum and of the protuberance, examin- 
ed in the same manner [microscopically, for he speaks of the neuroglia 
being diseased?], showed no particularity to mention.” He believes, there- 
fore, that the centres of these nerves are in the occipital lobules. His testi- 
mony, on account of the eminence which he has gained as an advocate of 
localisation, is of value, but it seems to me to be right against Dr. Ferrier’s 
theories, as will be made still more apparent further on. What I have said 
above, and the experiments of Cyon, impel me to reject altogether Dr. Fer- 
rier’s theory of the functions of the cerebellum. There is another hypothesis 
in science concerning the cerebellum. Rolando wrote in the beginning of 
this century that he considered the cerebellum to be an organ of “renforce- 
ment”; that it played the part of an “ electro-motor.” Luys has propounded 
the same view; so has Weir Mitchell. I entertained the same notion some 
years ago; I thought, as my predecessors did, that I had even demonstrated 
the truth of that theory. I am compelled to change my opinion now. Ani- 
mals deprived of their cerebellum are not weaker than they ought to be after 
such a severe traumatism; and if they appear weaker just after the cerebel- 
lum is extirpated than after the cerebrum is removed, it is simply because in 
the first case the blood-supplv of the medulla oblongata is more diminished 
and altered than in the second instance, although the vessels destroyed are 
smaller. Besides, the cerebellar peduncles have very powerful inhibitory 
effects on the spinal system. Far from me the idea of being hypercritical, 
I believe that nothing helps more to lead to discovery than the judicious use 
of hypotheses. But we must consider an hypothesis to be nothing more. 
(m) Ollivier and Levon (reprint 1884, Paris), “ Rocherchos Exp6rimentalos sur le 
Cervelet.” 
(n) Luys, *' Annales des Maladies de l’Oreillo ot du Larynx,’’ tome i, pages 318-19. 9 
In that disposition, when we come to discover that what we thought true is 
not true, we have made great progress already. This is the kind of progress 
which has been made up to this time; it will no doubt be conducive to pro- 
gress of a more positive nature. For these considerations I think Dr. Fer- 
rier is again begging the question when he writes “ that though the facul- 
ty of co-ordinated progression may be retained notwithstanding the destruc- 
tion of the cerebellum, yet the loss of equilibrium practically renders it im- 
possible; but if the faculty of locomotor co-ordination is destroyed by lesion 
of the optic lobes and pons, equilibration must necessarily be rendered impos- 
sible. The centre may remain intact, but its afferent and efferent factors are 
either wholly or partially interrupted or annihilated.” I say that there is begging 
the question, because Dr. Ferrier has first laboured to show that the senses 
of sight and of tact are less essential than the sense of equilibrium, of which 
the organ is in the labyrinth; and this being taken for granted, he shows now 
that they all have one common superior centre—the cerebellum. By that theory 
we can understand how lesions of either of the senses of tact and of sight, 
or of the one which has its seat in the labyrinth, can bring on incoordination; 
for the connexions between them and the centre (cerebellum) are broken (in 
cases of destruction of the corpora quadrigemina or optic lobes, for instan- 
ce), which is pratically equivalent to destruction of the centre, as he very 
clearly puts it in the quotation given above.' But before testing the value of 
that ingenious and captivating theory— so simple, too,—may I not ask what 
are the proofs given that the cerebellum is the centre of co-ordination; and 
what are the proofs that the connexions of the senses of sight and of tact, and 
of the sense (so called) of equilibrium, which has its seat in the labyrinth, 
with the cerebellum—if they happen to have any—by means of direct fibres, 
are for the purpose of co-ordination? It will be seen that as soon as the 
first postulate is not taken for granted on sheer assertion, the whole fabric 
falls to the ground. I will not refer to the phrenological hypothesis concern- 
ing the cerebellum, because it is absurd. My object is only to show that 
Dr. Ferrier’s theory must be considered to be only identical in value with 
those which were propounded by his predecessors. 
By far the most important of the subjects treated by Dr. Ferrier are 
those which comprise the functions of the cerebrum. I read here a well- 
deserved homage paid by Dr. Ferrier to Fritzsch and Hitzig for having been 
the first to demonstrate experimentally the fact of “ definite localisation ”; 
and at the same time the statement that vital differences exist between him 
and Hitzig “ in regard to the extent of the localisation, and with respect to 
the true character and significance of the phenomena.” These discrepancies 
do not arise from the methods of exploring the brain used by the authors 
named. Hitzig has used the faradic current quite as extensively as Dr. 
Ferrier, besides the galvanic current. There is a difference between the ef- 
fects of the two currents; but pratically, and in the point under considera- 
tion, there is not: both have the same results. Hitzig and Ferrier maintain 
that they have, each by his special method of exploring, proved that the 
cortex cerebri is excitable, and that the contractions in various groups of 
muscles which they have observed on irritating the cortex cerebri are the re- 
sults of excitation of the grey matter of the hemispheres. 
I, for one, take exception here. I do not believe that the movements 
which are observed to follow electrical irritation of the cortex cerebri are 
due to discharge of the cells then irritated. When Dr. Ferrier published 
his first researches, three years and a half ago, I wrote a little pamphlet in 
which I examined the validity of the theories advanced by Hitzig and by 
himself, and also by Dr. Hughlings-Jackson. I tried at the time to control 
by experiment the experimental data of Hitzig and Ferrier. I urged several 
objections against those new theories. Of all the objections, pathological 10 
and experimental, which I brought forward, Dr. Ferrier has only recalled 
one; and that one, although not without importance, is not the most import- 
ant. By placing the sciatic nerve of the frog, prepared after the manner of 
Matteucci, on the posterior part of the hemispheres, I found that active con- 
tractions of the gastrocnemius muscle of the frog resulted when I irritated 
the anterior convolutions of the brain, thus showing that the current had 
passed along the whole extent of the hemisphere. That fact is undoubted. 
It has been ascertained by several other experimenters by different methods. 
I said that the fact permitted us to think that the electricity was conducted 
to the basal ganglia, and there excited these ganglia and the nerves which 
spring from them, (a) Ferrier does not accept this view. He writes— 
“The effects of irritation of the basal ganglia are capable of exact estima- 
tion. Irritation of the corpus striatum is followed by general contraction of 
the muscles of the opposite side of the body; and it is impossible, by apply- 
ing the electrodes directly to the surface of this ganglion, to produce local- 
ised contraction in any one muscle or group of muscles. ” 
In the winter of 1874, I showed to several distinguished physiologists 
in London that the impossibility to which Dr. Ferrier refers is no impossi- 
bility. Professor J. Burdon-Sanderson, in a paper published in the Proceed- 
ings of the Royal Society, (b) says. “ Dr. Dupuy found that after ablation 
of those parts of the hemispheres which contain the supposed centres, move- 
ments, similar to those described by Dr. Ferrier, can still be produced by 
electrical excitation of the cut surface.” Dr. Burdon-Sanderson, in order to 
settle the difference between Dr. Ferrier and myself as to the identity of the 
phenomena observed by us both individually, repeated the original experi- 
ments of Dr. Ferrier, and my own also, tie investigated the most charac- 
teristic of the combined movements so accurately described by Dr. Ferrier, 
as produced by excitation of particular spots on the anterior part of either 
hemisphere, by comparing them with those produced by excitation of deep- 
er parts, as I had done. The results of his experiments are exactly what I 
had myself seen. He exposed the anterior portion of the hemispheres, 
which comprises the several spots by the excitation of which the following 
characteristic movements could be produced: — 1. Retraction of the left 
forepaw, with flexion of the carpus, accompanied by similar movements of 
the hind leg. 2. Closure of the left eye, and elevation of the upper lip. 3. Re- 
traction of the left ear. 4. Rotation of the head to the left side. The 
active spots for these several movements are as follows:—For (1), a point 
immediately behind the outer end of the crucial sulcus; for (2), the surface 
about the outer end of a sulcus which lies immediately behind (1); for (3), 
the surface behind the sulcus last mentioned; for (4), a spot a centimetre 
further back on the same convolution. These active spots are well defined; 
their limits and relations are in exact accordance with the statements of Dr. 
Ferrier. Now (as I had done), Dr. Sanderson severed from the deeper parts 
(by a nearly horizontal incision, made with a thin-bladed knife, and the in- 
strument withdrawn without dislocation of the severed parts), the area of the 
surface of the right hemisphere which comprises the active spots above men- 
tioned; and the excitation of the active spots thereupon repeated, the result 
is the same as when the surface of the uninjured organ is acted upon. More- 
over, if a similar incision is made in a parallel plane, but at a lower level, 
this is not the case; (c) but on removing the flap, and applying the elec- 
trodes to the cut surface, it is found that there are on it active spots which, 
(a) Dupuy, “ Examon do qaelques Points do la Physiologic, etc..*’ Dolahayo, page 21, 
con. 3. 1873. 
(b) Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. June, 1874. No. IV. 
(o) Putnam, of Boston, has found the same thing. Ho has concluded that tho move- 
ments produced in tho first case really came from the cortex, as ho thought that his negative 
results proved. What follows disposes of his theory. 11 
as regards the effect of excitation, have the same topographical relation to 
each other as the former. If, further, a surface of brain is cut away, so as 
to expose the outer and upper part of the corpus striatum, and the electrodes 
are applied to this surface, the movements (i), (2), (3) are produced in the 
same way as before, but more distinctly; the active spots are quite as strictly 
localised, and their relations to each other are the same as at the natural 
surface. 
Professor Burdon-Sanderson, from these facts, believes that it is not in 
the convolutions, but (according to the old doctrine) in the floor and outer 
walls of each lateral ventricle, that the centres for such movements are to be 
found. 
For aught I know, the old doctrine is as good as the new one. Both 
are substantiated by the same series of experimental data. The experiments 
related above, therefore, do not seem to me to warrant this conclusion drawn 
by Dr. Ferrier, that “ his positive results (like which Dr. Burdon-Sanderson’s 
and mine are as positive, being identical), determined by exact experiment, 
effectually dispose of vague statements respecting the supposed influence of 
currents conducted to the basal ganglia. ” 
The counter-experimental results just adduced above, therefore, still 
leaves open the question of knowing (1) whether the cortex cerebri is or is 
not excitable by electricity; (a) and (2) whether certain convolutions contain 
organs which are essential to the production of the muscular movements of 
the character described by Hitzig and Ferrier. 
