Marcu 1, 1912] 
of discord (e. g., the discussions between 
Munk, Goltz, et al.). 
There were some who disputed the func- 
tional dismemberment of the brain, and 
withstood the establishment of spatial lo- 
calizations for definite mental functions, 
but their voices were not listened to or 
their facts were denied, or their arguments 
disregarded. They contended that the 
clinical and physiological facts gave no war- 
rant for a localization in parts of the 
cerebral cortex of mental functions as such, 
and furthermore they pointed out that the 
cortical centers did not operate indepen- 
dently, and that functions could not be 
considered apart from the totality of the 
elements involved. 
The schematism of phrenology was, how- 
ever, too alluring; it gave a definiteness to 
diagnosis, and it satisfied certain other 
practical and theoretical desires. Criti- 
cisms of this view from the psychological 
standpoint were laid aside, but since many 
of the clinical facts could not be fitted to 
the anatomical divisions, other evidence 
was sought. The myelogenetic studies of 
Flechsig were hailed as witnesses to sup- 
port the contention of the anatomical lo- 
calizations of mental processes. The de- 
velopmental differences of Flechsig’s fields 
(now forty in number) of the cerebral cor- 
tex were received with gladness, and were 
used as additional splints and crutches for 
the doctrine. But even this was not suffi- 
cient. Anatomical localization of the men- 
tal faculties could not be made certain 
without additional support and it is within 
the past few years that our latest contribu- 
tions to the doctrine of phrenology have 
appeared. These may be described in brief 
as the histological localizations of mental 
processes. 
It was discovered that certain areas of 
the cerebrum differ both macroscopically 
and microscopically from other areas, and 
SCIENCE 
323 
the careful examinations of the cerebrum 
led to the division of the cortex into a 
number of areas, which were considered by 
the observers to be quite distinct from one 
another. 
Elliott Smith made a careful examina- 
tion of the naked eye appearances of all 
regions of the cerebral cortex and found 
that the streaks of light and shade differed 
in parts. The conclusion was drawn that 
these appearances indicated differences in 
the arrangement of cells or fibers in the 
cortex and that the cerebral cortex could, 
consequently, be divided into these an- 
atomically distinct areas. Campbell and 
Brodmann used finer methods, those of his- 
tology, and discovered that the cerebral 
cortex could be divided into areas, which 
had the eells collected in different groups, 
or which had different sizes of cells, or 
which had the fibers arranged in character- 
istic ways. Depending upon the methods 
which are used, the number of these his- 
tologically and macroscopically distinct 
areas varies from about eighteen to fifty. 
It does not appear to make much difference 
that the histologists are not in accord in 
reeard to the number of the histologically 
distinet areas, or in their exact individual 
location, the important point appears to be 
that certain areas are anatomically distinct, 
sufficiently so, that they may be recognized 
by their histological and gross appearances. 
These areas, because of their differences 
in structure, are supposed to have different 
functions. Brodmann has given the clear- 
est pronouncement regarding the supposed 
functional value of these observations. He 
has written: ‘‘physiologically unlike parts 
have unlike structure,’ and ‘‘parts of 
organs which differ structurally must have - 
different functions.’’ 
In these statements we have the entering 
wedge for a more complete phrenology 
than has been advocated since the time of 
