( 80) . 



y zzz a I le'^P'- dt . 



Consequeritij it is possible (o deckice iny law from Hill's calcu- 

 lation, if only one applies formula (9), and, in my opinion, this 

 hypothesis is simpler and more natural, than if one must admit 

 with Hill, that for the irritation-effect the decomposition of a hypo- 

 thetical substance in a definite quantity is required. 



This deduction of my formula I prefer now to the one I have 

 given before, because, as Hill rightly remarks, in the former reasoning 

 the 2"^ electrode was supposed to be at an infinite distance from 

 the first. 



6. We may therefore admit (hat my formula finds its origin in 

 the modified theory of Neknst, and then a great many difficulties 

 are amoved at once. 



At the same lime a clear light is thrown on the meaning of the 



coefficient ,?, for from the formula ,^ = ^ follows that ,i depends 



a 



on the ditfusion-coefficient k. 



The extinction-coefficient /i shows that there is in every irritation 

 something that diminishes the sensibility of the organ for a sub- 

 sequent irritation. It appoai-s now that the cause of this phenomenon 

 must be found in the dilfusion of the ions which constantly tries to 

 neutralise the difference of concentration caused by the electric current. 



This explanation will satisfy every one. 



Hill (1. c. p. 222) explains that by that very diffusion of the 

 ions the openim/ contractions are caused that occur at a sudden 

 interruption of a galvanic current. In that case the ions move in a 

 contrary direction. 



But is not that motion of the ions in a contrary direction, after 

 the cessation of the current, virtually the same that was formerly 

 called the polarisation-current? 



I do not see the difference, and in that case the explanation that 

 Hill gives of the opening-sltocks, is no other than the one, I deduced, 

 as early as 1893, from my formula, and that was given, even before 

 that time, entirely on empiric grounds, by Tigerstedt (30) and 

 Grützner (31). 



In imitation of Nernst one might also reason as follows : Every 

 irritable tissue can be polarised ; consequently in this polarisation 

 the cause of the physiological effect must be found. 



This is the theory among others of Tschagowitz (32) who deduces 

 from it directly my formula (1). 



