422 MESSRS. F. GOTCH AND V. HORSLEY 



around the seat of lesion, similar movements of the upper limbs. That such reflex 

 movements were present in the case of WOROSCHILOFF S own experiments, is evident 

 from the study of the account of those evoked in the animal after the operation 

 had been made upon the cord. Thus, in one of his experiments (VI.), the animal 

 (Rabbit), was subjected to an operation involving the division of the spinal cord in 

 the dorsal region, the whole cord being cut through with the exception of the lateral 

 tract of the left side. On examining the animal an hour or two afterwards, the right 

 hind limb was found to be paralyzed, due to section of its efferent spinal tract, this 

 efferent paralysis being confirmed subsequently by dividing the cord below the medulla 

 and stimulating its distal cut section when only the left hind limb responded ; 

 notwithstanding this, pressure on either foot caused movements in both hind legs. 

 Now in this case the movement of the right leg must obviously be a reflex effect, 

 having its central physiological seat in the lower fragment of the cord, and any 

 arguments based upon the amount of movement of the respective limbs, must deal 

 with the question as to the extent to which the section has heightened or depressed 

 the normal excitability of the reflex centres iu this lower fragment. But it is precisely 

 this question which it seems to us has not been sufficiently dealt with in the text, 

 there being a tendency to treat the cord in an unansesthetised animal as if one of its 

 main physiological characteristics, reflex excitability, were in abeyance in the distal, 

 though not in the proximal and central portions. The evidence cannot, therefore, 

 be considered as adequate to warrant his statement : &quot; Meine bis dahin vorgelegten 

 Beobachtungen bestatigen und erweitern die Angaben von MIESCHER, NAWROCKI 

 und DlTTMAR, denn von nun an sind wir darauf hingewiesen, die Balm, welche das 

 Gehirn mit alien Nervenwurzeln verbindet, in dem Seitenstrange zu suchen.&quot; 



The criticism just advanced is not a new one since it forms the basis of the 

 objections of CHAUVEAU, SCHIFF, and others. Its cogency is increased by the discovery 

 made by FODERA of hyperaasthesia after section. The most important points in 

 connection with this for our present purpose are those brought out by experiments 

 made by SCHIFF* before the observations just referred to. These were, that in many 

 cases of hemisection of the cord there is not merely hyperajsthesia below the lesion on 

 the side of the section, but heightened reflex excitability of the cord in the neighbour 

 hood of the lesion both above and below. This hyperexcitability is less marked when 

 the whole cord is divided, than when a bridge joins the parts above and below the 

 lesion. It has been found by MARTiNornt that the hyperajsthesia is particularly 

 bound up with injury of a particular region in the lateral column, and it is attributed 

 by him not to a direct increase in excitability, but to the removal of inhibitory, i.e., 

 depressant, influences by the section. It may be pointed out that, as regards the 

 nerve trunk, the experiments of HERING show conclusively that the increase of 



* SCHIFF, Lelu-lmcli d. Physiol., 1859, 



t MARTINOTTI, &quot; Hyperaasthesie nach Verletzung ties Hulsmarkes/ Arcliiv f. Anat. uud Physiul. 

 (Physiol. Altli.), 1890. 



