CEREBRAL LOCALIZATION. 609 



of the brain was disorganized, without counting the multiple fractures 

 of the skull and face. He was alone, but, in less than an hour after 

 the accident, without help, he walked to the surgeon's, went up the 

 steps, and related the circumstance clearly and intelligibly. He recov- 

 ered, but died of epilepsy some twelve years later. His physicians and 

 friends observed that his character and intelligence changed notably 

 after the accident. From being intelligent and active he became 

 capricious and unsteady, and had to retire from his post of overseer. 

 Analogous cases to the same purpose might be cited, but we have no 

 space. We need new facts, but those we possess strongly favor the 

 theory of Fritsch, Hitzig, and Ferrier. 



We have passed in review the experimental and clinical arguments 

 in support of this theory ; and there are others of not less importance 

 drawn from pathological j^henomena. But we have no space for their 

 consideration. 



M. Brown-Sequard has shown the greatest hostility to this theory. 

 His chief argument is that lesions and symptoms are not coextensive. 

 An insignificant lesion causes general trouble ; a considerable lesion 

 remains latent in the matter of symptoms. This is true, but it is the 

 exception ; whereas he ought to show that it most frequently hai^pens. 

 The real question is, Does the seat of a lesion signify nothing, and may 

 we have identical symptoms with two very different lesions ? And we 

 have demonstrated that this can not occur. The facts cited in oppo- 

 sition to the theory of Ferrier may be embarrassing, and at present 

 inexplicable ; but such facts would be far more abundant if we admit- 

 ted the theory of M. Brown-Sequard. 



Again, there is the theory of Vulpian, who thinks that the stimu- 

 lation of the gray cells by electricity is not possible. For motor 

 centers he substitutes psycho-motor centers. In his view, stimulation 

 of the convolution acts, not on the cells, but on the white fibers which 

 proceed from them. But his mode of interpretation does not alter 

 results, nor set aside the centers. 



Goltz made a curious experiment, showing clearly the office of the 

 centers. He took two dogs of the same sj^ecies, one having the edu- 

 cation common to all dogs, and the other some supplementary accom- 

 plishments, and among them that of giving the paw. In both dogs 

 he removed the center which presides over the movements of the fore- 

 paw of one side the one given by the knowing dog. They soon re- 

 covered, and could run about. Running is a reflex act, that does not 

 require the intervention of the centers. But, while the learned dog 

 could use his legs, and go and come, he could not give his paw. This 

 was a superior, voluntary act, which could not be performed in the 

 absence of the corresponding center. It is in this differentiation of the 

 organs of voluntary activity from those of automatic activity that we 

 find the explanation of so many singular facts which at first sight seem 

 to contradict the theory of localization. 



TOL. XVIII, 39 



