268 ItEYIEWS. 



and what generally accepted, since Sir Charles Bell propounded that 

 which was adopted, as fully ascertained, by Dr. Henry in the report 

 jnst alluded to. We need not do more than mention in the most 

 cursory way the experiments of Fodera, who on dividing one poste- 

 rior column of the spinal cord, in the cervical region, produced loss of 

 feeling in the opposite side, and loss of movement in the same, and 

 who on repeating the same experiment in the lumbar region obtained 

 results diametrically opposite : or those of Backer, who on cutting 

 across the posterior columns observed a destruction of both feeling 

 and motion in the posterior limbs ; or of Sehoeps, who, on repeating 

 the same experiment, thought that he found sensibility persisting and 

 motion destroyed, in the posterior extremities. 



The views of Bellingeri, that the anterior columns of the spinal 

 cord are a bundle of nerve fibres animating the flexor muscles, and 

 that the posterior columns contain the nerve fibres animating the ex- 

 tensor muscles, are more deserving of a critical investigation, because, 

 in these later times, they have been, to a certain extent, adopted by 

 a person of acknowledged ability, the learned Professor Valentin. 

 The now modified notions of M. Moritz SchifF, who " holds that the 

 grey matter transmits along the cord painful impressions, while 

 simple tactile impressions are conveyed along the posterior columns, 

 must not be forgotten. Nor can we pass over in silence the state- 

 ments of Professor Schroeder van der Kolk, that, in his opinion, the 

 grey matter in the spinal cord serves solely for motion, the posterior, 

 rather for reflex action and the co-ordination of movements, whilst 

 sensation is transmitted upwards through the posterior and lateral 

 medullary columns. The opinion of the last named Professor is the 

 more deserving of criticism, in as much as his work is universally 

 in the hands of British readers ; yet we confess, that we are quite at 

 a loss to understand the reasoning on which his opinions are founded: 

 he, indeed, draws his conclusions especially from the phenomena 

 produced by strychnia in a dog, but his line of argument appears to 

 us so entirely inconclusive, that we are almost forced to infer that 

 there is some typographical error in the expression of his opinion as 

 above stated. If it be not so, then indeed a very useful lesson is to 

 be drawn from the deductions of the learned Professor ; we are taught 

 how very dangerous it is to hang physiological theories upon a frame- 

 work, such as the anatomist sees, or fancies he sees, in the structures 

 of the nervous centres. But it will become our duty further on to 

 analyse the reasonings of Prof. Schroeder van der Kolk, when com- 

 paring them with those of Brown- Sequard. 



Passing from these, as we may call them, subordinate theories 

 concerning the precise functions of the various tracts of the spinal 

 cord, we come to the two great rivals, which have for some time 

 struggled, with varying success, for acceptance before the leading 

 Physiologists of Europe, \iz. that of Sir Charles Bell, as modified by 

 M. Longet, which had been generally adopted in Prance and England, 



