THE FORCE FOR MUSCLE WORK. 157 



an anatomical basis corresponding to this function, the 

 theory cannot be upheld. 



As before said, Beale has not adverted to the quan- 

 titative relations of nerve action in muscular work, but 

 when we look into his anatomy we find even a stronger 

 testimony to the correctness of his doctrine, in that it 

 is in a manner involuntary. This lies in the size and 

 number of the nerves connected with the muscular 

 fibres, and of the protoplasm masses belonging to them, 

 and incidentally this comes out in the discussion of 

 the endings in tufts and nerve plates given by Kiihne. 

 If we consider these all to be masses of nerve-proto- 

 plasm and, as such, sources of electric or other force 

 evolved by nerves, we can see a sufficient anatomical 

 basis for the actual work of the muscles being per- 

 formed by the motor nerves within the muscles. 



It is hardly necessary to add to what has been said on the 

 general abundance of protoplasm in the peripheral parts of the 

 nerves, and especially of the motor nerves in the muscle by Dr. 

 Beale, figured in his plates and quoted at p. 134 * but we pro- 

 ceed at once to notice the question of the alleged nerve " tufts" 

 and " eminences." 



These have been brought under the notice of anatomists by 

 Kiihne specially, who still adheres substantially to his original 

 opinions in Strieker's " Handbook " in 1870, notwithstanding 

 the published discoveries "of Beale in 1864, 1865, and 1868. 

 Again Dr. Beale reviews the whole controversy in 1872, and as 

 nothing of moment has been added since, it is unnecessary to 



* In addition, I may call attention to the size of the ganglions in the 

 auricle of the Hyla and of the local reflex ganglions described and 

 figured by Beale, and also similar ganglions belonging to the capillaries 

 of the frog's bladder described and figured by Dr. Darwin, in the " Qu. 

 Micro. Journal," April, 1874. It would seem that these were intended 

 to furnish the -whole force of muscular contraction, and not merely the 

 infinitesimal quantity required for stimulus. 