Let us see how Dr. Ferrier has disposed of the arguments which are so 
contrary to the doctrine of localisation. He says that as the cortical centres act 
downward on the muscles, necessarily through the basal ganglia and motor 
tracts, the application of electrodes to the medullary fibres (which connect 
each centre with the corpus striatum) is essentially equivalent to the stimulus 
caused by the functional activity of the centre itself. There is here a petition de 
principe. It is known that fibres will convey impressions when irritated; 
but that fact does not disclose the functions of the parts with which the fibres 
are connected. For instance, tickling the sole of the foot induces laughter; 
this does not imply (at least, I never heard) that the centre for the innerva- 
tion of the muscles which are concerned in the act of laughing is in the sole 
of the foot. If I argued like Dr. Ferrier, however, I think I ought to be- 
lieve that the sole of the foot contains centres which innervate the muscles 
concerned in the act of laughing! His postulate and mine are identical. 
But he writes very excellently, “ The mere fact of motion following sti- 
mulation of a given area does not necessarily signify a motor origin. The 
movements may be the result of conscious modification, incapable of being 
expressed in physiological terms, or they may be reflex, or they may be truly 
motor in the sense of being caused by excitation of a region in 
direct connexion with the motor parts of the erus cerebri. The method of 
stimulation by itself is incompetent to decide these questions, and requires 
to be supplemented by localised destruction of those areas, stimulation of 
which is followed by definite motor manifestations. ” 
There are experimental facts of that order which have been adduced by 
Hitzig. Gudden, Carvilleand Duret, together with similar ones found by him- 
self, which Dr. Ferrier brings forward to prove his postulate. 
(a) _ I do not speak of other modes of irritating the cortex; for mechanical, chemical, 
and physical (except electricity) have never givon results. There is one exception, however. 
JS'othnagel has defined a spot in the cortex of the brain of rabbits, which, on being pricked 
with a needle, drives the animals into a variety of movements. He calls that centre—“ nodus 
cursoriuv> Unless the rabbits used by that experimenter differ from those usually found 
in the markets of France, England, and America, I cannot account for the results he has 
obtained. It is more than likely that ho has pricked tho underlying ganglia. 12 
Localised destructions of those areas, in the hands of all those who have 
performed that experiment, have resulted in slight paralysis (paresis), which 
some have called “ paralysis of muscular sense. ” (Carville and Duret, 
Gudden, Brown-Sdquard; Schiff called it “ paralysis of tactile sensation, ” 
Hitzig, “ paralysis of muscle-consciousness”). I have found in 1873 (a) 
that destruction (scrubbing) of the whole surface of one cerebral hemisphere 
does not prevent the animal from using his legs. The paresis which results 
from removal of the centres is not permanent. After a few days the animal 
uses his leg as well as before. He can, in some instances, use it in a nor- 
mal manner a few hours after he has recovered from the effects of the ether 
administered, and before inflammation has set in; as in the case of the dog 
of which I have just spoken. It is good to take notice, also, that although 
all the centres of one hemisphere are destroyed, the anterior leg only shows 
signs of paresis, and only in the carpal articulation. Goltz (b) has since shown 
that by washing away the cortex cerebri of a dog, that kind of paresis en- 
sued (as described under different names as above), which disappeared to 
such a degree that the dog—which had been taught to give the paw on com- 
mand before the operation, and who could not give the right paw now (the 
cortex of the right hemisphere being washed away)—after the lapse of some 
eight days began to give that right paw when asked, and in about four weeks 
he could do it as well and as readily as before the operation. 
This would be the place to examine the question of supplementation of 
one centre by another—but I shall do it further on. 
I have come to the point where I must show that the last hypothesis of 
Drs. Ferrier and Hitzig, supported by pathological facts of Professor Char- 
cot and his pupils, is only acceptable as any other former hypothesis; and 
even with less credit than the one which Flourens has introduced in science. 
I refer to the theory which maintains that the cortical motor centres are 
centres for movements willed, executed towards an end, non-automatic. 
Dr. Ferrier writes: “ It may be confidently asserted, and perhaps it may one 
day be resolved by experiment, that any special tricks or movements which 
a dog may have learnt could be effectually paralysed by removal of the cor- 
tical centres.” That is equivalent to saying that all actions which are not 
automatic are impossible after removal of cortical centres. But even that 
hypothesis has no more value than the others; it is destroyed by facts. The 
experiment of Goltz previously cited is against it. I have between 1873 and 
1876 had quite a number of dogs and cats under experiment, and I have 
invariably found these animals capable of using their would-be palsied 
limbs, not only for purposive voluntary movements, but for tricks. I re- 
member a dog which would give the paw when asked, and stand on his hind 
legs and make salaams. I believe, therefore, that the counter-experiments 
which I have brought forward do not tend to show that the cortex cerebri is 
excitable by electricity, and also that certain convolutions in the neighbor- 
hood of the Sylvian fissure and the fissure of Rolands contain psycho-motor 
centres composed of cells of grey matter. 
Anatomy, normal and morbid, has furnished a good array of facts, 
which are brought forth to support the doctrine of localization. That kind 
of evidence has been adduced chiefly by Professor Charcot and his pupils. 
I refer also to the discovery of giant-cells in the paracentral lobule by Betz 
and Mierzejewski. There is, however, no proof that those cells are motor. 
They are said to be motor; they are pyramidal, resemble those of the ante- 
rior horn of the spinal marrow, and they are found in a locality which is said 
to be motor — the paracentral lobule. But is that not again a petition de 
(a) “ Examen, etc..” loc. cit., page 24. 
(b) Goltz, rjiuger'H Archiv, B. xiii., I. p. 43. 13 
principe f For this is the argument: the paracentral lobule is a motor centre 
because it contains pyramidal cells which are motor. The pyramidal cells 
which are in the paracentral lobule are motor because that lobule is motor! That 
is the logic which has led to the adoption of the doctrine of localisation of func- 
tions on anatomical basis—from Luys and Meynertto Professor Charcot. But 
Professor Charcot has also pathological cases of the same nature as those of 
Hughlings-Jackson and Hitzig. I have not been able to collect all the cases 
reported, but I have carefully analysed those which are collected from differ- 
ent authors and gathered in the pamphlet of my friend Dr. Ldpine. (a) I 
have found that there were several lesions in all the brains examined—lesions 
situated in different parts of the cerebrum. The convolutions, the crown of 
Reil, the several ganglia of the corpora striata and thalami optici, the pons, 
etc., were found diseased in both hemispheres sometimes. Yet those cases 
are given as proofs of the accuracy of localisation! The only reasoning 
which have led to the rejection of all other lesions but those found in the 
convolutions of the paracentral lobule, in order to explain the production of 
the paralyses observed during the life of the patients, is the same through 
which the conclusion was gained that the said lobule is motor and that its 
cells are motor, and which I have just reported above; in fact, anotherpetitio 
principii. Every one of the other lesions found in the brains examined, of 
those observations gathered in Dr. Lepine’s pamphlet, have been known to 
produce paralysis—at all events, to have been found associated with paraly- 
sis. Why not ascribe to them also the phenomena observed during the life 
of the patients? There is no room for the statement that the great seeming 
relation of cause to effect which exist in the cases of lesions of the convolu- 
tions warrants the inferences drawn; the frequency of apparent relation of 
cause to effect is just as great (I was going to say greater) between the other 
lesions and the symptoms produced. The other cases, reported by other 
physicians as “ illustrating the new discoveries of motor centres,” etc., I 
found equally liable to the same criticism. Dr. Ldpine has somewhere in his 
pamphlet said what is in the mind of all advocates of localisation, about 
aphasia — i. e., that instead of looking out for cases of aphasia where there 
was no destruction ot the insula or destruction of other parts, we ought to 
collect all the cases where there is disease of the convolutions of the insula, 
as the number would soon prove the localisation of speech beyond dispute. 
1 believe now that that wish is accomplished. Cases are only reported par- 
tially, and only those which substantiate localisation; or when cases contain 
elements of both kinds (for and against), only those lesions which are sup- 
posed to bear out localisation are laid stress upon. 
Another argument, however, has been adduced from his pathological 
cases by Professor Charcot, (b) It is, that disease of the paracentral lobule 
is accompanied by descending atrophy, which destroys those bundles of 
fibres supposed to be the conductors of the orders of the will to the muscles; 
and as, according to Professor Charcot, such descending atrophy is only 
met with in that region, therefore the conclusion seems to force itself that 
the cells of the cortex cerebri are the centres of innervation of those degener- 
ated bundles of fibres. 
That theory cannot be entertained more than the others, notwithstand- 
ing the would-be elaborate logical inferences. It is, in essence, another ex- 
ample of begging the question. I explain. There are two systems of tissues 
to be considered here — the nervous and the connective (whatever may be 
the nature of this last, pratically it must be considered as different from the 
first). The nervous tissues receive their blood-supply from vessels which 
(a) L6pine, “ Des Localisations dans les Maladies Cerebrales, Paris, 1875. 
(b) Charcot, Soc. do Biologic, in Gaz. Med. de Paris 187G. 14 
penetrate into the cortex and somewhat deeper into the white matter from 
above, and from the arteries external of the ganglionic masses later in their 
progress; the connective tissues are fed by blood vessels and capillaries, 
which are made up of anastamoses coming from the opto-striated system of 
arteries. It is now easy to understand how one kind of tissue can be 
primarily effected. To say nothing of former pathologists, let me remember 
that in a very elaborate paper Miezerjewski (a) has again shown that in gen- 
eral paralysis, for instance (which gives rise to that kind of paresis which 
most resembles the one produced by destruction of so-called psycho-motor 
centres), the nerve-tissues become diseased only secondarily. Their sup- 
porting elements becoming diseased, they become altered and impaired. 
There is no temerity at all in asserting that there is no relation of cause to 
effect, concerning the place where the disease of the supporting connective 
tissues is found, and nutritive disorder which has brought it on. Disease of 
the connective tissues follows no laws as to direction of its progress. The 
cases of Professor Charcot, therefore, I believe give no additional proofs 
that the atrophy of the fibres arose from disease of the convolutions with 
which they are connected. We are left in the dark as to the functions of 
the bundles of fibres destroyed, and unless we assume that the convolutions 
with which they were connected were motor, we cannot say what were their 
functions. 
