94 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



p. 95), to Brodie (vol. iii. p. 93), to Mayo (vol. iii. p. 345) and to 

 Christison (vol. iii. p. 274); as already stated above, he was 

 unduly generous in his publication of Bell's puerile claim to 

 priority about the roots preferred through the elder Shaw 

 (vol. ii. p. 370). 



Before considering this first paper in detail, it is necessary 

 to bring clearly to mind the part played by the physiology of 

 the fifth nerve in the development of Bell's claim. 



It is a matter of common knowledge to-day that the fifth nerve 

 consists of two principal parts — a larger ganglionated portion 

 which is sensory, a smaller non-ganglionated portion which is 

 motor. These two parts, as was well known to anatomists 

 before Bell was born, are analogous with the posterior gan- 

 glionated and anterior non-ganglionated roots of the spinal nerves. 



Bell and his adherents claim that this double structure and 

 function of the fifth nerve and its analogy with a spinal nerve 

 were discovered by Bell ; also that the cardinal distinction 

 between motor and sensory nerves, imperfectly established by 

 his experiments of 18 n on the spinal roots, was finally and 

 firmly established in i32i by his experiments on the fifth nerve. 



The stress laid by Bell and by Shaw from 1824 to 1839 

 upon the physiology of the fifth nerve is thus quite intelligible. 

 Bell in 181 1 had obviously neither looked for nor found any 

 distinction between motor and sensory functions on the spinal 

 roots and did not, therefore, in 181 1 anticipate Magendie's 

 discovery of 1822. Did he, however, in 1821 find the distinction 

 between motor and sensory functions of the analogous roots 

 of the fifth nerve ? If he did this, he is clearly entitled to 

 share with Magendie the honour of the cardinal discovery of 

 the distinction between motor and sensory nerves. Therefore 

 we examine with special interest his first paper on the facial 

 nerves in the Philosophical Transactions of 1821. And as a matter 

 of course we examine the original paper, which indeed is 

 accessible enough. When we do so, we are surprised to find 

 that the most careful examination fails to bring out any evidence 

 of a distinction made by Bell between sensory and motor 

 functions of the two parts of the fifth nerve. On the contrary, 

 it becomes evident to us that in 1 821, as far as can be under- 

 stood from his somewhat sketchy language, Bell regarded the 

 main portion of the fifth nerve (altogether apart from its minor 

 portions) as both motor and sensory. 



