‘“‘DIE LOKALISATION IM GROSSHIRN”’ 493 
that intellectual evolutions of this sort are much too difficult for 
me to follow and, a fortiori, to execute. I cannot do less than 
to accord to Goltz here, from whom I differ on matters of inter- 
pretation, the same tribute he accorded to Le Gallois, from whom 
he differed on matters of interpretation. I do not question 
Goltz’s facts any more than he questioned those of Le Gallois. 
And I should say of him, as he said of Le Gallois, that he was 
one of the clearest thinkers among the physiologists of his day. 
But just as the discovery of new facts compelled the revision of 
Le Gallois’ interpretation, so I now believe that the discovery of 
new facts has compelled a revision of Goltz’s interpretation. 
The limitation of the effect of shock to a degree which may in 
some measure be based upon anatomical or functional considera- 
tions is necessary. Whereas Goltz supposed that the cells in 
the regions below the level of injury might never regain all their 
former degree of activity, but might be permanently depressed 
or inhibited for the remainder of the life of the animal, von 
Monakow, while allowing a possible depression of function of the 
cells below the level of the lesion at the time of its occurrence, 
supposes that this depression is transient, and that, in time, the 
isolated cells may regain all their former functions. The minimal 
deficiencies of function remaining after some weeks or months 
subsequent to the injury afford a measure of the function of the 
injured or lost portions, particularly of the upper levels of the 
nervous system. In no case, so far as I have observed, does 
von Monakow suppose that the quantity of nervous energy, to 
use Hughlings Jackson’s expression, flowing through any one of 
the remaining tracis is any greater after an animal’s recovery 
from the injury than it was before the injury. 
In his hypothesis of diaschisis, von Monakow comes back to 
the view that it is the rupture of the aborally conducting, or 
efferent, paths which is the essential factor in: shock. The 
lower lying neurone, after its separation from the higher, or 
after failure of the impulses which normally come down from 
the higher, supposedly suffers a temporary depression of function. 
Von Monakow also attacks the idea of a vicarious assumption 
of the function of the injured portion of the central nervous 