But it may be said that if those fibres were not motor, some other func- 
tion which they did subserve would have been found impaired—which was 
not the case, as only motion was lost. Granted; but what physician does 
not know that parts can be destroyed, yet no outward symptoms be pro- 
duced? It is true that lesion of the internal capsule is always accompanied 
by loss of sensation. But the internal capsule is not a centre; it is not only 
a tract of nerve fibres; it contains, moreover, bloodvessels, which traverse 
it, and go to some other region. When those fibres are destroyed, the 
bloodvessels are also destroyed. How can we know whether the symptoms 
which we observe in that case do not arise from the consequent impaired 
nutrition of the parts supplied by those vessels, and on the reflex or inhibit- 
ory actions which might then result, or from inhibitory action set up by the 
diseased fibres? This point ought to be cleared. 
Dr. Ferrier has, I am afraid, missed a fine opportunity of exercising his 
critical judgment through one-sidedness, when he has adduced as an argu- 
ment, “ sans ripliqueP the famous and much-to-be-regretted experiment of 
Dr. Roberts Bartholow, of Cincinnati. I am at a loss to discover how such 
an inaccurate observation (not to say more) can have captivated him to the 
point that he has laid stress upon it. He evidently believed that it consti- 
tuted a good proof that irritation of the cortex cerebri (b) in man, in regions 
corresponding anatomically to the motor centres in the brain of monkeys, 
also gives rise to movements on the opposite side of the body. 
Let us see. The experiment of Dr. Roberta Bartholow is the follow- 
ing, in his own words (as little abridged as possible, because I doubt that 
all those who quote it have read it); it is entitled “ Epithelioma of the Scalp 
of Thirteen Months’ Duration; Exposure of the Dura Mater; Experiments 
on the Function of the Posterior Lobes ” (sic) (c):—“ The part of the brain 
uncovered was about two inches in diameter in the postero-parietal region. 
The edge of the ulcer is thickened and hard; the excavation secretes a great 
quantity of pus. As portions of the brain-substance have been lost by in- 
(a) Miezerjewski, “Dos L6sions do la Paralysie Q6n6ralo,” in Archiv de Phys. 
Reprint, G. Masson, 1874. 
(b) Ferrier, loa. cit. 
(c) Roberts Bartholow, American Jour, of the Med. Sciences, 1874, page 305: ibid., 
page 309; ibid., page 310. No italics in text. 15 
jury or by the surgeon’s knife, and as the brain has been deeply penetrated 
by incisions made for the escape of pus, it was supposed that fine needles could 
be introduced without material injury to the cerebral matter. The needles be- 
ing insulated to near their points, it was believed that diffusion of the cur- 
rent could be restricted. Observation 3. Passed an insulated needle into 
the left Posterior lobe, so that the non-insulated portion rested entirely in 
the substance of the brain. The other insulated needle was placed 
in contact with the dura mater, within one-fourth of an inch of the first. 
When the circuit was closed, muscular contractions of the right upper and 
lower extremities ensued, as in the preceding observations; faint but visible 
contractions of the left orbicularis palpebrarum and dilatation of the pupils 
also ensued. Mary (the patient) complained of a very strong and unpleas- 
ant feeling of tingling in both right extremities, especially in the right arm, 
which she seized with the opposite hand and rubbed vigorously. The needle 
was withdrawn from the left lobe, and passed in the same way into the sub- 
stance of the right. When the current passed, precisely the same pheno- 
mena ensued in the left extremities, and in the right orbicularis palpebrarum 
and pupil. When the needle entered the brain substance, she com- 
plained of acute pain in the neck. In order to develope more decided 
reactions, the strength of the current was increased by drawing out the 
wooden cylinder one inch. When communication was made with the needles, 
her countenance exhibited great distress, and she began to cry. Very soon 
the left hand was extended as if in the act of taking hold of some object in 
front of her; the arm presently was agitated with clonic spasms; her eyes be- 
came fixed, with pupils widely dilated; lips were blue, and she frothed at the 
mouth; her breathing became stertorous, she lost consciousness, and was 
violently convulsed on the left side. After another experiment the patient 
remained in bed, and was stupid and incoherent; in the evening she had a 
convulsive seizure. She afterwards had profound unconsciousness, was 
paralysed on the right side of motion and sensation, had convergent strabis- 
mus. Autopsy: Before making an inspection of the needle wounds, the 
brain was placed for twenty-four hours in a solution of chromic acid. When 
sufficiently hardened, careful horizontal sections were made of the upper part 
of the hemisphere, to ascertain what injury, if any, had been done to the 
cerebral matter. The track made by the needles could be distinctly traced on 
both sides. On the left side the needle had entered the upper parietal lobule 
of Ecker, the gyrus centralis posterior of Henle, the postero-parietal lobule 
of Turner, one inch from the longitudinal fissure, and had penetrated a 
depth of one inch. The track of the needle was marked by some diffluent 
cerebral matter, two lines in diameter. On the right side the needle had en- 
tered the same convolution, but more posteriorly and one inch and a half 
from the great longitudinal fissure. The needle on the right side had also 
penetrated to a greater depth, one and a half inch, and its track through the 
lobe was marked as on the other side by a line of diffluent matter.” 
I have used Dr. Bartholow’s own phraseology all through in order to 
be more accurate. I only beg the reader to notice that the needles being 
insulated up to their extremities and introduced to a depth of one inch and 
a half into the substance of the brain, the aim of the experiment has beeu 
lost sight of, as no cortical matter coutd possibly have been irritated in this 
experiment. I refrain from any kind of comment whatever. The case in 
all its aspects speaks too eloquently for me to say anything. This is the 
expcrimentum in corpore vili of which Dr. Ferrier has written (a)—“ In 
addition to the pathological evidence of the existence of differentiated motor 
centres in the human brain supplied by the observations of Hughlings-Jack- 
(a) Forrior, loc. cit., poge 290. 16 
son and others, vve have the experimental confirmation of the same in the 
investigations of Dr. Bartholow”! 
I have another side of the question of localisation yet to examine. I 
have to speak of the centres of sensation, common and special. The local- 
isation of the different senses is not supported by such an array of pathologi- 
cal facts as those regarding the motor centres. The sense of sight Dr. 
Ferrier localises in the angular gyrus. The experiments performed by him 
are of two sorts: he has irritated with electricity and destroyed with a cautery 
the area of the angular gyrus—the seat of the sense of sight. When he has 
used electricity, he has seen general movements of the head to the opposite 
side, and very often contraction of the pupils. These phenomena, he thinks, 
are purely reflex, consequent on the excitation of the subjective visual 
sensation. On destruction of the angular gyrus in both hemis- 
pheres, however, the loss of vision is complete and permanent (his animals 
did not survive long). I repeated the last-named experiment some time 
during the summer of 1875. I was successful enough to keep one dog alive 
several weeks, in the laboratory of the Musdum in Paris. Although the ani- 
mal did not distinguish objects at first, he could see perfectly well at the end 
of that time. He had his pupils widely dilated; they returned gradually, 
with alternations of contraction and dilatation, to the normal state. At first 
no light could make them contract. In human pathology there is not 
a case on record, even unequally viewed, of destruction of that 
angular gyrus .followed by loss of sight. Dr. Hughlings-Jackson, (a) 
who the last ten years has been on the look out for such cases, says that ne 
has never met with one. Diseases, such as tumors, produce blindness in 
a very indirect way, by leading to acute changes in the optic nerves, on 
which blindness may follow. There is not, he says, so far as he can judge, 
a particle of evidence from clinical medicine to prove that destruction of any 
part of the cerebral hemispheres produces defect of sight. Yet Dr. Ferrier 
gives it as a proven fact that there is a visual centre in the angular gyrus, 
and goes on to discuss the theory of decussation, complete or incomplete, of 
the optic fibres. He adopts Professor Charcot’s view of double decussation. 
How that hypothesis accounts for the various kinds of loss of sight, partial 
or .otal, I am unable to see. But one thing is certain ; according to that 
theory, the angular gyrus of one hemisphere only animates the eye on the 
opposite side. I have taken out the left eyeball in a dog, and cauterised the 
left angular gyrus-centre. The animal did see! Goltz has performed a 
similar experiment, with identical result, I believe. Dr. Ferrier does not 
admit the so-called law of substitution, but he thinks that in his experiments 
there has been “ a compensation from the centre in the other hemispheres. ” 
I only discover in that whole mode of reasoning the fatal recurrence of petitio 
principii. The experiments which I have made, and that performed by 
Goltz, dispose of even the theory of “ compensatory action.” It is needless 
to observe that there is no reason why the movements in the eyeballs, fre- 
quently associated with movements of the head to the opposite side, and 
which follow electrical irritation of the angular gyrus, as Dr. Ferrier has 
himself seen, should be reckoned by him to be only reflex — only due to 
awakening of subjective visual sensation. Unless the fact be granted be- 
forehand that that gyrus contains a visual centre, the whole theory, as I 
have said, is a petitio principii. 
The sense of hearing is found to be localised in a portion of the supe- 
rior tempero-sphenoidal convolution; this conclusion has been reached 
through the two methods of investigation usually employed by Dr. Ferrier. 
(a) J. Ilughlinas-Jackson, “Clinical and Physiological Researches on tho Nerv- 
ous System,” page xli., note. 17 
Electrical irritation of this convolution in the monkey, he has found to re- 
sult in certain definite phenomena—sudden retraction or pricking up of the 
opposite ear, wide opening of the eyes, dilatation of the pupils, and turning 
the head and eyes to the opposite side. All these phenomena, like similar 
ones noticed in the experiments on the sense of sight, are said to be of the 
same nature—re Hex. Destruction with a cautery of both those gyri ren- 
ders the monkey deaf altogether. I have seen all the phenomena described 
by Dr. Ferrier, except the complete deafness, after destruction of both gyri. 
1 have experimented on dogs and rabbits. I have seen the dogs recover the 
faculty of hearing after some weeks. The only cases of destruction through 
disease of the acoustic nerves, involving their whole course up to the fourth 
ventricle, in man, that I know of, have been put on record by Dr. Luys. I 
have reported them earlier in this paper. Luys has seen that the lesion con- 
sisted in the destruction of the grey matter of the occipital lobule; he has 
given a plate which leaves no doubt as to this localisation. (I do not wish 
to be understood to accept Luy’s localisation.) I believe that it is not un- 
justifiable to ascribe loss of hearing, in the experiments reported above, to 
another cause than destruction of the centre of that sense. When I come 
to state what I think is the most acceptable provisional theory, I shall try to 
explain what that cause is. As I have no desire to swell this review into a 
volume, I shall enter into no further details concerning the other senses— 
those of tact, of taste, and of smell. Their existence being localised in 
different regions of the cortex by the same order of facts as are used by Dr. 
