io8 Darwin, and after Darwin. 



entirely abolish the suggestion. For they prove that 

 even when epilepsy is produced in the parents under 

 circumstances which render "it obvious that the 

 presence of microbes can have nothing to do with 

 such an attack," the epileptiform condition is not- 

 withstanding transmitted to the progeny. What, 

 then, is gained by retaining the intrinsically im- 

 probable hypothesis of microbes to explain the fact 

 of transmission " in Brown-Sequard's experiments," 

 when this very same fact is proved to occur without 

 the possibility of microbes " in Westphal's case " ? 



The only other objection with regard to the seeming 

 transmission of traumatic epilepsy which Weismann 

 has advanced is, that such epilepsy may be produced 

 by two or three very different operations viz. division 

 of the sciatic nerves (one or both), an injury to the 

 spinal cord, and a stroke on the head. Does not 

 this show, it is asked, that the epileptic condition 

 of guinea-pigs is due to a generally unstable condition 

 of the whole nervous system and is not associated 

 with any particular part thereof? Well, supposing 

 that such is the case, what would it amount to? 

 I cannot see that it would in any way affect the 

 only question in debate viz. What is the significance 

 of the fact that epilepsy is transmitted! Even if it 

 be but " a tendency," <- a disposition," or " a diathesis " 

 that is transmitted, it is none the less a case of 

 transmission, in fact quite as much so as if the patho- 

 logical state were dependent on the impaired condition 

 of any particular nerve-centre. For, it must be 

 observed, there can be no question that it is always 

 produced by an operation of some kind. If it were 

 ever to originate in guinea-pigs spontaneously, there 



