31 



observation is not unique. Long ago Asp noticed appearances in in- 

 jected preparations which showed that in some way or another the 

 injection material used by him penetrated from the blood-vessels into 

 the interior of the liver-cells, and the brothers Fräser 1 ) were, later, 

 able in the frog to inject passages within the liver-cells communicating 

 directly with the blood-vessels. Nor do the preparations which I have 

 described come only from one liver but from two, and in both cases 

 the whole liver is equally injected, almost every cell in the organ 

 exhibiting the anastomosing canaliculi filled with the material which 

 had been used for injecting the blood-vessels. 



With regard to the fact of the existence of these canals and of 

 the possibility of injecting them from the blood-vessels there is not 

 and cannot be a shadow of doubt. As Professor Browicz truly says 

 "the injection appearances are nothing less than ideal" (Anat. Anz., 

 Bd. 22, p. 161). But as to the exact meaning of the fact each person 

 who sees the specimens will naturally exercise his own judgment, 

 especially as regards the manner in which the canaliculi have become 

 filled with injection and it would indeed seem from what has already 

 appeared in print upon the subject that the old adage u Quot homines, 

 tot sententiae" is as applicable to this as to most other questions 

 of interpretation. No one therefore can blame Dr. Holmgren if he 

 puts upon the appearances in dispute a meaning which fits in best 

 with the ideas he has formed regarding the structure of secreting 

 cells. But Dr. Holmgren has raised a question of an entirely different 

 nature, viz: is it justifiable to publish an observation relating to a 

 matter of fact if the interpretation of the fact be difficult or if the 

 fact itself seems to ride counter to received opinions upon the subject? 

 I gather at least from his remark — "Ich stimme mit dem hin- 

 geschiedenen Professor Rutherford vollkommen überein" (i. e. in his 

 refusal to permit Dr. Carlier to describe the preparations) that in 

 his opinion Professor Carlier in desiring to publish this observation 

 and I in having, with Professor Carlier's permission, ultimately 

 published it have been guilty of a grave error of judgment; and that, 

 seeing that the observation was difficult to reconcile with current 

 ideas regarding the structure of the liver- cell and its relation to the 

 hepatic capillaries, we should have acted more wisely if we had agreed 

 to suppress its publication. I venture to believe, however, that on this 

 question of ethics there will not be found many to agree with 

 Dr. Holmgren. 



1) Journ. Anat. and Physiol., Vol. 29, p. 240, 1895. 