Ferrier with regard to the other senses, already spoken of, the same kind of 
arguments can be raised against the validity of the proofs adduced. 
I will, however, note one fact to show how deductions are drawn, as to 
function of parts, on false premises. I choose the sense of smell, because it 
is a typical instance of what I advance. Dr. Ferrier, after relating the ex- 
periment of Magendie which showed disappearance of the faculty of smell- 
ing after section of the trigeminus, remarks that the experiment did not 
prove that the fifth nerve was the nerve of smell properply so called, but 
that the integrity of the fifth nerve was necessary to the due functional acti- 
vity of the olfactory nerves. But he also says that “ when the tactile sensibi- 
lity was entirely gone in the nostril, the vapor of acetic acid (!) caused copi- 
ous lachrymation—a fact which shows that some afferent fibres still remained 
functionally active in the nostril, “ evidently the olfactory nerves,” which, 
however, owing to the loss of common sensation, were not of themselves 
sufficient to convey the impressions of odors.” If, notwithstanding destruc- 
tion of the sensitive nerve, acetic acid induced lachrymation, it must be 
through a reflex of the olfactory nerve, as Dr. Ferrier shows; and if the ol- 
factory can give such a refiex action under such circumstances, it is evident 
that it is impressed in the same manner as a sensitive nerve. Now, what 
signifies his postulate that the integrity of the sensitive nerve is necessary 
for the conveyance of the impression of odors? 
Absence of the fifth nerve does not destroy the faculty of tasting nor the 
faculty of seeing. It does so in some cases where there are reflex actions 
at play—inhibitory actions. On the other hand, there are cases on record of 
destruction of the first pair of nerves, and yet preservation of the sense of 
smell. The celebrated case reported to Claude Bernard is in the memory of 
all. He mentions the case of a woman, who during life disliked the smell 
of tobacco (it requires a special sense to smell tobacco, whereas acetic 
acid acts on the fifth nerve as well!), who knew that a sink near her bed- 
room was dirty by its smell, etc., in whom the remarkable fact was discov- 
ered of the congenital absence of the olfactory nerves! How to explain this 
case? Is it explained in accordance with what Mr. Lewes maintains, that 
neural processes are uniform in character, the diversity of their results (sen- 18 
sation, motion, or secretion) depending on anatomical connexions? Is it ex- 
plained by the theory of organised past experience of the fifth nerve 
from childhood upwards? 
Another very original part of Dr. Ferrier’s work is the one in which he 
treats of the occipital lobes. Dr. Ferrier believes that the viscera have fibres 
which transmit their special sensations to the sensorium, (a) and that the 
centres of these fibres are in the occipital lobe. The sense of hunger has 
its seat there. So we have a sense of hunger. The reasons given by Dr. Ferrier 
for this new discovery are, that his animals could drink, but refused to eat, 
when the occipital lobes had been destroyed. At first sight I suspect that 
the animals in this experiment do not eat for the same reason that they do 
not when they have had both angular gyri destroyed—because the masseter 
muscles have been cut through or separated from their occipital-parietal in- 
sertions; which is a sufficient cause to explain the difference as to taking 
food between this experiment of removal of the occipital lobule, and des- 
truction of the anterior lobes when the animals do eat (the masseters are 
not cut away so extensively from their insertions then). In fact, the ani- 
mals cannot masticate. Dr. Ferrier says himself that one animal which 
was kept alive on the fifth day after the operation of removal of the occipi- 
tal lobule, and which had up to that day refused food, “ took a cold potato 
offered, smelted it several times, and at last, as if struck by a new idea, be- 
gan to eat with great relish. From this time it legan to take food, and re- 
covered.” As it is impossible to suppose that within five days after their 
destruction the anatomical tissues in which the of hunger is localised 
could have been regenerated, I cannot understand how the reappearance of 
that sense can be accounted for. Let us not forget that on anatomo-patho- 
logical evidence Luys has localised in these same occipital lobules the sense 
of hearing, (b) and that Dr. Joflfroy, (c) one of the ablest pupils of Professor 
Charcot, and once a collaborateur of Duchenne, has localised trophic cen- 
tres; lesions of that lobule, he thinks, bring on sloughing of the sacrum, 
etc. It is needless for me to add that there are at least twenty-five cases 
above criticism of lesion of those lobes, without any phenomena whatever 
but hemiplegia. 
I think that with regard to the motor centres of the cortex cerebri of 
the monkey and of man Dr. Ferrier is at variance with what observation 
teaches. I have had no opportunity to experiment on monkeys, but Dr. 
Ferrier agrees that in the other animals the so-called lost psycho-motor func- 
tions of that region can be recuperated, while in man loss of the cortical 
centres leaves lasting paralysis. I do not know of one single case of des- 
truction of the so-called motor centres in the brain of man having caused 
lasting paralysis. My experience goes the other way. The cases which I 
shall report, and which belong to those series published by Professor Char- 
cot and others, will bear out my statements. 
I have now reached that interesting chapter of Dr. Ferrier’s treatise 
where he considers the hemispheres psychologically. I have little to say in 
respect to that matter on account of my little familiarity with it. It appears 
to me that the whole of it, in its masterly exposition, is one continuous beg- 
ging of the question. All his psychological deductions, I own, are based 
upon psychological facts; but those facts I have proved, I trust, to have been 
considered only in a one-sided way—viewed unequally, as the phrase goes. 
(a) Compare Hughlings-Jackson, loc. cit., page xt., note, et seq. He says that 
the arteries, the heart, and the different viscera, etc., are represented in the highest 
nervous process. 
(b) Luys, loo. cit. See page 8. 
(c) Joffroy, C. K., Soci6t6 do Biologie, in Gasette Medicate de Paris. 1878 
passim. 19 
1 know that I am liable, on primfi, facie evidence, to be charged with levity 
for this statement, considering that there is a seeming concordance between 
the theories of the advocates of the localisation doctrine and the deductions 
of Herbert Spencer, of Professor Bain, and of others. But let it be remem- 
bered that this concordance only proves that we have several valuable 
si?nilar or identical deductions, reached through different processes of rea- 
soning; it does not prove that any one of the theories advanced is better 
grounded. The two eminent philosophers whose authority is adduced by Dr. 
Ferrier seem to me to have availed the nselves, in lieu of premises from which 
to evolve their powerful reasoning, of results of the physiological and anatomi- 
cal researches of Professor Laycock, Dr. Carpenter, Dr. Hughlings-Jackson, 
Professor Broca, Professor Helmholtz, Professor Brown-Sdquard. Professor 
Ferrier himself, Professor Hitzig, etc.,—which results, notwithstanding their 
extrinsic value, are still sub judice. The foregoing considerations warrant 
me, I presume, in pointing out the strangeness of adducing authority of such 
an origin by way of philosophical confirmation of their theories by the advo- 
cates of the localisation doctrine. 
Here I relinquish this theme, for fear of being lost if I once launch into 
a subject too unknown to me. 
I have next to expose what views are held concerning speech. The 
question of aphasia is one which, for the last thirteen years, has agitated 
pathologists, physiologists, and psychologists equally. Dr. Ferrier has 
handled this subject in the same manner that he handled the others. 
Part II. 
The oldest precise localisation known was established fifteen years 
ago by Professor Broca. His theory teaches that the faculty of speech is 
localised in the third frontal convolution of the left hemisphere. There 
exist a great number of pathological cases which show a very frequent coin- 
cidence of disease of that convolution with loss of speech. But ought we to 
adopt the theory of Broca, so ably maintained by Hughlings-Jackson, and 
which is even said by Dr. Ferrier to derive support from his experiments on 
the brains of monkeys? 
First, there are cases of aphasia which have occurred with destruction, 
not of the left, but of the right frontal convolution. It has been answered 
against this fact that the patient must have been a left-handed person; hence 
the rule holds true. But, secondly, there are cases of aphasia with lesions 
seated in other parts of the left hemisphere than the left frontal convolution, 
or even of the island of Reil, which, according to the greater number of author- 
ities, also is concerned in the faculty of speech; and, thirdly, there are cases 
in which the island of Reil and Broca’s convolution have been found dis- 
eased, and no aphasia observed There are numerous cases enough of this 
last description, and of the preceding one, to enable me to state at least that 
it Broca’s convolution is the seat of the faculty ot speech, it is not the only 
one; but of course this is only a pis aller, because, if we look more into the 
subject, it will very soon appear that Broca’s convolution is not, more than 
any other convolution, the organ of speech. 
The proofs which I can adduce to support this statement are numer- 
ous, and, I believe, have some value. It is necessary for me to state at once 
here that I cannot consider the six or seven different kinds of aphasia usu- 
ally treated of by authors; physiologically, they are only several degrees of 
one kind of aphasia. 
The cases which I will report now have been well observed, and pub- 20 
lished by physicians of merit who have recorded them for the purpose of 
elucidating the subject of aphasia. I shall, therefore, not mention the old 
cases contrary to the would-be speech-centre, found in the book of Dr. Bate- 
man, and in the works and papers of other authors. 
The first and most striking case of destruction of the so-called speech- 
centre without consecjuent aphasia is the celebrated American crowbar case. 
I believe I was the first to report that extraordinary case in France. Dr. 
Ferrier, in commenting on it, lays it down that only the anterior portion of 
the frontal lobe was destroyed by accident. It is well known that the sub- 
ject of that observation, while occupied in blasting a rock, was wounded by 
the unexpected explosion of the blast at which he was engaged. The 
tamping-iron which he was using was several feet long and an inch and 
a quarter in diameter; it passed, according to measurement which I have 
made, through the brain on the left side, in such a manner as not only to 
destroy the left Sylvian artery, which sends a special artery to Broca’s con- 
volution, but it actually destroyed the greater part of the island of Reil. A 
great quantity of brain-matter was discharged for several days after the acci- 
dent, in consequence of sloughing. I had an opportunity of seeing that 
cranium in Boston last winter, and also the iron bar. The man (Gage) was 
never aphasic, nor paralysed. There is another case, recorded by Theodore 
Simon, (a) which proves that a notable loss of substance of the brain-matter 
in the orbital region can exist for years without giving rise to appreciable 
symptoms, and that the destruction of the insula on the left side is not 
necessarily followed by loss of speech. 
