342 INTERNAL SECRETIONS 



of the somatic sex characters and of the psycho-sexual behaviour 



is independent of the presence of the prostate and of any 

 endocrine function which this organ might possess. When there 

 is, as in man or in the adult animal, an effect on the behaviour 

 following prostatectomy this is merely due to operative inter- 

 ference in a region very sensitive to injury, and not to the 

 absence of some specific prostatic hormones. The fact that there 

 may be considerable abnormality in the psycho-sexual be- 

 haviour, even when the prostate is not completely removed, is 

 very significant. Unfortunately, Lichtenstern has not ex- 

 amined the question as to whether sterility follows complete 

 prostatectomy without removal of the seminal vesicles. 



Similar experiments have been performed by Macht and 

 Bloom (1921). They examined the psychical behaviour of 

 twenty young rats from which the prostate gland was removed. 

 In their experiments they employed a labyrinth or maze 

 through which the rats learned to pass, the time taken being a 

 test of intelligence or memory. The experimental animals 

 passed through the labyrinth as quickly as the control animals 

 in which the abdomen had been opened without prostatectomy 

 being performed. In later experiments by Macht and Ulrich 

 (1922) rats trained to walk along a rope did not lose their 

 power to do so after prostatectomy. But when prostatectomy 

 wasjperformed before the rats were completely trained, they 

 could not be properly trained afterwards. But, according to 

 Macht and Bloom, the mental deficiency shown by these 

 animals could be alleviated by the administration of dried 

 prostatic tissue. 



Serralach and Pares claimed to have shown that prostatec- 

 tomy is followed by azoospermia. In three dogs after prosta- 

 tectomy they found an atrophy of the testicle which showed no 

 signs of spermatogenesis. Further, the same authors point out 

 that two to three days after injection of an extract of the 

 prostate spermatozoa reappeared in the ejaculation. They 

 concluded from their experiments that the prostate produces 

 an internal secretion which influences the testicle and stimu- 

 lates spermatogenesis. But the experiments of Serralach and 

 Par^s are by no means convincing. It is highly probable that 

 in those cases where a degeneration of the generative part of the 

 testicle took place a seminal passage was interfered with 

 during the operation; this objection, I think, cannot be 



