264 
THOMPSON YATES LABORATORIES REPORT 
great polemical use as a conclusive argument against the advisability of seeking a purely 
electrical function for nerves in the body. It has, however, also been repeatedly 
pointed out that the nerve is not a homogeneous conductor, and that measurements 
of gross conductivity give no information as to the conductivity of the very different 
longitudinal elements of structure which compose it. From such a point of view it 
is seen, especially if one of these structural elements is assumed to have a semi- 
insulating character (very low conductivity), that such gross measurements may be 
most misleading if used in any way to limit the possibilities of conductivity of any 
individual element of structure. 
Given a tissue of extremely high electrical conductivity, arranged in exceedingly 
fine threads within the general mass of poor conductors, its presence might be totally 
unsuspected, and might even be said to be concealed by the general low conductivity 
found. 
It is of interest, therefore, to consider the only case in which careful investigation 
has led its authors to the conclusion that nerves are after all characterized by a high 
electrical conductivity much greater than that of any other of the tissues. 1 
These authors, Alt and Schmidt, have, by use of a new and peculiar method, 
compared the resistance of different animal tissues, and find them arranged in the 
following order ; in which, it will be seen, the standard of comparison is an arbitrary 
one, the resistance of muscle — 
Nerve ... ... ... 0-17 
Heart muscle ... ... o - 86 
Muscle ... ... ... roo 
Blood ... ... ... 1 -oo 
Aponeuroses ... ... ... 4-41 
etc., etc. 
Such a statement places nerve in the position of being as an electrical conductor 
six times superior to muscle in opposition to the common view, that it is, on the 
contrary, inferior to it. 
The experiments bear every mark of careful and repeated work, and the 
conclusion to which the authors have come seems, therefore, to be fully justified by 
them. The method is, on the other hand, quite new, and can only be adequately 
criticized by a physicist. In this method the tissues placed within and filling a glass 
tube of standard size were placed in line with other conductors to form an alternative 
path for the conductor of 'Franklin currents from a Holtz. influence machine.' 
The other path was a spark gap. 
The method would seem to depend upon a comparison of the resistance of the 
tissue and the resistance of a column of air, which would seem to be an absurdity. 
As a matter of fact, probably this is far from being the case, the spark conducted 
:. Alt & Schmidt, Halle Ffiugers Archit: LIU, p. 575, etc. 