There is a case recorded by my excellent friend Dr. Troisier, in which 
aphasia has existed with no other lesion but one found in the postero-parie- 
tal region. The following case is also very interesting, as it shows partial 
aphasia with very limited paralysis in a patient, observed by one who took 
the notes for the purpose of elucidating the subject of localisation of functions 
in the brain. The patient was observed in the wards of Dr. Luys. There was 
right paralysis of the tongue and of the face; sensation intact, (b) “ The left 
arm and hand are paralysed to a slight degree as to motion and sensation. The 
right eye and ear are impaired; there is no apparent lesion of the transparent 
media of the eye. The vocabulary of the patient is exceedingly limited, and 
consists of only a few words, which are used for all purposes. There is im- 
possibility of reading; A is taken for B, etc. Cannot write her name. Can- 
not write, although the pen is well held; writes Caroline for Caroline; her 
name being Madame Coha&on, she writes Madame Adon, and then Madame 
Gordon, etc.” The autopsy discovered in the left hemisphere a yellow 
(ochre-colored) softened patch having destroyed the first and second tem- 
poral convolutions; “above and forward the lesion is limited exactly by the 
sulcus which separates the insula from the sphenoidal lobule; behind, it 
bends round the posterior extremity of the fissure of Sylvius, leaves un- 
touched the whole third convolution, but ascends on the pli courb'e (gyrus 
angularis), of which the greater part is so destroyed, and is found a little 
further in the sulcus which separates the superior parietal lobule from the 
inferior one. On the occipital lobe it penetrates a little in the parieto-occi- 
pital sulcus, destroys a part of the internal and of the external portion of the 
cuneiform lobule.” In the hemisphere itself there was detected a lacuna in 
the white substance, with very neat lining, corresponding in site to the junc- 
tion of the first temporal convolution with the lobule of the gyrus angularis; 
also, a very small foyer (spot of softening) with yellow borders in the poste- 
rior portion of the thalamus opticus. In the right hemisphere there was 
(a) Tbfodore Simon. DevUche Elivik, 1873, >’os. 17 and 18. 
(b) Subourin, SociGte Anatomique, rapports dans Le Prugre» Medical, 1877, p. 70, 21 
nothing in the convolutions; but in the white substance there were two pisi- 
form lacunae close together, above the internal capsule, one centimetre and a 
half from the base of the corresponding convolutions. In the lenticular 
gangl on of the corpus striatum there was also a yellow matter resulting from 
old disease, extending from behind forward, exactly on the limit of that nu- 
cleus and the external capsule. The softening extended up to the most dis- 
tant portion of that nucleus lenticularis. There was also in the centre of the 
thalamus opticus another old lacuna, as large as a hempseed. In the pons, 
on the right side, above the large inferior fasciculus, there was a small darkish 
patch five millimetres in size. All the other organs were healthy. 
This observation is remarkable in more than one aspect. But I desire 
only to observe here that there was aphasia without destruction of the third 
frontal convolution or of the insula. 
Dr. Rrown-Sdquard, in his Lectures in course of publication in the 
Lancet, will doubtless bring out such a large number of similar facts, that I 
have no occasion for. reporting more here. I beg to observe that I have 
given cases well observed and well recorded by physicians of ability, which 
prove the postulate written above—that aphasia may exist without or with 
lesions of Broca’s convolution, and also with or without lesions localised in 
other parts of the brain. 
The experimental proofs of localisation of the speech-centre in the left 
third frontal convolution in its posterior part where it overlaps the insula, 
Dr. Ferrier pretends to have discovered; for he says that this region in the 
brain of man <# corresponds with the situation of the motor centres of arti- 
culation in the monkey.” Now, in the monkey, on the irritating only of one 
side, he has had movement in both sides of the tongue and in the orbicu- 
laris of the lips; but on what grounds a similarity is established between the 
two phenomena, contraction of the muscles of the tongue and aphasia — 
the first in the monkey, and the second in man, — I fail to see. 
It must not be forgotten that man may suffer from loss of speech 
through paralysis of the tongue, the aphasia then being apparent only; 
and that if the experiment on the monkey proves anything, it proves only 
that last point, judging bp analogy. Now, if aphasia is not due to loss of 
function of a speech-centre situated in Broca’s convolution, how are we to 
explain it? I believe that it is due to a reflex process—a process of inhibi- 
tion. That there is a reflex inhibitory element in it ean be seen by reading 
carefully even the old authors. Trousseau has recorded several instances 
to the point. Indeed, his lecture on that subject of aphasia contains noth- 
ing but cases which, when properly analysed, go a good way to overthrow 
Broca’s theory. One patient who could say nothing but “ Out, ” one day, 
having let fall his handkerchief, a lady who was near him picked it up; upon 
this he said “ Merci ” (i. <?., Thank you) in a high and intelligible tone. He 
was asked to repeat the word; it was several times uttered before him, but in 
vain—he never afterwards could say it. (a) Again, another patient, who for 
three months after the onset of the disease could say only a few words with 
no meaning, and the same in all circumstances, yet one day, two weeks af- 
ter the stroke of disease, said to his wife, “ My dear. ” Again it was in vain 
that he was asked to repeat it. (b) In that same celebrated lecture Trous- 
seau has recorded Professor Charcot’s case of aphasia as complete as it 
could be, existing with the integrity of Broca’s convolution. Professor 
Broca had himselt examined the brain of that patient microscopically. So 
that when Professor Charcot said last year, in the Socidtd de Biologie, that 
he rejects all his former cases up to that time as being incompletely observed, 
(a) Trousseau, “ Cliniques de l’II6tel-Dieu,” t. ii., p. 586, deuxieme Edition. 
(b) Trousseau, loc. cit., p. 592. 22 
we beg leave to retain this one, because a double examination 
was made by himself and by Broca, and microscopically. It is 
needless for me to state that this case was a reflex inhibited in- 
stance like the others ; but the following is more striking still. It 
is reported by Dr. William Wadham. (a) A boy, who was the subject of 
hemiplegia of the left side, and who was ambidextrous, was subsequently 
affected with aphasia, which continued complete for three months. The only 
lesion found was a nearly complete destruction of the island of Reil on the 
right side. The author, in arguing on this case, very properly shows that 
this aphasic does not come into the category of left-handed persons because 
he was ambidextroiis; and also of his subsequent recovery of speech, that it 
was not a paralysis of the tongue, notwithstanding appearances detected at 
the time, because his mother had to teach him the words after a long pro- 
cess, consisting in making him repeat after her each word. Moreover, if it 
was paralysis of the tongue, and not aphasia, having recovered from that 
paralysis sufficiently to articulate, however imperfectly, one word or phrase, 
he would quite as readily have given expression to hte thoughts, whereas 
“Yes” and “No,” “Good morning,” and “Dr. Wadham,” were the only 
words he had succeeded in learning. He was, however, able to write and 
spell correctly. He was only deprived of the power of converting his thoughts 
into words. 
Dr. Wadham has very judiciously observed also that this case cannot 
be considered as a “ left-handed case ” in which the seat of speech is trans- 
ferred to the right hemisphere, because the recovery of speech took place 
without any repair of the cerebral lesion, as shown at the post-mortem exam- 
ination. He believes that the boy, although strongest in his left hand, being 
ambidextrous, the other (left) speech-centre came somewhat to fulfil the func- 
tion which was only partially developed in it. Here I no longer agree with 
Dr. Wadham. First, it is to be observed that Broca’s convolution, or its 
analogue on the right side, is said to have been healthy; and, secondly, there 
must Cave been reflex or inhibition processes in the case, because the parts 
destroyed cannot account for the presence of hemiplegia. 
Another very interesting case is recorded by Dr. Schaltz. (b) A patient 
had at one time, after a traumatism in the parietal region, vertigo, pains, 
etc.; fifteen days later/ paralysis of the arm and leg on the left side, loss of 
speech. Eleven days later, right hemiplegia with exaggerated reflex sensi- 
bility; after lasting one day, that hemiplegia disappeared. On the seven- 
teenth day the aphasia, which was absolute, began to pass away; after three 
weeks there was nothing left of it. Three weeks after his entry into the 
wards, an operation was performed in order to remove the pus, of which the 
presence was shown by manifest signs and the presence of a tumor as large 
as a hazel-nut. On that (left) side of the head, nine centimetres below the 
saggital suture, and on the tract of the coronal suture, some pus was dis- 
charged, together with white matter. He, two months and a half afterwards, 
was well to all intents, except that there was a slight prolapsus of the left 
superior eyelid. He began to recover even a quarter of an hour after the 
operation. 
Certainly in this case, again, there was another influence at work than 
destruction of the island of Reil, or of Broca’s convolution, or of pressure 
by pus. Firstly, if those causes were at work, it would show that the apha- 
sia depended upon the lesion of the speech-centre; but how explain the left 
hemiplegia then? And if this left hemiplegia is due to a reflex action, why 
not the aphasia also, since the speech-centre was not touched, or, if it was 
(a) William Wadham, M. D.. St. George's Hospital Reports, vol. iv., 1869, p. 245 etseq. 
(b) Scbalz in Ilayem’s Revue des Sciences Medicates, t. i., p. 8(51. 23 
touched, how could the patient recover speech so speedily after the opera- 
tion? 
Another case by Dr. Proust, (a) A young man, in a fight with some 
soldiers, received a bayonet-wound in the left parietal region on October 8, 
1876. He never had any symptom till after several days, and then even only 
headache. On the 19th and 20th of the same month Dr. Proust saw him in 
his ward, having then aphasia and paresis of right superior limb, and facial 
hemiplegia. The three symptoms increased slowly. (Dr. Proust watched 
the patient with great care; he is well known for having contributed 
to that special subject of aphasia a very valuable memoir.) Trephine was 
applied loco dolente. The fractured bone was taken away, and, at the same 
time, all the symptoms diminished. The dura mater was not even perfor- 
ated. The operation was hardly terminated and the wound was not yet 
dressed, when the patient was already cured. On comparing by measura- 
tion the region of the seat of the injury in his patient with data obtained up- 
on crania of other deceased patients, Dr. Proust was able with almost ma- 
thematical precision to localise the injury received by his patient only in the 
left ascending parietal convolution in its middle part. The Doctor adds, 
besides, that probably it engaged the frontal convolutions by nutritive 
troubles of neighborhood; hence the ready explanation of the aphasia, the 
right paresis, and the paralysis of right face. But of course this view can- 
not be entertained. How can such be the case, since the patient recovered 
so rapidly? The nutritive changes cannot have disappeared in such a short 
space of time. 
