300 DAVID H. DOLLEY 
of activity. Among these there is noteworthy unanimity when 
the phases with which they worked and the parts which they 
studied (differentiation) are taken into account, as I have at- 
tempted elsewhere to show (711 b). Indeed, from the literature 
with which I am familiar, the score stands at present as eighteen 
who are willing to admit changes of one sort or another against 
two who are skeptical (Eve and Kocher). 
Particularly, the credit must go to Hodge, the pioneer. It has 
been the writer’s fortune to do no more than confirm every find- 
ing of importance which Hodge made. Furthermore, without 
these findings of Hodge and his deductions therefrom, and with- 
out the contributions of his immediate successors toward filling 
in the gaps, the interpretation of the sequence’ of events in the 
more highly differentiated cells would have been enormously 
difficult for a single investigator, if not impossible, even though 
he profited as much as one could by the advance of cytology in 
two decades and more. And cytology is just what is meant. 
AN ANALYSIS OF THE DENIAL OF A FUNCTIONAL MORPHOLOGY 
Were it not for the technical difference of method, repetition 
of Kocher’s work would not be necessary, for a critical analysis 
of his paper will easily show that certain of his essential con- 
clusions do not mean what he appears to think they do, but on 
the contrary afford a confirmation of an essential principle of 
nerve cell function. This critical discussion will be taken up 
first, as it explains why there is no need for further experimental 
data than is submitted. 
The writer has divided the progress of functional activity 
from rest to organic exhaustion into thirteen stages for the Pur- 
kinje cell. Kocher states: ‘‘Representatives of practically all 
these types of cells were found in my specimens, from the rest- 
ing control animal, as well as from those animals exercised for 
one, two and a half, and five hours.”’ These stages were so defi- 
nite that he counted over three thousand cells in order to deter- 
mine the varying distribution (Kocher, table 3). 
Our objective findings therefore are the same; the stages exist; 
there is no rigid morphology of the cell. He does not explain 
