“DIE LOKALISATION IM GROSSHIRN”’ 491 
anatomical transection of the cord. And despite the fact that 
cutting a nerve produces but a relatively small and transient 
effect as compared with the effects of electrical stimulation, 
anatomical transection of the spinal cord is commonly said to 
be a terrific stimulus. Sherrington, however, shows that the 
effect of anatomical transection can be exerted but once, and 
concludes that the view of trauma qua trauma as the cause of 
spinal shock is not really tenable. It has been shown also that 
shock in the lower levels of the spinal cord may be produced by 
anaemia of its higher portion and of the brain without interrup- 
tion of the circulation to the lower portion of the cord (Stewart 
et al., ’06) or by freezing a segment of the spinal cord without 
excitation of the efferent motor pathway. Sherrington’s view 
that the interruption of certain conduction pathways in the 
spinal cord favors the production of spinal shock derives much 
support from these results. The recent work of Ranson (’16) 
shows that the rupture of certain orally conducting pathways is 
effective in abolishing responses and that the rupture of the 
aborally conducting pathways may not be necessary, as Sher- 
rington believed it to be. Ranson’s results confirm, in a measure 
at least, my view that the shock effect is exerted upon the affer- 
ent pathway, since the efferent pathway is so obviously open, 
as judged by all the tests which one may apply. 
The segmental theory of the central nervous system, as Goltz 
formulated it, does not accord with the facts of organic evolu- 
tion, inasmuch as it makes no allowance for a change in function 
of the various levels of the system to correspond with the ana- 
tomical changes occurring in phylogenetic development. The 
argument for a shifting of function toward the anterior end of 
the central nervous axis (Steiner) and the development of cerebral 
localization is met by the statement on the part of the segmen- 
talists that, if the effects of shock in the higher forms were not 
so severe, the lower levels of the nervous system of a man would 
manifest just as complete a recovery after injury to the higher 
levels as those of a frog. The increasing severity and perma- 
nence of the shock effects in higher animals, while freely ad- 
mitted by Goltz, and even made a supporting point of his 
