MULTIPLE NEUROMATA OF THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM. G2) 
nerve fibres giving rise to one sensation can unite with the fibres giving rise to 
another sensation. 
Morr, Hatiisurton, and Epmunps (1904-1906) have also exposed what they 
consider the fallacy underlying the work of Krmnnepy, BaLLance and Srewart, and 
others. Their own experiments were carried out in such a way as to obviate the 
possibility of new nerve fibres “finding their way by devious channels” into the 
peripheral stump. The incisions were very small, and the upper end of the distal 
seoment of the cut nerve was enclosed in a capsule of sterilised guttapercha. After 
100-150 days there was found no response of any kind to stimulation, and the 
microscopic examination of the peripheral end showed no trace of regeneration, and 
in many parts no nervous structure could be recognised. Two of VuLpran’s experi- 
ments were repeated, one in which the segments of nerve were transplanted to a part 
devoid of nerves, e.g. the. peritoneal cavity, and no autogenous regeneration could 
be proved ; the other was an experiment in which the nerve was again cut across on 
the peripheral side of the original site of section, and it was found that the degeneration 
took place solely peripheral to the second section. As it was assumed that the 
direction of regeneration is always the direction of growth, this experiment proved 
that the growth of new fibres had started from the centre peripheralwards and not 
in the reverse direction. 
It is, however, admitted that the activity of the neurilemma cells has some definite 
relation, perhaps nutritionally, to the development of new nerve fibres; that the 
proliferation leads to the formation of what seem embryonic fibres; but that this 
is only the scaffolding for the axis-cylinder which has an exclusively central origin. 
Kennepy has criticised the objections raised by these observers and also by LancLEy 
and ANDERSON to his experiments and those of BaLuaNnce and Stewart. He thinks 
that the possibility of fibres from surrounding cut nerves growing into the distal end 
is a far-fetched explanation, and that it assumes an extraordinary affinity between 
young nerve fibres and the old nerve trunks—an affinity which if it existed would 
assure spontaneous union after accidental division. KENNEDY also, referring to the 
doubt that Morr, Hatiisurton, and Epmunps throw on the very early return of 
sensation after secondary suture, explains the care with which the clinical facts of the 
return to conductivity and sensory impulses are ascertained. 
Heap and Ham (1904) have shown that an ununited distal end may remain in the 
“resting stage” (KennEDY) for 540 days if the blood supply is sufficient. If even then 
united to the central end, it is completely restored. Shortly after union the spindle- 
shaped cells lengthen, form definite fibres, and are able to conduct stimuli to the central 
nervous system—even before axis-cylinder and myelin sheath can be demonstrated 
histologically. The first axis-cylinders and myelin sheaths are well formed, yet are 
thin and stain lightly, but later they stain deeply with specific stains. 
Heap, Rivers, and SHERREN (1905).—As this paper deals chiefly with histological 
data, we can only briefly refer to the important clinical investigations of Hzap, Rivers, 
TRANS. ROY. SOC. EDIN., VOL. XLVIII. PART III. (NO. 27). 104 
