100 Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. [Sess. 
VI. — Abnormal Bone Growth in the absence of Functioning 
Testicles. By A. C. Geddes, M.D., Professor of Anatomy at 
the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. (With Three Plates.) 
(Read January 18, 1909, under the title of “ The Influence of Castration upon 
Bone Growth.” MS. received June 3, 1910.) 
Introductory. 
At the instigation of the late Professor D. J. Cunningham, and at first 
working upon liis material, the present writer has reinvestigated the 
problems of giantism and acromegaly. 
In the course of the work a group of facts persistently presented them- 
selves which appeared to indicate the existence of a definite antagonism 
between growth and sexual activity. Side by side with these, and in 
apparent contradiction of them, was the undoubted fact that the state of 
pregnancy does not in the young female impede growth, but, on the contrary, 
favours it. These are not new discoveries. The fact that sexual activity 
is inimical to growth has not infrequently been demonstrated, more 
especially by Pirsche (1), Launois and Roy (2) Poncet (3), and Lortet (4). 
Indeed Pirsche, in the These de Lyon, “ De l’lnfluence de la Castration sur 
le Developpement du Squelette,” 1902, might almost be said to have 
established beyond reach of question the fact that castration in youth is 
followed by abnormal growth of the long bones. Apparently he did not 
do so, for Professor Hunt Morgan (5), in his book Experimental Zoology, 
1907, quotes, with approval from Minot (6), as follows : — “ It has been 
asserted by Carpenter, Spencer, and others that the functions of nutrition 
and reproduction are in principle opposed to one another, because reproduc- 
tion makes such a demand upon the parent for material that the supply of 
nutrition and growth of the parent is lessened.” Professor Morgan then 
proceeds : — “ Unfortunately for this philosophic generalisation, the premises 
are wrong : the growing animal is not growing at its maximum of assimi- 
lative power. Spencer’s ‘ dogmatic assertions ’ concerning the opposition of 
growth and reproduction are open to justly severe criticism.” 
Any subject upon which such divergent views are expressed by 
responsible writers is clearly in need of reinvestigation. 
In the course of this reinvestigation some facts which appear to be new 
have been ascertained. 
