46 On Current Force in Lacteal Absorption and Nutrition. 



secretion, we may nevertheless adduce physiological reasons, viz. 

 the analogy which exists hetween the two processes — between 

 secretion on the one hand and nutrition on the other, — in support 

 of our conclusions. 



Concluding Remarks. 



As these inquiries have met with a degree of opposition which 

 we can only refer to the strong prejudices which exist in refer- 

 ence to electro-physiolog-ical pursuits, since no attempt that we 

 are aware of has been made to refute either the conclusions or 

 the experiments by experimental evidence, we nevertheless feel 

 compelled to reply to one or two objections which have been 

 raised, more especially in reference to our latter experiments. It 

 has been stated that our experiments do not co?i^?-m those of Du 

 Bois Reymond, and that it is necessary in these researches to 

 use a delicate galvanometer. Let us first notice the former ob- 

 jection, as it will be a means of refuting the latter. 



These experiments, as we have already stated, were undertaken 

 previous to the knowledge of Du Bois Reymond's researches. 

 The facts which Du Bois Reymond has elicited, and which we 

 wish to draw attention to, are those in reference to the law of 

 the muscidar current and to that of the nervous current ; the 

 former confirming the experiments of Matteucci, the latter being 

 those which Du Bois Reymond appears to have been the first to 

 elucidate. Our experiments, as far as we can see, not only con- 

 firm those of Matteucci, but also tend to confirm those of Du 

 Bois Reymond. Our object, however, was to ascertain the 

 origin of the current {muscular current) in Matteucci's experi- 

 ment ; and the question is, Do not our experiments tend also to 

 point out the origin of the nervous current in Du Bois Reymond's 

 experiment ? And surely we may allude to one circumstance, 

 which ought to be gratifying rather than a subject of dispute, 

 namely, that three inquirers, working independently of each 

 other, should ultimately arrive at results which tend to confii'm 

 and support the conclusions of each independent observer. More- 

 over, may we not adduce this circumstance also as an argument 

 in favour of the conclusions ? 



In looking over our experiments, however, we find that we 

 have not succeeded in obtaining an effect upon the needle when 

 the tendon and the surface of the rectus femoris muscle were 

 formed into a circuit. Du Bois Reymond appears to consider this 

 experiment of some importance ; we, on the other hand, do not 

 consider it in the same light. We do not deny that it may be 

 obtained*. The question, however, is this: Has Du Bois Rey- 



* We are assuming that this is the point of objection raised ; we have 

 never been able to get any definite and tangible objection exphcitly stated. 



