137 
each acting only on the opposite side of the body/* that 
“ extensive* lesions in one hemisphere, or destruction of the 
whole hemisphere by disease, may occasion no mental impair- 
ment ” ; that “ destruction! of one hemisphere paralyses the 
opposite side ” ; that “ the movements! of the tongue are 
almost completely bilaterally organised in each hemisphere,” 
that “ destruction of the lingual centre in one hemisphere 
does not paralyse the lingual movements - ’'’; that sometimes 
a person “ can move his tongue § and know the use of an 
object, but cannot name it. - ’ - ’ 
We are thankful to the Professor for what he has told us of 
the connection of the brain with different parts of the body, and 
of the effect which the removal of the cerebral hemispheres or 
their destruction or lesion has on the power of motion of the 
limbs. But we do not agree with much that he says of brain 
as “the organ of mind,” and we do not think that he ha3 
written at all correctly on this side of the question. 
This is not to be wondered at. He is a physician, and may 
be fully competent to write on all departments of his profession. 
But mind belongs to intellectual or mental philosophy, a field 
and a study quite different from those of the anatomist. 
Besides, the person who writes on mind needs to have been 
disciplined in the classes of the logician in order to acquire 
accuracy in the definition of terms, and precision in the use of 
language. That Professor Ferrier is not sufficiently accurate 
in the definition of his terms, and sufficiently precise in the 
use of his language, will be manifest as we proceed with our 
criticism. 
The paper tells us that “ the brain is the organ of the mind,” 
but it does not define or give us the meaning of any of these 
terms. It does not tell us what we are to understand by 
organ , brain , or mind. 
We do not object to the phrase, “ brain the organ of mind,” 
when used in a popular sense. But in a physio-psychological 
paper, or rather in a learned, scientific, and abstruse essay, on 
one of the great questions of the day, — the bearing of physio- 
logy on psychology, — especially as the writer tells us “ the 
chief || object of the paper is to indicate some of the more im- 
portant results of recent physiological and pathological 
researches into the functions of the brain, and their bearing 
on psychological questions,” — we do desire a clear definition 
of the terms, at the outset, and the use of very precise 
language in the whole treatment of the subject. 
* Page 106. t Page 107. X Page 109. 
§ Page 117. || Page 100. 
VOL. XIV. L 
