SALAMANDERS AND THEIR BRAINS 5 



extremely laborious and exacting; and, during the fifty years which 

 have elapsed since my project was formulated, the descriptive litera- 

 ture has increased to enormous volume. This literature proves to be 

 peculiarly refractory to analysis and interpretation. Until recently 

 this vast accumulation of factual knowledge has contributed dis- 

 appointingly little to the resolution of the fundamental problems of 

 human neurology. Nevertheless, the method is sound, and this slow 

 growth is now coming to fruition, thanks to the conjoint labors of 

 specialists in many fields of science. What no individual can hope to 

 do alone can be done and has been done in co-operative federation, 

 as illustrated, for instance, by the Kappers, Huber, and Crosby 

 team and their many collaborators. 



Traditionally, comparative neurology has been regarded as a sub- 

 division of comparative anatomy, and so it is. But it is more than 

 this. The most refined methods of anatomical analysis cannot reveal 

 the things that are of greatest significance for an understanding of the 

 nervous system. Our primary interest is in the behavior of the living 

 body, and we study brains because these organs are the chief instru- 

 ments which regulate behavior. As long as anatomy was cultivated 

 as a segregated discipline, its findings were colorless and too often 

 meaningless. 



Now that this isolationism has given way to genuine collaboration 

 among specialists in all related fields — physiology, biochemistry, bio- 

 physics, clinical practice, neuropathology, psychology, among others 

 — we witness today a renaissance of the science of neurology. The 

 results of the exacting analytic investigations of the specialists can 

 now be synthesized and given meaning. The task of comparative 

 anatomy in this integrated program of research is fundamental and 

 essential. The experimentalist must know exactly what he has done 

 to the living fabric before he can interpret his experiment. In the past 

 it too often happened that a physiologist would stab into a living 

 frog, take his kymograph records, and then throw the carcass into 

 the waste-jar. This is no longer regarded as good physiology. Without 

 the guidance of accurate anatomical knowledge, sound physiology is 

 impossible; and, without skilful physiological experimentation, the 

 anatomical facts are just facts and nothing more. 



Early in my program the amphibians were selected as the most 

 favorable animals with which to begin a survey of the comparative 

 anatomy of the nervous system. Time has proved the wisdom of this 



