Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 27.djvu/87

Rh result of them, Professor Goltz concludes that the degree of the disturbance of function from destruction of brain-substance depends upon the quantity removed, not upon the location of the lesion. He says, most positively, that "no extirpation of the motor centers, or of any other portion of gray matter, could cause permanent paralysis to any muscle in the body." His emphasis is upon the word permanent. Very many of the effects insisted on by advocates of localization did follow these brain-lesions, but the effects were not lasting, and they did not depend upon removal of specific portions of the substance. Blindness follows destruction of the angular gyrus, but it is temporary; the animal will see again in time. Professor Goltz admits a compensation of brain-functions, so that remaining portions of the organ may take up the work of a part destroyed; but this is not at all the compensation talked of by the supporters of localization. Their compensation requires that the additional work shall be done by the corresponding part in the other hemisphere. Professor Goltz destroys the angular gyrus on—sides and still his dog sees. Professor Goltz believes, however, that there are some permanent disturbances resulting from brain-lesions, such as "a certain dullness in the sensation of touch, a diminished power of vision, everything appearing cloudy to the eye, and some awkwardness in the movements." It will disturb the opponents of vivisection to know that Professor Goltz sacrificed fifty-one dogs in attempting to determine the effects of lesion in both hemispheres. He found that what happened only to one side of the body, and that the opposite, if one hemisphere was dealt with, happened on both sides of the body if both cerebral masses were affected. In all these cases mental weakness increased with the increasing quantity of matter removed. When considerable portions were taken away on both sides, the dog presented a demented appearance, very plain to be recognized. He could walk, run, see, hear, smell, and taste, but he was imbecile in all these activities.

It was not to be supposed that so fierce an attack upon localization would go unchallenged. Professor Goltz certainly did not shrink from the demand to make good his assertions. He took up basket and dog and journeyed from Strasburg to London. Here, in 1881, he came before the physiological section of the International Medical Congress, opened his basket, and, taking out the dog, placed him over against the almost equally celebrated monkey of Professor Ferrier. The dog walked, ran, saw, heard, tasted, and smelt; this was as his master desired, yet he should not have behaved so, for he had lost almost all the centers for these respective functions. Large territories in both hemispheres were gone. He was clearly weak-minded, but, on the whole, he was not the kind of dog believed in by the advocates of localization. Professor Yeo even went so far as to say before the section, "I candidly admit that, should the entire of the so-called motor centers prove to be destroyed in this case, Professor Goltz