its stead the mechanism of ganglions, or slight enlargements at particular distances from each other. He endeavours to show, that these two kinds of nerves communicate with, and decussate each other, and are put into reciprocal action in the region of the medulla oblongata; and hence he explains why injuries of the head influence different and even opposite parts of the body, and why affections of the body are frequently found to operate on the head.

But though the superior and inferior nerves thus issue from the brain and spinal marrow, our author contends that they do not originate in either as a single organ: that the former, though usually contemplated as a single organ is, in reality, notwithstanding we cannot trace out such divisions, as much a combination of distinct organs possessing distinct functions and faculties, as the thorax or abdomen: that every such organ produces its own nerves for its own purposes, which unite at the point we have just adverted to; while the nerves brought into contact at the same point, by means of the spinal marrow, originate, in like manner, in the various organs of the abdomen, thorax, and other parts of the body, and are sent to the vertebral chain for the pur pose of maintaining a correspondence between every part of the corporeal system. So that the brain has no more title to be called the source of nervous mechanism than any other organ, or combination of organs, each of which contributes its own nerves for the general use of the whole.

"Anatomists and physiologists generally speak of a common origin of the nervous system: they consider the brain as the origin of the spinal marrow and of the nerves, and all these parts as one homogeneous mass. We are of opinion, that the nervous system must be divided and subdivided, and that each part of these divisions and subdivisions has its particular origin.Anatomists speak commonly of four parts of the nervous system: of the great sympathic or intercostal nerve, of the spinal marrow, of the cerebral nerves, and of the brain itself. Several anatomists, as Winslow, Soemmerring, and Cuvier, have remarked the impropriety of deriving the great sympathic nerve from the brain and the spinal marrow; they have considered this nervous apparatus as existing by itself. Bichat even maintained, that the intercostal nerve is not one, but that it must be considered as composed of various parts which take their separate origins from the different ganglia dispersed through the abdomen and thorax: he mentions the differences which hay be observed between the great sympathetic, and the other nerves of the body. The fibres of the former are greyer, thinner, softer, and more numerous, while the fibres of the other nerves are whiter, thicker, more solid, and less numerous. Comparative anatomy indeed clearly proves, that the nerves of the abdomen and thorax are not the continuation of the spinal marrow and the brain. For, while no nerves have been detected in zoophytes, nerves exist in animals which have.

distinct vessels, and an intestinal canal, and there take their origin from various ganglia; and as these animals are destitute of a spinal marrow and brain, the nerves cannot arise from them. Now as the nervous systems of the viscera of the lower classes of animals are analogous to similar systems in higher classes, which perform similar functions that is, as the nerves of these animals correspond to the Dervous plexus of the abdomen and thorax, and to the series, more or less interrupted, of the ganglia of the sympathic nerve in the higher animals, it is demonstrated that this apparatus exists independently and of itself. Thus we consider the intercostal nerve as composed of different parts which have separate origins, and in communi

cation with

Even the other, with the spinal marrow, and with the brain."

Even the spinal marrow, and the pretended celebral nerves, are not continuations of the brain, nor is one part of them the continuation of another, but the spinal marrow, every pair of its nerves, and every pair of the pretended cerebral nerves, have their peculiar origin? (For the brain is in proportion meither to the spinal marrow nor to the pretended cerebral nerves, which ought to be the case if they were continuations one of another. The brain of a horse, ox, or stag, is smaller than that of man, while their spinal marrow and nerves are far larger than the same parts of man. Hence the brain is the origin Deither of the spinal marrow nor of the nerves. Certain monsters of the human species, and of the perfect animals, are born without head, and are yet provided with nerves, and a spinal marrow. Sometimes the head, the upper parts of the body, and the thorax, are wanting, and yet the inferior parts have nerves. Even a leg, if it be born alone, is provided with them. Hence the brain cannot be their origin." (P. 14-16.)

