Page:Life in Motion.djvu/107

Rh it was supposed that the nerves conveyed the power or force manifested by the muscles. He found, however, that muscles remained contractile after their nerves had been divided, and even after the muscles had been removed from the body. He also observed contractility in certain plants destitute of nerves, and in some of the lower animals, in the bodies of which no nervous structures had been found. He arrived, therefore, at the conclusion that the property was inherent in muscular fibre itself, a vis insita. His views were strongly opposed by Robert Whytt, a professor in the University of Edinburgh, and the progenitor of the famous novelist. Captain Whyte-Melville. He contended that the contractility of the muscles was a property conferred upon them by the nerves. A grand discussion took place between the Hallerians and their opponents; it was carried on for years with keenness and, as scientific men feel strongly on the questions on which they differ, even with some degree of acrimony. As is often the result of such controversies, both disputants were obliged to widen the basis of their opinions, and to examine more closely and