54i 
David H. Dolley 
General considerations regarding the significance of the cellular 
hypertrophy. 
\Vliether or not the specific purpose of the hypertrophy to which 
the \vriter is coniinitted will be generally accepted, there can be no question 
about its general physiological significance. It is an iUuminating example 
as regards the individual cell of functional overgrowth, the work hyper- 
trophy. On the one side is the increased functional demand witli ade- 
quate nutrition, on the other are the corresponding grades of the reaction. 
AMiile possibly to some it may seeni unreasonable to connect such an 
excessive overgrowth, froni ten to even fifteen times the mass of the 
resting cell, priraarily and essentiaUy with the display of function, to 
the pathologist, familiär as he is with the overgrowth of uterus or vol- 
untary muscle, of heart or bladder from the same reason, it is not sur- 
prising, nor indeed out of proportion. More and more the pathologist 
has conie to recognize its purely physiological nature, within wide limits, 
in its exemphfication of the reserve force and the adaptive faculties of the 
cell. Finally, it comes to deterioration of the quality of the protoplasm 
but until then it is normal. In the support of this conception, the ganglion 
cells of Canibarus are in a dass by themselves. 
It goes without saying that the relationship between growth and 
function is fully and generaUy recognized. To quote Adawi (1910), “A 
certain grade of functional activity appears to be essential, not merely 
for the maintenance of the Status quo of the ceU, but for its growth.” 
On the other hand, growth is to be looked on as an inherent quahty and 
largely ÜTespective of function. While in no sense attacking the pro- 
priety of this, the relation of the enlarged ceU to the resting ceU of Cam- 
larus immediately suggests an instance in which post-embryonic growth 
is niost intimately dependent upon and related to function and in which 
the inherent property carries it comparatively only a small way, but 
function is the determining factor. This does not confhct with the State- 
ment above of the inherent property of growth. It merely broadens 
the limits of functional growth, though any attempt, so far as I can see, 
at delimitation must await further data. 
In one respect, however, sufficient data is in hand to afford a de- 
duction, one though that only makes a distinction in the limited capacity 
already by common knowledge ascribed to nerve cells. As compared 
with the cell of Canibarus, the Purkinje cell has a much more limited 
functional growth, if indeed it can be so classified and chai'acterized. 
Its increase of mass is limited at most to about four times that of the 