All those cases, I believe, go far to show that loss of speech does not 
depend upon destruction of a would-be speech-centre, but to an inhibitory 
retiex action. Language—speech—is essentially a reflex process altogether. 
It is verily an “ organisation of past experience.” Speech in man is not 
different from speech in birds; the only difference said to be detected be- 
tween acquired speech in a bird and in a boy, is that the boy has the ad- 
vantage of being able to associate a certain idea with a certain speech, 
whereas the bird is said to be deprived of that faculty—by some altogether, 
by others to some degree. I have had opportunity to watch speaking birds sev- 
eral times, and I repeat it, I can detect no difference. We must remember 
that in a child speech is evoked by external circumstances; so with the bird. 
It is only when a child has grown that speech appears to be spontaneous; 
but even then, after all, it is brought about by a reflex process or a process 
from past organised experience acting upon articulatory centres. The bird 
when well educated does perfectly associate the words “ Good morning, 
sir! ” with the presence of a stranger or of somebody coming into a room, and 
a child does nothing else. 
That a reflex action is at the bottom of all that process, can be found 
out by a series of considerations which many can confirm for themselves. 
My friend Dr. Onimus has studied cases of aphasia in that direction, and he 
has recorded some very interesting instances, (b) A concierge (janitor), 
who was suffering from a stroke of paralysis and aphasia, was recovering to 
some extent, and words were being taught to him. One day Dr. Onimus 
pointed out to him a statuette made of plaster-of-Paris which was on one of 
his tables, and asked him to call it by name. He could not do it. The 
Doctor then discovered that if some other subject was pointed out to him, 
and only the first syllable said, he would repeat it readily, and, as if moved 
by a spring, the whole word would come out. He therefore told him again to 
name the statuette, and said, by way of prompting, sta, the first syllable of 
(a) Proust, Bulletin General de Theropeutique, t. xci., 11 liv., December 15, 1876. 
(b) Oniruus, Journal de la Phyeiologie, “ De l’Anatomie de Robin,” 1873, No. 6. 24 
“statue,” but the patient could not finish the word. His wife, who was 
present, said, “ Whv can’t you say an statue? ” He at once said an sta- 
tue. Now, the uneducated people in Paris do not say a .v/Vztue, but an sta- 
tue. That aphasic patient, therefore, with many other examples known to 
all, shows very conclusively that speech in man, as well as in birds, is ac- 
quired by the same process. I beg leave to submit that perhaps when birds 
have been educated to talk for several generations consecutively, uninter- 
ruptedly, the subject of aphasia will receive a great deal of light. 
What I have said of aphasia applies, 1 believe, as well to other para- 
lyses from brain diseases. I am of the opinion that the so-called hemianaes- 
thesia following destruction of the internal capsule is a refiex inhibitory 
phenomenon. I have said so already. I will now prove it. Professor 
Charcot has insisted very much on that one localisation. Veysstere, and 
Carville, and Duret, and Ferrier, have all based upon experimentation the 
same theory, that the internal capsule is the corner of nerve-matter which, 
when it is the seat of disease, causes loss of sensation for half of the body. 
Besides the arguments which I have already given to show how such a loss 
of sensatian could happen, 1 will say now that Professor Charcot has him- 
self within a few months shown that that anesthesia is not an absolute one. 
While experimenting on the so-called metallo-therapic method, he has found 
that sensation, general and special, can be recalled in paralysed parts by the 
application of a gold coin or ring to the limb deprived of sensation, (a) 
Now, it is clear that it in those cases of undoubted destruction of the 
so-called internal capsule-centre, of old standing — more than ten years — 
sensation can have been awakened even for a tew hours, the non-permanent 
manifestation of that sensation is not dependent upon destruction of a cen- 
tre, because it would be impossible to have the results now obtained. 
Again, in the cases published by Dr. Ldpine, and of which I have al- 
ready spoken, and in the case of Dr. Wadham reported above, and the case 
of Dr. Sabourin, certainly the phenomena observed during life did not cor- 
respond with the lesions detected. Let anyone think over the last case in 
particular, and he will see how impossible it is to make it agree with the 
theory of localisation. 
Moreover, it is denied by nobody that some cases of undoubted des- 
truction of brain substance can exist, and yet the function, temporarily ab- 
sent, appear again. Dr. Hughlings-Jackson has written on that subject —- 
“ The slightness and transientness of a paralv ic symptom depend on the 
slight extent of lesions of nervous organs, not on slight degree of change. .. 
(The patient) recovers, because he has lost a small quantity of that tract 
(motor.) For it is manifest to those who make post-mortem examinations 
that recovery from paralysis occurs when a part of the motor tract is perma- 
nently wanting. ” (b) It is evident from that quotation that the paralysis 
must have some refiex element in it. For, during its existence, as well as 
after its disappearance, the same lesion existed in the motor tract; and if it 
is not so, how to account for the paralysis or for its disappearance? 1 know 
how unbecoming of me it is to criticise the opinion of such a distinguished 
physician and such an acute clinician as Dr. Jacksont but I am impelled by 
facts to urge that the size or extent of the lesion has no influence on the 
transientness or slightness of a paralytic attack. There are numerous in- 
stances of what I advance here. Let us only remember the magnitude of 
the brain lesion in the case of Dr. Sabourin. Some other element is concerned 
in that production of disorder and its duration. It is proved that the nature of 
the lesion, tumor, softening, haemorrhage, traumatism, etc., have no influence. 
(a) See, for details, C. R, de la Soc. de Biologie do Paris for 1877. 
(b) J. llughlings-Jackson, “ Euipir. and Scien. lnv. of Epil.,” Mad. IJre»a aid Giro., ptiaidm. 25 
considered specifically. It remains only to admit that the lesions do create 
an influence by the mere fact of their presence, which influence is the agent 
at work: that is to say, that, irrespective of size, the lesion acts just as an 
irritant applied to the skin does — to awake a reflex process. It is by the 
foregoing theory also that those cases can receive interpretation in which we 
see that a lesion localised in one hemisphere will cause simultaneously, or 
one after the other, paralyses on either side of the body.(a) 
I am aware that it has been stated with regard to those cases which ap- 
pear to the advocates of localisation contrary to their theory, that the obser- 
vations were incompletely taken, or that an unseen lesion may have existed, 
or that there was an anomaly, just as when the heart is situated to the right, 
etc. Those objections are more apparent than real. To give only two in- 
stances, the American crowbar case and the case of Dr. Sabourin militate 
against such a view. And how can we attribute to an unseen lesion the pa- 
ralysis observed, without at the same time admitting that the large lesion 
seen in a motor (so-called) centre, but on the corresponding side, has caused 
no symptom, and in this way destroy our very argument? And, moreover, 
a case of anomaly cannot be considered, because we know of cases in which 
one lesion in one hemisphere has caused paralysis on the corresponding 
side, which was cured to some extent, and later another lesion occurring in 
the other healthy hemisphere has again brought on paralysis, not only on 
the formerly paralysed side, but also on the one which was not originally so 
affected, (b) The loss of sight, amaurosis, is amenable to the same rea- 
soning. Let me only say here that two of the very ablest pupils of Profes- 
sor Charcot have just published researches which demonstrate very plainly 
two very diherent things. I explain: Dr. Ferrier has localised the sense 
of sight in the angular gyrus in man. Dr. Fdrd has observed a patient who 
for three years has had pain, etc., consequent upon a fall, which was follow- 
ed by a wound in the right parietal region; the only symptoms now remain- 
ing are contractions, which specially show themselves when the patient does 
not pay attention, in the orbicularis, palpebrarum, the muscles of the eye, 
and the zygomatic muscles. Dr. Fdrd made an attentive study of that pa- 
tient, and by means of careful measuration and comparison, after Broca’s 
method and his own method, with a number of crania, arrived at the conclu- 
sion that the spot of the bone depressed by the fall coincided with the pos- 
terior portion ot the pli courbe, or at the very least with a region very near 
that spot; which is concordant with Dr. Ferrier’s views, (c) But Dr. 
Pitres, another pupil of Professor Charcot, shows (d) ten cerebra marked by 
cortical lesions, from which (the symptoms during life being kept in mind) 
he concludes that the destruction of the pli courbe (gyrus angularis) is ac- 
companied by no symptom in the muscles of the eye; (e) that destruction 
of the three superior quarters of it gives rise to paralysis of the face, but not 
of the limbs. 
It is impossible for me to examine in detail all the various subjects 
comprised in the study of cerebral physiology, and chiefly those which Dr. 
Ferrier has examined in his work, without writing a volume. I have no in- 
clination and no aptitude for that work, but I must, however, say something 
on the chapter of Dr. Ferrier’s volume, “The Hemispheres considered Psy- 
chologically.” First, any candid reader will readily perceive that those me- 
taphysical deductions do not spring from the author’s experiments, nor even 
from the deductions or theories which might legitimately be derived from them 
even if they were accepted to prove what their author claims. Secondly, it 
appears to me that he has given une illustration—a capital one—which 
(a) Brown-SSquard’s Lectures, Lancet, 1876, pp. 211 et*eq., 245. 279 etseq. 
(b) Brown-S6quard, lee cit, (c) F£r6, Gaz. Held. Med. et de Chir., No. 9, 3 Mars, 1876. 
(d) Pitres. Hid., p. 812, 1876. (e) No italics in text. 26 
destroys from the very foundation the theory of localisation of functions : I 
allude to the case of Laura Bridgman, quoted several times by Dr. Ferrier 
himself. 
That person, deaf, dumb, and blind, communicates with the outer world 
by means of digital language. It has been observed that, just as some per- 
sons when deeply thinking allow their lips unconsciously to move as if they 
were speaking, and indeed that some others when thinking whisper audibly, 
and in some instances speak aloud, so Laura Bridgman likewise is seen to 
have unconscious movements of the fingers, just as if she were communica- 
ting with somebody, when she is in reality only thinking. The same thing 
happens when she is dreaming. 
