66 



CONTRIBUTION TO THE 

 I. 



II. 



We see, therefore, that the agreement is as complete as the 

 theory requires. 



In order now to deduce the law of contraction from my stand- 

 point, I assume that the relation between the strength of stimulation 

 and the tendency to blocking is quite the same in the polarisation- 

 Current as in other currents ; and that therefore, according to 

 Pfliiger's view, with a certain strength of this current, the stimu- 

 lation overpowers the tendency to blocking, while with a greater 

 strength the latter may become sufficiently great to prevent the 

 excitation from reaching the muscle notwithstanding its greater 

 strength. 



The currents described as weak in Pfliiger's law of contraction 

 are, therefore, naturally those which are not strong enough to evoke 

 a sufficient degree of polarisation in the nerve, and which are conse- 

 quently unaccompanied by a break-contraction. 



If the strength of the polarising current is above this limit, then 

 on breaking a polarisation-current is produced of sufficient intensity 

 to liberate a muscular contraction. It is true that when the 

 polarising current is descending the excitation produced by the 

 polarisation-current has of course to pass its own positive pole, 

 which exerts a blocking action. This blocking action, however, is 



