e 
948 The American Naturalist. [November, 
C. In 20 insane, I, 40; II, 35; III, 20; IV, 5. 
D. In four murderers, I, 0; II, 75; III, 25. 
E. In three negroes, I, 33 ; II, 67 
So far as these 58 individuals are concerned, the most common com- 
bination, viz., left continuity and right separation, is decidedly the rule 
with the moral and educated, less frequent with the ignorant and un- 
known, the insane and negroes, and does not occur at all in the 
murderers. The only instance of the reverse combination (left separa- 
tion and right continuity) is an insane Swiss woman. The only two 
known to be left-handed presented the more frequent combination I. 
(Journ. Comp. Neurol. Cincinnati, Vol. VI, 1896.) 
PSYCHOLOGY. 
The Nature of Feeling.—A cardinal point of dispute in cur- 
rent psychology is the nature of feeling. The division of simple feel- 
ing into pleasure and pain is generally accepted; the question that 
remains unsettled is the relation of these latter to sensation. Waundt, 
Lehmann, Marshall and other recent writers, whose views differ in im- 
portant respects, agree in regarding pleasure-and-pain as a characteris- 
tic of sensation (its Gefithiston) like quality or intensity. On the other 
hand there are those who claim that pain (at least) is a separate spe- 
cies of sensation, with a distinct set of nerves and end-organs. Gold- 
scheider at one time believed that he had discovered these pain nerves, 
but he has recently retracted thisclaim. Others, again, regard pain as 
an extreme form or quality of sensation common to the touch, heat and 
cold senses. 
The problem is somewhat complicated by the ambiguity of the word 
pain. In the sense of “ physical pain” (Schmerz) it may be a species 
of sensation; while at the same time in the sense of “ displeasure” 
( Unlust) it may be regarded as either an “ attribute” of sensation or a 
second element of consciousness. This distinction is maintained by 
Münsterberg and Baldwin, among others? The ordinary associations 
of the word pain have undoubtedly biased many writers and helped to 
keep alive the confusion between its two meanings. 
1 Edited by H. C. Warren, Princeton University, Princeton, N. J. 
2 Dr. Nichols in his criticism of Baldwin in the September number of this mag 
azine certainly misapprehends the latter’s view on this po oint. Cf. Mental Devel- 
opment, pp. 483, f. 
