“DIE LOKALISATION IM GROSSHIRN’”’ 507 
(brain) properly speaking, the cerebellum, and the spinal cord. This 
division is purely scholastic. In reality the three parts form one and 
the same organ. 
It is only when we regard the cerebrum as the great sensory 
and motor mechanism to which all the other parts contribute 
and from which they receive that we can rid ourselves of the 
idea—eminently fallacious, as I view it—of independent sensory 
or motor activities of other portions of the nervous system and 
begin to see all parts of the system acting as one system. 
We are hearing much of the clearness of French thought in 
relation to scientific subjects at the present time. It is well 
that we are beginning to accord it the somewhat tardy recogni- 
tion which it so nobly deserves. I am minded to emphasize the 
value of clear thinking in science and particularly in physiology, 
by a quotation from another source. In the German edition of 
Luciani (’07), but unfortunately omitted from the English 
edition, there is a fine sentence concerning another very prev- 
alent fallacy—the view that the otic labyrinth has its main 
functional pathway through the cerebellum—but which is 
equally applicable to the popular status of shock to-day. 
One cannot deny that the clearness and consistency of the book 
py . . . . leave something more to be desired, and its following 
among many clinicians and surgeons would be difficult for me to explain 
if I did not remember that great is the number of uncritical people 
among whom words of uncertain meaning have more weight than 
positive facts and clear, well considered explanations. 
The plausibility of the words of uncertain meaning may be 
greater than that of the other type of exposition. How else 
may one account for the amazing vogue of fakirs and quacks? 
It may be remarked in passing that von Monakow inclines to 
the view that there is a cortical station for laybyrinthine fibers 
in the cerebrum. 
More recently, Luciani (16), has warned against the con- 
fusion in thought which inevitably follows when one fails to 
recognize the essential unity of action of the central nervous 
system, but clings instead to the idea of separate, independent, 
and sharply localized centers in various divisions of the central 
