490 F. H. PIKE 
transient as one must hold if cerebral localization is to be sub- 
stantiated. On the other hand, von Monakow opposes those 
who insist on ‘‘all the so-called centers in the bulb and cord 
(and particularly the cerebrum) with which the perverse inge- 
nuity of nvestigators and systematic writers has encumbered 
the archives and text books of physiology.’ (Stewart, ’00.) 
A complete presentation of the evidence for and against the 
current ideas of shock and of the omnipotence of the circum- 
scribed centers would require many pages, but some statement 
is necessary as a basis for a comparison of the various hypotheses 
and a general estimate of their validity 
As already mentioned, Goltz’s view, either in its original form 
or as restated by Edinger, that reflexes occur through the lower 
levels of the brain and the spinal cord exclusively, rests upon an 
assumption. Explicitly or implicitly, Goltz and his school 
assume that the cells and synapses of the isolated portion of 
the spinal cord never convey any greater quantity of energy, to” 
use Hughlings Jackson’s term, after isolation than they did 
before. Changes in isolated cells have been mentioned in the 
literature, e.g., Munk’s term ‘Tsolationsinderung,’ but those 
changes have more commonly been supposed to be retrogressive 
than otherwise. Sherrington’s term ‘isolation dystrophy,’ 
although applied to a somewhat different condition of affairs, is 
an instance in point. 
Senator (98), however, admits that reflexes may be per- 
manently absent in the human subject in cases in which no 
degeneration of, or damage to, the neurones of the supposed 
reflex ares can be shown histologically. Basing his first con- 
clusion, then, upon the fact that some of the reflexes return after 
a time in the isolated portion of the spinal cord, Goltz as previ- 
ously indicated, found it necessary to make another assumption, 
to the effect that the reflexes were only temporarily suppressed 
or inhibited by the operation of transection of the spinal cord. 
This temporary failure of the reflexes had been called ‘shock’ 
by Marshall Hall, and Goltz spoke of ‘Shockwirkung’ in this 
connection. Goltz did not know what shock was, but was in- 
clined to regard it as an ‘Inhibitorische Fernwirkung’ due to the 
