166 report — 1859. 



Third. Subjects of gout in whom no trace of chalky matter was externally 

 visible, and in one case only eight attacks of the disease had occurred. 



Fourth. Subjects in whom only a single joint (the ball of a great toe) had been 

 affected with gouty inflammation, or in whom some joint had only been once slightly 

 inflamed. 



These examinations proved beyond the possibility of doubt, that in the very 

 slightest forms of the disease, as well as the most severe, a structural change invari- 

 ably occurs, and that this change, when once produced, remained, if not permanently, 

 at least for a very lengthened time. After detailing the microscopical and chemical 

 characters of the deposit producing this change, Dr. Garrod finished his communi- 

 cation by stating that he considered the facts which had been brought forward 

 warranted him to conclude that — 



'* Specific, chemical and microscopical phenomena invariably accompany gouty 

 inflammation, and these consist in the deposition of urate of soda in a crystalline 

 form within the cartilages and ligamentous structures of the joints ; and that such 

 deposition is altogether pathognomonic, never being found in any disease other than 

 true gout." And again, that " such deposition is probably the cause rather than 

 the effect of the inflammatory action." 



Lastly, the author pointed out the great importance of ascertaining the true nature 

 of the disease as a means of conducing to its rational and successful treatment. 



[The paper was illustrated by careful drawings and chromolithographs.] 



Necessity of a Reform in Nerve-Physiology. By G. H. Lewes. 



The author began by describing the inextricable confusion at present existing in 

 the writings of physiologists owing to the want of a fixed nomenclature. No two 

 writers agreed as to the precise meaning of sensibility, sensation, &c. The conse- 

 quence was that experiments were constantly misinterpreted, one writer declaring 

 he found no trace of sensibility, where another writer found abundant traces. 



There was also very general confusion in the use of the terms Property and Func- 

 tion. These terms it is indispensable to have precise in meaning ; we ought no more to 

 confound them, than to confound oxidation with affinity. The property of a nerve 

 is that which belongs to it as a nerve, and depends on its physical structure. The 

 function of a nerve is the use to which that property may be applied, and depends 

 on the anatomical connexions — the organic relations established between the nerve 

 and other parts of the body. The property is therefore constant, the functions 

 variable. The nerve which is connected with a gland is similar in structure and 

 in property to the nerve connected with the skin ; but the functions are different, 

 because the connexions are different. 



Having once settled this precise distinction, we are lighted by it to an important 

 principle, namely, that identity of structure everywhere implies identity of properties, 

 diversity of structure diversity of properties. Iron is always iron, and always retains 

 its properties as iron, whether it be fashioned into chains, nails, anvils, windlasses, 

 or cannon. The uses to which the iron may be applied are various. 



In like manner nerve-fibre is always nerve-fibre, and has always the same proper- 

 ties, though not the same functions or uses. It is an error to suppose that there 

 are two distinct kinds of nerve, sensory and motory ; one class being, it is said, only 

 competent to convey stimuli from a centre, and the other only to a centre ; one being 

 said to convey motory stimuli, and only these ; the other to convey sensitive stimuli, 

 and only these. It sounds ridiculous to say that iron is capable of being rendered 

 magnetic at one part of a crank but not at another ; yet a similar assertion is made 

 respecting nerve-fibre without misgiving. 



Physiologists are unanimous in ascribing sensibility to the ganglionic substance 

 of the encephalon, or some portion of it; but they are also unanimous in denying 

 this property to every other ganglionic mass in spite of identity of structure. No 

 physiologist has bethought him of the necessity he is under — if he would retain his 

 belief in the brain as the exclusive seat of sensibility — of proving that the ganglionic 

 substance of the brain is essentially different from the ganglionic substance of the 

 medulla oblongata and spinal cord ; because with difference of structure would 

 come difference of property. And such an attempt would be vain. There is «o 





