492 F. H. PIKE 
hypothesis, are without any explanation on the basis of such 
an hypothesis. Goltz and his followers conclude that a cell in 
the lower levels of the central nervous system may never regain 
all its normal function after the injury to the higher levels. 
Von Monakow departs from the fundamental assumption of 
the segmental theory—that all levels or segments have essen- 
tially the same function in all types of vertebrates—in his state- 
ment that more numerous and more widely separated groups of 
nerve cells and fibers are necessary for the successful execution 
of essentially similar movements in successively higher types of 
animals. This statement, as already noted, dates back to 1895. 
The anatomical and pathological evidence available twenty 
years and more ago was sufficient to shake his faith in the seg- 
mental hypothesis. To some of us it seems that all the addi- 
tional anatomical, pathological, and experimental evidence 
which has accumulated since that time points toward cerebral 
localization as the logical and final development of the processes 
of evolution in the central nervous system. But, as I have 
already mentioned, and as I would particularly emphasize 
now, cerebral localization is an untenable view if all Goltz’s 
postulates concerning spinal shock are to be granted. The 
emphasis is the more necessary since this part of Goltz’s argu- 
ment, which is essentially sound if his premises be granted, has 
been so frequently neglected or overlooked. Goltz considered 
the argument against cerebral localization to be just as cogent 
as his argument for the spinal cord as the great reflex mechan- 
ism, as a careful reading of his papers will show. He was much 
too careful and accurate a thinker to overlook any serious defects 
in the logic of his argument. Indeed it must be confessed that 
he was a far clearer and more logical thinker than many who 
have essayed this field since his day, or than many who have 
accepted his argument in part while rejecting the remainder of 
it. The task of these latter authors is more difficult than was 
Goltz’s, for they must show, not only that one part of his argu- 
ment is correct, but why the remainder, which is founded on 
exactly the same assumption as the other part and upon facts 
of exactly the same nature, is incorrect. I will freely admit 
