THE NERVOUS SYSTEM AND CONSCIOUSNESS. 75 



result of them, Professor Goltz concludes that the degree of the dis- 

 turbance of function from destruction of brain-substance depends upon 

 the quantity removed, not upon the location of the lesion. He says, 

 most positively, that " no extirpation of the motor centers, or of any other 

 portion of gray matter, could cause permanent paralysis to any muscle 

 in the body." His emphasis is upon the word permanent. Very many 

 of the effects insisted on by advocates of localization did follow these 

 brain-lesions, but the effects were not lasting, and they did not depend 

 upon removal of specific portions of the substance. Blindness follows 

 destruction of the angular gyrus, but it is temporary ; the animal will 

 see again in time. Professor Goltz admits a compensation of brain- 

 functions, so that remaining portions of the organ may take up the 

 work of a part destroyed ; but this is not at all the compensation 

 talked of by the supporters of localization. Their compensation re- 

 quires that the additional work shall be done by the corresponding 

 part in the other hemisphere. Professor Goltz destroys the angular 

 gyrus on both sides and still his dog sees. Professor Goltz believes, 

 however, that there are some permanent disturbances resulting from 

 brain-lesions, such as " a certain dullness in the sensation of touch, a 

 diminished power of vision, everything appearing cloudy to the eye, 

 and some awkwardness in the movements." It will disturb the oppo- 

 nents of vivisection to know that Professor Goltz sacrificed fifty-one 

 dogs in attempting to determine the effects of lesion in both hemi- 

 spheres. He found that what happened only to one side of the body, 

 and that the opposite, if one hemisphere was dealt with, happened on 

 both sides of the body if both cerebral masses were affected. In all 

 these cases mental weakness increased toith the increasing quantity of 

 matter removed. When considerable portions were taken away on 

 both sides, the dog presented a demented appearance, very plain to be 

 recognized. He could walk, run, see, hear, smell, and taste, but he 

 was imbecile in all these activities. 



It was not to be supposed that so fierce an attack upon localization 

 would go unchallenged. Professor Goltz certainly did not shrink from 

 the demand to make good his assertions. He took up basket and dog 

 and journeyed from Strasburg to London. Here, in 1881, he came be- 

 fore the physiological section of the International Medical Congress, 

 opened his basket, and, taking out the dog, placed him over against the 

 almost equally celebrated monkey of Professor Ferrier. The dog 

 walked, ran, saw, heard, tasted, and smelt ; this was as his master 

 desired, yet he should not have behaved so, for he had lost almost all 

 the centers for these respective functions. Large territories in both 

 hemispheres were gone. He was clearly weak-minded, but, on the 

 whole, he was not the kind of dog believed in by the advocates of 

 localization. Professor Yeo even went so far as to say before the 

 section, "I candidly admit that, should the entire of the so-called 

 motor centers prove to be destroyed in this case, Professor Goltz 



