DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4812#0091
NERVOUS SYSTEM. 8i
Next, I would alledge that the degree of the lhrinking os the limbs in
paralytic cases has been much exaggerated by sorrie phyliologists. For, al-
though, in a few cases, where the whole frame is unhinged, I have, indeed,
seeii it very considerable, yet, in general, though the feeling and motion
be greatly impaired, the loss of substance is not, after the disease has con-
tinued for years, very distinguishablei
Nay, a year aster I had cut, in a living frog, the trunk os one os the
sciatic nerves, I could not observe that the limb, on which the experiment
had been made, was smaller than the other, though it continued to be with-
out sense or motion.
SECT. III.
With respecl: to the third argument, that a secreted fluid is not susfi-
ciently subtile and moveable for the purposes of sense and motion, andj
therefore, that the ssuid conveyed srom the brain by the nerves, as its
duds, must serve for nutrition, I have already remarked, that experi-
ments do not certainly prove that the nervous energy is very subtile and
moveable. But next, supponng such proos to be given, or that sense and
motion are not persormed by a secreted ssuid, I would afk by what argu-
ments we could, in that case, prove the brain to be a gland, and the nerve
its duels ? As things now stand, although we know that we can intercept
the inssuence os a nerve by a ligature, or by pressure upon it; that, when
the presfure is suddenly removed, there is a thrilling and degree os pain, as
is some matter had been accumulated, which now ruihed down into the
limb; and that, by pressing a nerve aster it is cut across, we throw the
muscles into a&ion, the proos that a nervous ssuid exists is sar srom being
satissa£tory. How much, then, will that proos be Weakened, when we de-
ny that sense and motion depend on a secreted ssuid, and when, os course,
we set aside that evidence os a nervous ssuid, which the above experiments
seem to surnish ?
Next, I would alledge that the degree of the lhrinking os the limbs in
paralytic cases has been much exaggerated by sorrie phyliologists. For, al-
though, in a few cases, where the whole frame is unhinged, I have, indeed,
seeii it very considerable, yet, in general, though the feeling and motion
be greatly impaired, the loss of substance is not, after the disease has con-
tinued for years, very distinguishablei
Nay, a year aster I had cut, in a living frog, the trunk os one os the
sciatic nerves, I could not observe that the limb, on which the experiment
had been made, was smaller than the other, though it continued to be with-
out sense or motion.
SECT. III.
With respecl: to the third argument, that a secreted fluid is not susfi-
ciently subtile and moveable for the purposes of sense and motion, andj
therefore, that the ssuid conveyed srom the brain by the nerves, as its
duds, must serve for nutrition, I have already remarked, that experi-
ments do not certainly prove that the nervous energy is very subtile and
moveable. But next, supponng such proos to be given, or that sense and
motion are not persormed by a secreted ssuid, I would afk by what argu-
ments we could, in that case, prove the brain to be a gland, and the nerve
its duels ? As things now stand, although we know that we can intercept
the inssuence os a nerve by a ligature, or by pressure upon it; that, when
the presfure is suddenly removed, there is a thrilling and degree os pain, as
is some matter had been accumulated, which now ruihed down into the
limb; and that, by pressing a nerve aster it is cut across, we throw the
muscles into a&ion, the proos that a nervous ssuid exists is sar srom being
satissa£tory. How much, then, will that proos be Weakened, when we de-
ny that sense and motion depend on a secreted ssuid, and when, os course,
we set aside that evidence os a nervous ssuid, which the above experiments
seem to surnish ?