Dr. Philip on the Secreting Power of Animals. 41 



• A paper appeared in the last number of the Journal of the 

 Royal Institution, in which Dr. Alison professes to reply to some 

 observations of mine which you did me the honour to publish 

 in the eighteenth number of that Journal. 



With respect to the preliminary matter of Dr. Alison's paper, 

 if he will take the trouble to recur to my observations, he will 

 find, that I did not object to the opinion, which he there restates, 

 on account of its novelty ; but because, while he allows that the 

 nervous influence in increasing muscular contraction only stimu- 

 lates the muscles of voluntary motion, he supposes it to increase 

 the contractile power of the muscles of involuntary motion, 

 without pointing out any sufficient grounds for thus referring 

 similar phenomena to different causes. To this objection Dr. 

 Alison makes no reply. 



I am a good deal surprised at Dr. Alison's objection to the 

 term nervous influence ; for it cannot surely be denied, that the 

 brain and spinal marrow possess a certain influence over other 

 parts. I have always avoided the use of the term nervous 

 fluid, that my words might convey nothing more than a simple 

 expression of the fact. It has never appeared to me, that we 

 have proof of either the nervous influence or galvanism being 

 a substance of any kind. What idea Dr. Alison attaches to the 

 term nervous influence I do not know ; I never attached to it 

 nor does it appear to me possible to attach to it, any other than 

 that here stated. The following sentence of Dr. Alison, is to 

 me wholly unintelligible : " First, let it be made clear that there 

 is such an existence in nature as this nervous influence, and then 

 I will admit the obligation." Does Dr. Alison here mean that 

 there is no proof of the brain and spinal marrow influencing 

 other parts of the animal body ? I cannot suppose that this is 

 his meaning, for he speaks of the brain stimulating some muscles 

 and giving power to others. If this be not his meaning, what 

 other can his words convey ? 



Dr. Alison confesses (p. 277) that he had not sufficiently ad- 

 verted to some of my statements. He again, in his present 

 paper, misconceives me to a degree, which I am sure, if he refer 

 to my Treatise (p. 157, 2d. Ed. and other passages) will sur- 