10 This opinion is supported with much ingenuity of remark, and considerable display of anatomical investigation. We have no Besitation in admitting, with the members of the French National Institute, that it is probably correct; though, after all, it must be regarded as mere opinion, for no part of it is proved or fully established. Even allowing that the intercostal nerve is not, as to its materies, derived from the.brain, it will by no means follow that the sensitive, or energetic power, of which it is the conductory is not produced in and communicated from the brain s thus, while the new blood vessels of a part that has been destroyed by an abscess are formed out of the materies of the surrounding Vessels, by the plastic instinct of the living power, the blood with hich they are supplied is unquestionably derived from the

heart.

297158, 19420 ori bus pitnou Desiatry ends maos ted hav, da ad yanı Den 191108 1:

19. Since writing the above; we have had an opportunity of perusing the experiments of) M. Gallois in his ingenious work Sur la

Those of Dr. Philip and Mr. Clift, published in the first parte de la Vie, and the Philosophical Transactions for the present year, and, taking them in the mass, they only show that the subject is still involved in the utmost obscurity, and that we have got

The great aim of the author, by these anatomical speculations, is to lay a basis for his grand physiological doctrine, that the brain, instead of being a single organ, is, as we have already observed, a congeries of separate organs, possessing separate functions and faculties; and that as the liver, the kidneys, and the stomach, are appropriated to particular offices in the trunk, and the faculties of sight, hearing, smell, and taste, flow from particular parts, or organs, within the cranium; so taste, will, memory, consciousness, imagination, a love of morality, religion, thieving, murder, concupiscence, the sentiments of friendship, pride, faith, hope, and a variety of others, are, in like manner, generated in other parts or organs of the brain, and constitute their respective functions.

Such is the principle which forms the foundation-stone of the hypothesis before us. The learned theorists having thus conceived, in the first place, that Nature has marshalled this important region into a definite number of divisions, and has given to every faculty the command of a separate post, conceived, secondly, as the general mass of the brain lies immediately under the cranium, or scull-bone, and is impacted into its cavity with the utmost exactness, so that if any one or more of these faculties, or, which is the same thing, if any one or more of these organs, or divisions of the brain, allotted to their control, should be peculiarly forward and active, whether from accident or natural propensity, they must necessarily become more developed, and give

the means of arriving at any indisputable conclusion, According to M. Gallois's experiments, the motion of the heart, by the use of artificial respiration, may be continued unimpaired after the whole of the brain has been removed; but not after the whole of the spinal marrow has been taken away, or even the cervical part of it alone. According to the experiments of Dr. Philip, the brain and the spinal marrow may be equally destroyed by means of a hot iron pin, or wire, and the motion of the heart will still continue without diminution. But then it appears, by other experiments of this last writer, that the brain and the spinal marrow must only be destroyed gradually; for that any sudden violence applied to either, such as abruptly crushing the brain, or the vertebræ, instantly produces great feebleness in the pulsation of the heart; while certain stimuli, as spirit of wine, applied to the brain, either anteriorly or posteriorly, or even to the cervical or dorsal, but not to the lumbar part of the spinal marrow, increase the action of the heart very sensibly; hence appearing to show, that the brain does, in fact, exercise a control over the motion of the heart, even after the cessation of perception, and consequently independently of it, and this too in different parts of what should in consequence seem to be one common organ; and that the line of contro! passes from the brain itself, down the spinal marrow, to the heart, in the common course of the nerves. During life this controlling power may possibly consist of some fine ethereal, or, to use the more recent term em-pyrral secretion; and after death, or the loss of perception, its action may for hours be continued from a habit of association between the two organs. The conclusions of Dr. Philip are by no means at, variance with this remark; but it is 'hot necessary to detail them. Mr. Clift's experiments, so far as they go, harmonize with those of Dr. Philip. The latter operated upon frogs and rabbits, the former upon carp; the animals being deprived of sensation at the outset..

some external token of such development by a constant pressure against those particular portions of the cranium under which they are immediately seated, and which, by uninterrupted perseverance, and especially in infancy and adolescence, when the bones of the cranium are more easily moulded into a particular shape, become elevated and rendered protuberant. And having advanced thus far, they conceived, thirdly, that, as every man has some faculty or other more energetic and manifest than the rest, from which indeed his peculiar disposition, or propensity, takes its cast, he must necessarily also have some peculiar protuberance, or protuberances, some characteristic bumps, or embossments, by which his head is distinguishable from all other heads, or at least from all others of a different temper, or attracted by different objects of pursuit; and that thus, when the different stations of the different faculties which belong to the brain, are ascertained, it becomes easy, from the external bump, or protuberance, to ascertain their presence and predominance.

