486 F. H. PIKE 
then take up more in detail the examination of von Monakow’s 
argument against these views and in favor of cerebral 
localization. 
, The classical statement of the segmental theory and of the 
general hypothesis of shock is due largely to Goltz. I made 
this statement from the point of view of the physiologist rather 
than that of the anatomist. I should perhaps utter a warning 
here that the phenomena of shock, as Goltz and others have 
described it, and as the term is used in this paper, are not to be 
confused with other phenomena of uncertain nature which have 
come to be included under the somewhat obscure but widely in- 
clusive term shock as it is used by the surgeon or the clinician. 
A perusal of the first chapter of von Monakow’s work will be 
sufficient to show the error that may arise from failure to differ- 
entiate several different kinds of shock. 
Goltz assumed that all reflexes occurred through the lower 
levels of the central nervous system and especially through the 
spinal cord. This view has been restated many times. Per- 
haps its most concise statement in modern anatomical terms is 
that by Edinger (’08): 
Since it is certain that the palaeencephalon persists quite unchanged 
even after a well developed neencephalon has been added to it, there is 
no ground for regarding those activities which we recognize as ‘palacen- 
cephalic in one class of animals as anythmeg else or as otherwise local- 
ized in higher animals. Furthermore we may regard an entire series 
of activities as common to all vertebrates and we may then seek to 
ascertain how other activities are added to these when a new structure 
is added to the palaeencephalon. All sense impressions and movement 
combinations belong to the palaeencephalon. It is able to establish 
simple new relations between the two, but it is not able to form asso- 
ciations, to construct memory images out of sever: fh components. It 7s 
the bearer of all reflexes and instincts. 
This has generally been regarded as a certainty, and despite 
the fact that he adduces no independent proof, Edinger’s italies 
leave little doubt as to his own views on the subject. But 
Goltz himself regarded it as an assumption, and no actual proof 
of its general truth has been forthcoming in the four decades 
and more since its enunciation. In view of the wide currency 