Now, it is clear to everyone that by an educational process of long du- 
ration the would-be motor centres in the convolutions (to please localisers) 
must have aquired also the faculties inherent to the speech-centre which in 
her case were deficient; or if it be said that the speech-centre was intact, 
that there was no aphasia, but trouble of the external organs of speech, then 
it must be conceded again that a channel has been established between the 
speech-centre and the fiinger-centres for the conveyance of the translation of 
thought into digital language. It can even be argued that in her, if a larynx 
could be constructed at the end of her fingers, she would actually speak 
phonetic language just as an educated parrot. The conclusion to draw from 
this is that there is no part of the cortex specially or specifically endowed 
with a certain function, but that any such part can become endowed. I 
know the experiments of Carville and Duret, which, according to them, ena- 
ble them to establish the theory of “ suppllance1''—i.e., vicarious, supplemen- 
tary functions established in the neighbourhood. But it is known also to all 
those who have made experiments on the brain such as Carville and Duret 
have published,(a) that in a dog they have “taken away the centre for the 
legs in the right hemisphere; the voluntary motor paralysis showed itself as 
usual. After six or eight days the animal haa entirely recovered power in its 
left leg. They (we) then took away the centre for the legs in the left hemi- 
sphere. Evidently, if the 'suppUance’ (supplementary function) of the two 
hemispheres existed, paralysis of the left leg ought to have appeared. It 
did not. The dog was paralysed on the right side just as if he had had no 
lesion of the left hemisphere before.” It is evident in this case that the left 
leg must have derived its nerve-impulse from some centre not situated in the 
left hemisphere, nor, certainly, from a regeneration of its own right centre. 
Therefore some portion of the cortex in the neighbourhood must have ac- 
quired that function which it is supposed it had not before, according to the 
theory of those who teach that the cortex contains specified centres. 
I believe that I have said enough on this subject to show that there 
are other facts in science besides those taken notice of by Dr. Ferrier in his 
treatise, and that even the facts analysed by him can be shown to prove the 
contrary of the theory which he has established. I will observe here, again, 
that unless one starts with the idea that there are motor centres in the cor- 
tex cerebri, it is impossible to succeed in establishing their existence in that 
tissue, which, after all, may be as well endowed with a sensory function as 
with any other.(b) 
I shall now proceed to state very briefly what I consider to be the ex- 
planation of the experimental results of hitzig, Ferrier, and others. 
First. I must state that it has not yet been proved by any means that 
the cortex cerebri in any portion of its extent can be irritated by any means, 
mechanical, physical, or chemical, and that even if we were to suppose that 
(a) Carville and Duret, Archives de Physiologle, 1875, page 44ti. 
(b) Eugene Dupuy, “ Examen,” etc.: ThSse Inaugurale. 1873, page 24. 27 
the electricity used by experimenters excites the fibres which are in commu- 
nication with the cortical cells, and which unite them with lower centres, we 
could gain no knowledge as to the nature of the function of those cortical 
cells, because a nerve-fibre will conduct in either sense, afferently or 
efferently.(a) 
Second. And experiment which shows that when both centres for the 
two anterior legs are destroyed, the animal very soon uses its limbs as well 
as before the experiment, suggests the idea that the transient paresis which 
resulted immediately after the experiment, instead of being a withdrawal of 
influence of a centre, is, on the contrary, an irritative influence exerted by 
the lesion. The subsequent disappearance of all paresis, and the cicatrisa- 
tion of the brain-tissue, show that fact plainly. 
Third. When, an animal being deeply narcotised, an irritation of the 
exposed sciatic nerve gives rise to most violent contractions in the muscles 
of the leg, whilst all reflex actions have disappeared, if the cortex cerebri 
then does not respond to electricity it is wrong to say that it is because it is 
first to lose its excitability, as Drs. Ferrier, Carville and Duret pretend, after 
Flourens. There are many expeiiments which go against this. Here is 
one very striking, which I have had occasion to make several times, and 
which Onimus has specially noted in one of his papers. If from a large 
healthy frog the right hemisphere is taken away, the animal presents this 
well-known appearance, that its left side takes the position usual to a brain- 
less frog; the tonicity of all its muscles is increased on that one side, the 
anterior and the posterior legs are held closer and firmer against the body, 
which is itself inclined on that side. If now chloroform is administered, all 
changes. The left side becomes weaker than the right side, which its tonic 
contraction made it overpower; that effect becomes more and more appa- 
rent as the narcotic effect advances, until both sides of the body are equally 
influenced by the anaesthetic; the frog can then no longer rest on its an- 
terior limbs, and its posterior ones are in a state of resolution. At the same 
time that the effects of the narcosis pass away, the leg of the sound side in 
correspondence with the existing hemisphere assumes by degrees its normal 
position, and comes near the body; whilst those of the right side, which are 
deprived of their cortical centres, are yet in extension and resolution. A 
little later, that one also resumes its former position as before the narcosis, 
and at one time the position of all four limbs is identical; but, when the narco- 
tic effect has entirely passed away, the limbs which are in relation with the 
side of the hemisphere operated upon are again in a state of stronger tonus, 
and the body of the animal is again more inclined towards the side opposite 
to the destroyed hemisphere. That experiment also shows that the cephalic 
centres are the first to recover their excitability. In the cat and the rat the 
effect is exactly identical, mutatis mutandis; so that, in the experiment for 
the elucidation of the problem of localisation of functions, if there is any one 
part of the cerebrum which does not react when electricity is used (the ani- 
mal being absolutely narcotised), it must be the lower eentres, i. e., the cor- 
pora striata and thalami optici. But this last fact is not proved; on the con- 
trary, if in an animal so deeply chloroformed the electrodes are applied di- 
rectly on those ganglia, we do have strong contractions. If the cortex ce- 
rebri has any influence on motion, it must be in the sense of a sensitive cen- 
tre, and not as a motor, because from the foregoing we see a radical differ- 
ence between it and the other ganglia. 
Fourth The objection that the movements which arise from electrical 
stimulation of the cortex (which the foregoing experiments and arguments 
would enable us to consider sensitive, and which are thus of a reflex nature) 
(a) Sep specially the most ingenious experiments of Professor Paul Bert, in C. R. Soc. d« 
Biol., 1877, in Gazette de Med. de Paris, and also in Le Progres Medical. 28 
cannot be reflex, (a1! because a reflex “ movement is rarely limited to the 
same group of muscles, ” is worthless, as everybody knows that no move- 
ments are more limited than reflex movements. Indeed., let those who pre- 
tend that all actions performed by a brainless frog are purely reflex and have 
nothing intelligent or psychic, study the beautiful harmony of movements of 
a frog so prepared. After the ablation of the medulla oblongata, reflex 
movements are still very localised. 
Fifth. The argument derived from this fact, that it can be foretold that 
on irritating such a point of one convolution in a brain, or in the brains of 
all animals of one species, or in any convoluted brain, care being taken to 
ascertain homologous points in all, such a movement will arise in one 
limb,(b) does not prove the irritated cortical area to be motor at all. It must 
be kept in mind that no other agent but electricity will produce the phenomena 
under consideration, and that electricity, as I have experimentally proved, 
travels aud diffuses. Now, when making use of a physical agent, every time 
that we shall have identical circumstances we shall also have idertical re- 
sults; and allowing that the electricity diffuses to the base of the brain, (c) 
to different ganglia, etc., it is natural that in all convoluted brains we should 
have the same results, and be able to foretell them; but the mere fact that when 
the sulci in different brains (species) assume a different direction, the point 
to be irritated to produce one given movement also varies—showing that al- 
ways a constant relation of the area of the cortex of the brain with the base 
of the brain or the ganglia must be an element for obtaining the sought-for 
result—destroys the only objection, as shown by the different situations of 
some centres in the brain of the cat, the ape, the dog, etc. 
Sixth. The fact that irritation of the same area (d) of dura mater will 
give rise to the localised movement in certain group of muscles identical 
with the following irritation of the cortex,(e) and that even mechanical ir- 
ri ation will give the same results, is contrary to the theory of Hitzig, Ferrier, 
Carville, and Duret. 
Seventh. The fact that irritation of the cortex after the manner of the 
forenamed experimenters has given rise, when the leg centres only were 
acted upon, to peristaltic movements of the intestines, to hyper-secretion of 
saliva, to increase in the blood-pressure, to contraction of the spleen,(fj etc. 
tends to show that if the opinion of Hitzig and Ferrier and others is to be 
maintained, that the cortex is a motor centre, we must ipso facto admit that 
those saute centres of motion are centres also for the different functions just 
enumerated 
Moreover, within the last year Dr. Brown-Sdquard has shown that burn- 
ing of the cortex in a large area will bring on paresis—in some instances on 
the same side, in others on the opposite,—and always vaso-motor paraly- 
sis.fg) Bochefontaine has also given some reasons for believing that the ele- 
ments acted upon are not those which make up the cortex; and Eulenburg 
and l.andois(h) have shown that in irritation of the cortex the so-called mo- 
tor areas act very much like vaso-motor centres. 
1 had already in 1875 advanced the view (which appeared to me to be 
well substantiated by experiments) that the phenomena which we saw in 
those experiments were reflex, being the results of vaso-motor influences. 
The facts and arguments detailed above had satisfied me that the cortex 
cerebri was no part in the process which produced the phenomena of con- 
(a) Carvilla and Duret, loc. cil , p. 437. 
(b) Farrier, l'>a. clt. (c) Dupuy,loc.cit. (d) Dupuy, loo. cit. 
(a) Bochofontaine, G. R- Soe. de Riol , 1875, Docembor. 
(f) Bochofontaina, and Boch )fontaim and LSpine, O. R. &>c. de Biol., 
ann, 1875-7), Gazette Med. de Pan*, 1875.. pages 57), 843; and 1878, last quarter. 
(g) Brown-Sequard, Archive* de Phyeioloyie, 1875, No. 8. 