These premises being satisfactorily established in the minds of our author and his celebrated colleague, their next business was to determine the relative parts, or organs of the brain, to which -the different faculties were to be consigned: and having settled this important point to their own thorough conviction, they immediately made a map of the outside of the head, divided it into corresponding regions, and adjudged themselves qualified to decide upon character with mechanical ease and expedition, and, we presume also, to promulge a body of rules, or criteria, calcu lated to render every man his own physiognomist. "In order to distinguish the developement of the organs," observes our author, it is not always necessary to touch the head; in many cases the eye is sufficient. It is even more easy to distinguish the size of the organs situated in the forehead by sight than by touch. It is only necessary to touch the organs which are covered with hair." (P. 2613)

This geographical description of the cranium, which puts us somewhat in mind of the map of the moon, depending upon the agency of the interior substance which it encloses, and in which Dr. Spurzheim has found particular stations for the particular organs of affection, or intelligence, must needs have been the result of great patience and investigation. In the first place, it is admitted that these different parts cannot, by the eye of the anatomist, be distinguished from each other either as to structure or function.o

910

"It is true," says Dr. Spurzheim, "the limits or lines of separation cannot be exactly determined between the different organs."' (P. 222.)..

"There are very few cases where the structure of any part indicates its function; and such opinions are never more than conjectural. It is the same with the brain. Let the directions of its fibres be known; let anatomists distinguish their greater or less consistence, their more or less white colour, their different size, length, &c. what conclusion can they draw from these circumstances in respect to the functions? None. Thus it is certain, that the anatomical knowledge of any part does not indicate its function." (P. 233.)

Secondly, our author admits that zootomy, or comparative anatomy, of which, we freely confess, we expected some advan tage might have been taken, is of as little avail...

"Let us now," says he," examine whether comparative anatomy has determined the functions of the brain. At the first view, it seems that comparative anatomy ought to afford important results; but there are, in this respect, obstacles which it is impossible to overcome. First, I have just said that it is impossible to determine the functions according to the structure of any part. Moreover, there is a great number of animals whose automatic life presents several organs of which man is entirely destitute. We may conjecture that it is the same with animal life; but how can we conceive any function if we are not endowed with a similar faculty? Although it is of the highest importance to know the gradation observed by nature in perfecting the brains of animals in order to multiply and ennoble their functions, we must allow that, notwithstanding the most assiduous labours relative to this end, comparative anatomy has only shown the mechanical form of different brains, but that these anatomical notions do not at all deter mine the functions of the cerebral parts.

"There was not any principle to enable us to determine whether the same parts exist in different animals or not. Different parts were denied or admitted according to their similar or dissimilar form. The nerves of insects, crustaceous animals, and mollusca, are derived partly from ganglia, partly from the brain; but, according to our anatomical principles, no nerve can either be derived from another nerve nor from the brain. Every nerve has its own origin, and we call brain the nervous mass, which is joined to the nerves of motion and the five external senses, and which manifests the moral sentiments and intellectual faculties." (P. 235, 236.)

7

Our craniologists next, attempted to determine the particular **** faculties of the mind allotted to particular parts of the brain, by mutilating the brain of various animals in different ways. But such kinds of experiments, it is also admitted, afforded as little information as anatomical researches. These means," we are told, were not only entirely useless, but could never serve to determine the functions of the brain; for the organs are not con-... fined to the surface, consequently every organ ought to be cut, away, on both sides, from the surface to the medulla oblongata But such a wound would kill any perfect animal. Let us even a baserbillo e . Pord, á h