1816.} Scientific Intelligence. 393 
gives it the name of maranta indica, and says that it came origi- 
nally from the East Indies ; and Bernhardi, Professor at Erfort, says 
that the maranta arundinacea and maranta indica are two distinct 
species ; but both these statements are erroneous. The plant is not 
known in the East Indies; and the fecula known by the name of 
Indian arrow-root is extracted from the plant called maranta arun- 
dinacea by Plumier. ; 
This plant grows to the height of about three feet, and dies down . 
to the root every year. ‘The roots are about 14 inch thick, covered 
with scales. ‘These roots are washed clean; and pounded ina 
mortar. ‘Ihe powder is well washed, and the woody fibres sepa- 
rated from it. What remains is the starchy part. It has a beautiful 
white colour, and makes an exceedingly pleasant article of food 
when properly dressed. I have been assured that the article usually 
sold in London under the name of Indian arrow root consists chiefly 
of potatoe starch. 
XII. Identity of Galvanism and the Nervous Influence Vindicated. 
By Dr. Wilson Philip. 
(To Dr. Thomson.) 
SIR, Worcester, March 5, 1816. 
In the account in the Annals of Philosophy of that part of a 
paper of mine which was read before the Royal Society on the 25th 
of last month, it is observed that I go rather further than my expe- 
riments will warrant when I conclude that the nervous influence and 
galvanism are the same. It is clear, it is observed, that the section 
of the nerve interrupts the nervous influence, and that my experi- 
ments, supposing them correct, show that galvanism puts an end to 
this interruption, but that it may do this merely by serving as a 
conductor to the nervous influence. It is impossible to receive a 
erfectly correct idea of all parts of a paper of this kind from hear- 
ing it once read. From the way in which the experiment was made, 
there seems to be no room for the explanation here pointed out; for 
the cut ends of the nerve were so far from being applied, or even 
made to approach each other, that the upper portion was wholly 
neglected, and the lower portion drawn out, and coated with the, 
tin foil. 
It has been remarked that this experiment should have been made 
on some other animal than the rabbit. ‘This suggestion comes from 
a quarter of such authority in physiological questions, that 1 have, 
felt myself called upon to attend to it. I have repeated the expe- 
riment on dogs, and found the result, both with regard to the 
stomach and lungs, in all respects the same as in rabbits. The 
galvanism was not applied in such force as to occasion any expres- 
sion of pain, which it does if the power of the trough is more than 
occasions a slight twitching in the fore legs, From these experi- 
ments, as it is observed in the paper alluded to, one of-two infer- 
ences appears to be unavoidable ; we must either admit the identity 