(h) Eulenburg and Landois, V. ArMv, Bd. Ixvi., Heft 4, s. 489. 29 
traction of groups of muscles after irritation of certain areas with electricity; 
and I discovered that those points of the cortex which are called “ ideo- 
motor ” are those to which a comparatively larger artery from the pia mater 
penetrates, not into the cortex, but deeper, into the white strands beneath; 
also that the only spot in the homologue of the angular gyrus of man in the 
dog which does similarly give rise to movement and to hypersecretion of 
saliva, is also the one at which there is such an arterial arrangement. I 
have given details on that subject elsewhere, (a) Those vessels are pro- 
vided with nerve-fibres, which go along with them, or singly, into the brain- 
tissue. The arteries also send smaller twigs, which ramify like roots of 
trees into the cortex alone, but everywhere in it; whilst those with which I 
am concerned have no office with the cortex. 
I had found by my former experiments (b) that substances which dimi- 
nish or increase reflex action by acting through the vascular system, also in- 
crease or diminish the intensity of the phenomena observed in the experi- 
ments under consideration; and taking notice that the cerebral pia mater con- 
tains a very great number of ganglion cells and fibres which are those of 
which I have just spoken above, and which are in relation with other cells 
found in the tissues under the convolutions, I came to the conclusion that 
the movements observed after irritation of the cortex cerebri are of the same 
nature as those which are seen when the four main arteries of the brain are 
simultaneously tied. That, in fact, we had in one limb what Kussmaul and 
Tenner have observed in the whole animal in their experiment. 
1 have noted that the time, from the instant of applying the electrodes 
to the cortex to the actual production of the movement, is sensibly the same 
as that which is required to stop the bleeding of a small artery in the spinal 
cord and laid bare, when a branch of a communicating nerve is irritated with 
electricity, and that this is fifteen or seventeen times longer than the period 
required for the performance of a voluntary action, and nearly once longer 
than for the performance of an ordinary reflex action, but which, according to 
Professor Schiff, (c) is between eleven and thirteen times longer than for a 
voluntary one. 
Against this view some objections have been raised. Dr. Brown- 
Sdiquard (d) has stated that the elements arising from the pia mater have 
certainly nothing to do with the process, because he has seen the same vaso- 
motor effects follow the burning, by the actual cautery, of the cortex after 
peeling off the pia mater as before. To this argument I have found this 
answer: that the mere peeling off of that membrane induces vaso-motor 
phenomena, so that the subsequent application of the cautery to the denuded 
cortex adds nothing to the results. 
Those strands of fibres with which the bloodvessels have some office 
are in connexion with the spinal cord, the medulla, the pons, and the basal 
ganglia (apparently), if am to judge by the direction of their course. 
One word more before ending, about consciousness. I am not prepared 
to deal with that huge subject metaphysically. I will only say a few words 
about it because I have undertaken to review the subject of the functions of 
the brain in the same manner as Dr. Ferrier has done it. If I do not accept 
his views, I wish it to be understood that the hypothesis which I will give is 
a mere hypothesis, and nothing more. I must say in the beginning, how- 
ever, that I agree with Dr. Ferrier and with many others that “we may suc- 
ceed in determining the exact nature of the molecular changes which occur 
in the brain-cells when a sensation is experienced; but this will not bring us 
(a) Dupuy, G. R. Soc. de Biologie, in Gaz. Med. de Pari*. 1875, pages 376 and 800. 
(b) Dupuy, These Inaugurate, *'Do l’Exauien.” etc., 1873, page 23. 
(c) Sehiff. “ Lozion di Fissologia,” etc., second edition; Firenze, 1873. Appendix. 
(d) iirown-Seiiuard, loo cit,passim. 30 
One whit nearer the explanation of the ultimate nature of that which consti- 
tutes the sensation. ” Montaigne has written long ago—“ Cette apparence 
de verisimilitude, qui les fait prendre plutot h gauche qu’h droite, augmen- 
tez-la; cette once de verisimilitude qui incline la balance, multipliez-la de 
cent, de mille onces ; il en adviendra enfin que la balance prendra parti tout 
& fait, et arretera un choix et une veiitd entiere. Mais comment se laissent-ils 
plier k la vraisemblance, s’ils ne connaissent le vrai ? Comment connais- 
sent-ils la semblance de ce de quoi ils ne connaissent pas l’essence?” (a) 
This being the case, I beg leave to state that in the beginning of this 
review I have said that instead of stating that “ the brain is the organ of the 
mind, and that mental operations are possible only in and through the brain, 
is now so thoroughly well established and recognised, that we may without 
further question start from this as an ultimate tact; ”(b) I think that there is 
good reason, on the contrary, for believing that the lower centres so called, 
the spinal centres, also are the organs of mind to some degree. Vulpian, 
commenting on reflex actions in a frog deprived of its brain, keeping in his 
mind the beautiful adaptations of purposiveness of its movements, says —• 
“ What would an animal still possessing its cerebrum do more?” Yet he 
has concluded that there was no will in the actions of that frog! How do We 
know? What is will? Professor Dug£s, of Montpellier, as I have already 
said, found, after experimenting on the Mantis religiosa, that when the head 
and prothorax have been taken away, the posterior portion, retaining its 
four limbs, resisted all efforts made to overthrow it, and manifested anger by 
trepidations of wings. On the anterior portion of the animal he removed the 
head, so that the animal consisted of nothing more but the prothorax. That 
portion of the body lived for more than one hour, agitated its limbs, and 
sometimes caught the fingers of the experimenter, and inserted its fins in the 
flesh. 
I have seen a salamader deprived of what represents its cerebrum, and 
kept in a cool and dark place during summer, and placed in a dish covered 
with a plate, for several days change its place without being excited to do so 
by any circumstances that I could appreciate. 
Those facts, and the reasonings which can be deduced from them, au- 
thorise me, I believe, to state that Dr. Perrier is not right when he says “that 
it must follow from (?his) experimental data that mental operations in the 
last analysis must be merely the subjective side of sensory and motor sub- 
strata.”^) 
We must not accept either this other proposition of his, that the physio- 
logical activity of the brain is not, however, altogether co-extensive with its 
psychological functions.(d) It is through the obligation he has been all 
through his work to beg the question that he has written the postulate which 
is followed by this, that the “ brain as an organ of motion and sensation, or 
presentative consciousness, is a single organ composed of two halves; the 
brain as an organ of ideation, or representative consciousness, is a dual or- 
gan each hemisphere complete in itself.” He has been bound to make that 
distinction, although there is no ground for it, because, as he says himself, 
“ when one hemisphere is removed or destroyed by disease, motion and sen- 
sation are abolished unilaterally, but mental operation, are still capable of 
being carried on in their completeness through the agency of one hemi- 
(a) That appearance of verisimilitude which impels them to incline to the right rather 
than to the left—augment it; that ounce of verisimilitude which bends the scale—multiply 
it by a hundred, by a thousand more ounces: it will come to pass at last that the scale will 
incline altogether, and will thus fix upon a choice, and a whole truth. But how do they al- 
low themselves to believe in a similitude of a truth if they know not the truth itself? IJow 
can they know the like of that of which they know not the essence?—Michel Montagne, 
‘‘'Essais,” liv. ii. chap. xii. (b) Ferrier, loc. cit., page 266, 
(c) Ferrier, loc. cit., page 256; also Hughlings-Jackson quoted by Ferrier. 
(d) Ferrier, loc. cit., page 257. 31 
sphere.” If the view is taken that diseases of the brain do not arise 
from the fact that a centre has been destroyed, but that the diseased 
portion of nerve-matter does start the symptom, in the same man- 
ner that washing the pleural sac in the operation of empyema, in some in- 
stances, brings on an attack of paralysis of the arm on the corresponding 
side, which passes away to recur again after every washing—as shown by 
Leudet and others—of course this view of Ferrier’s is still more unaccept- 
able. I will state first that it so happens than when gross lesions of the brain 
do give rise to psychic alterations, it is in the lower centres that the lesion 
exists, and not only in the cortex. Trousseau repeatedly asked himself why 
the patient suffering from haemorrhage on the brain always cried, whilst 
when only aphasia, only lesion of the convolution existed, no crying was ob- 
served. Lesions of the upper part of the pons, chiefly of the anterior right 
part, are very prolific of emotional symptoms. The emotional state is a 
psychic one; and Dr. Brown-Sdquard and Professor Charcot have 
noted that fact so often noticed by Trousseau. Dr. E. C. Seguin 
has two years ago written a good paper on that subject. Dr. Fleury (a) 
has shown that there was a difference as to frequency of emotional 
symptoms, according as the right and left hemisphere is diseased. 
It is necessary that Dr. Ferrier should prove that conscious- 
ness and motion are two such different things — that is to say, 
that one can exist without the other—as if the mere fact of motion does not 
prove consciousness of the motion process, which is equivalent to saying 
that a thing can be without being, before we can adopt the distinction he has 
drawn. 
I believe that sensation being a factor of consciousness, it is not unrea- 
sonable to suppose that we can conceive consciousness to be that which is 
at work, or rather which is developed from anatomical elements, when the 
brainless frog executes all the movements so well observed by Pfluger; the 
Mantis religiosa, without head and without posterior segment, reduced to 
its prothorax alone, and the salamander without cerebral ganglion, execute 
purposive actions. 
Since those pages were written, February, 1877, some very interesting 
papers have been published, amongst which a memoir by Dr. Couty, in the 
'* Archives de Physiologie ” for the beginning of the year 1877. As those 
researches appear to me to carry additional evidence of the vraisemblance 
of the theories at which I have arrived, I take pleasure in pointing out Dr. 
Couty’s memoir. Dr. Russell Reynolds has tried to explain that the facts 
concerning metallotherapy, as published from the records of the Salpetrifere, 
relative to the disappearance of symptoms, in lesions of the internal capsule, 
by an effect of the imagination, I think it proper to call attention to the re- 
markable report of Dr. Dumont Pallier, published in the C. R. of the “ So- 
de Biologie” for 1877, which shows very conclusively that in Professor 
Charcot’s cases there was secondary sclerosis of bundles of fibres, the ori- 
ginal disease having lasted more than ten years. So that again I believe 
those facts do support my theories, as it is impossible not to admit that in 
those cases reflex actions were at work. 
The case of Dr. Bartholow quoted in my paper, in the original publi- 
cation of the Times and Gazette contained a material error which 1 have 
corrected—as it stands it constitutes an excellent proof of what I have as- 
serted: that it proves not what it is said to prove. 
(a) Do Floury, “ Dynamismo compart des Hemispheres C6rSbraux chez 1’Homme.” 
Paris, 1873.