REVIEW. 
397 
ments with which M. Magendie defended it. The French hip- 
piatrists, in fact, having exclusively studied the mechanical part 
of the act of vomiting, were forced to decide between the opposite 
doctrines, defended by Haller and Magendie, as to the participa¬ 
tion of the stomach in the performance of that act. The result 
has been, the declaration of their adhesion to their illustrious 
countryman; a result which would in all probability have been 
different, had they rigidly tested the validity of the claims of his 
doctrine, and have taken due notice of the positive observations 
of Wepfer, Haller, and Rudolphi, and of the recorded cases in 
which vomiting occurred when extrinsic pressure was removed 
from the stomach, either by palsy or destruction of the abdominal 
muscles. 
That the energetic concurrence of the nervous power, and of 
the action of the expiratory muscles of the abdominal wall, 
take part in the act of vomiting, as stated in M. Mignon’s 
fourth proposition, all will grant; but that it is fourth in the 
order of succession we deny, for it is well known that purely 
nervous phenomena are the first signs of a disposition to vomit: 
and that it is fourth in the order of importance we deny, on the 
ground of the experimental truth, that, whereas the condition of 
the stomach is unimportant, a participation of the nervous s} r s- 
tem is indispensable, before the movements necessary to vomit¬ 
ing can be effected. So unimportant, indeed, is the condition 
of the stomach, that vomiting may occur without it, as proved 
by M. Magendie’s experiment of substituting a pig’s bladder for 
a dog’s stomach; and it is not a little surprising that the re¬ 
porter, who seems to have laid so much stress on it, should not 
have discovered that his idea of “ excessive dilatation of the 
stomach being the condition, par excellence , of vomiting in the 
horse,” was opposed to the result of an experiment which he 
invoked in defence of his views. 
Now that we have subverted three out of the four propositions 
on which Mignon’s theory is founded, we should be at a loss to 
guess what might be his idea as to the reasons why the horse 
rarely vomits, if, in a discussion which ensued on his report, he 
had not unequivocally avowed assent to Girard’s mechanical 
doctrine, the fallacy of which we have already demonstrated. 
Thus we have completed a critical and historical account of 
the opinions emitted on the subject; and, having proved that all 
observers have attributed the rarity of vomiting in the horse to 
mechanical causes which do not exist , it remains for us to deter¬ 
mine whether there are any impediments to it in the nervous 
system of the horse. With this object in view, let us inquire 
into the action of emetics in the horse. 
[To be continued.] 
3 H 
VOL. XXV. 
