CRITICAL NOTICES OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. 339 
is removed! The conclusions are opposite of Drs. Wilson Philip and 
Brachet ; the first, obviated the ill effects of the removal of a piece 
of the pneumo-gastric nerve, on the lungs and stomach, by supply- 
ing these organs with the galvanic influence ; and hence, among o- 
ther notions, inferred that the nervous and galvanic fluids are the 
same; but, Dr. Brachet produced the same results by merely ¢rritat- 
ing the devided nerve going to the stomach. 
Physiology teems with similar contradictions ; and anatomy, which 
from its more material and apparent nature, would seem to be by 
right exempt from such uncertainty, furnishes similar examples, 
though not to the same amount! e.g. the “ respiratory tract” of Sir 
Charles Bell is sometimes wanting, but its alleged function never. 
And it was but recently that the anatomy of the liver came before 
us, demonstrated as widely different as possible from any former de- 
scription and preconceived notion of it! The microscopic investiga- 
tions of Ehrenberg would prove that the nerves are tubular: Ras- 
pail, on the contrary, asserts that they are aggregations of “ solid cy- 
linders, each invested, like muscular fibrils, with a fine membrane, 
and the whole with a common covering to form a trunk. He de- 
clares that no ¢ube exists in them, as many have asserted.” We may 
observe that Miiller’s views agree with Ehrenberg’s ; confirmed by 
observation, Miiller says that the experiments of Ure and Wilson 
Philip have given rise to misconceptions—alluding to the now refuted 
hypothesis before corrected, that the electric and nervous fluids are 
similar, instead of being, as they certainly are, totally different. He 
also, with much graceful admiration, assigns to Sir C. Bell the merit 
of first suggesting the division of the roots of the spinal nerves into 
motor and sentient; the first coming from the anterior, the second 
from the posterior, columns of the cord. Bell afterwards proved this 
to be the case as relates to the anterior or motor roots; but left un- 
settled (to the satisfaction of some) whether he was convinced of the 
uses of the posterior roots in reference to sensation: a point which 
Magendie did certainly afterwards establish, and, if Dr. Elliotson can 
be credited, without access to a privately-circulated pamphlet by Sir 
C. Bell many years before (1811). Very few will submit to the 
confident assertion—a mere and worthless assertion—of Dr. Elliot- 
son, that Magendie did not so obtain the elementary materials of what 
he stoutly contends is a discovery of his own. We fear we must re- 
tract some portion of the generally well-deserved praise we so warmly 
accorded to Dr. Elliotson at the beginning of this article, for his tone 
of expression when speaking of SirC. Bell is unworthy of both ; and 
unless Dr. E. shall make a discovery of equivalent value, great as is 
his acknowledged merit, his immortality must be postponed: in the 
mean time Sir C. Bell may be said to have—exclusive of other great 
merits—by this discovery alone, deserved and achieved a philosophi- 
cal apotheosis. These two specimens will suffice to acquaint the 
reader with the startling disagreements prevailing in the regions of 
