« PreviousContinue »
subject would then locate the spot where pain was felt in himself, and was correct even to a very narrow and definite limit. It seemed a wild guess to suppose that he formed his judgments from the small portions of the movements of the arms only of the third person, which were visible to him; and yet further experiment showed, that, if a screen were placed so that he could not see any of the movements of this third person, his ability to locate entirely disappeared. Experiments somewhat similar showed that the patient could tell what word the operator was writing, simply by the general movements of the arms of the latter.
Burgson himself calls attention to these experiments more as evidences of what he terms unconscious deception on the part of the hypnotized subject, than for other reasons. He calls attention, however, to the necessity of repeating those experiments of the English members of the Society of psychical research which seemed to point to mind-reading pure and simple. The average literary man who handles these latter facts does not seem to be aware of the great objection which holds against them scientifically. Absolutely the only way hitherto known of mental communication is the expression of an idea through physical media, and the retranslation of this back into a mental state. Mind-reading pure and simple does away with the intervening physical medium of expression. It is a fact of a different order from any now known. If it can be shown that what really takes place in these cases is cornea reading, or some similar occurrence, the facts are reduced to those of the same order as ordinary mindreading or muscle-reading, and they admit of a scientific explanation.
But these experiments also afford, as it seems to me, the most conclusive evidence yet offered of the law laid down by Helmholtz, that the existence of a sensation is always neglected in behalf of the meaning conveyed by it. Here the minute image on the cornea is perceived, not as what it is, but as a series of two or three figures which are definitely and correctly located in their proper spatial position. There is in these experiments no question of conscious deceit. The subject does not secretly and consciously perceive the image on the cornea, and then pass off the knowledge thus gained as if he had actually seen the figures. He himself is a victim of the deception. He thinks he sees them on the book. His sensations, in short, are mere signs or symbols, to which in themselves he pays no attention. He observes only the objective bearing, the information conveyed. The proof of the theory did not require such a crucial experiment as this, perhaps, and yet it is as striking an evidence as could be desired.
But it also shows that the interpretation of the sensation is governed by the conceptions already in consciousness, and this affords a valuable contribution to the growing theory of apperception. There is an increasing tendency among psychologists to regard all perceptions as judgments passed upon sensations by means of the conceptions present in the mind at the time of their occurrence. The sensation is interpreted into harmony with these dominant conceptions; so that we see not merely what is really there to see, but what the mind is adjusted to see, what it can read in out of itself. All hypnotism is one page of evidence to the influence of dominant conceptions, but the present instance is typical of the extent to which it may be carried. It is to be hoped that some one will carry the experiments further, and particularly see how far unsuspected cornea and muscle reading has entered into the as yet unexplained cases of mind-reading, so called. J. D.
VOLUNTARY AMPUTATION AMONG CRAYFISH.
IN referring to limb-shedding as a voluntary act among certain crustaceans, Professor Huxley tells us in his Crayfish' that "this voluntary amputation is always effected at the same place ; namely, where the limb is slenderest, just beyond the articulation which unites the basal joint with the next. The other limbs also readily part at the joints; and it is very common to meet with crayfish which have undergone such mutilation." Quite recently (Sept. 4) M. H. de Varigny, in a very instructive paper which he has published in the Revue scientifique, entitled "L'amputation réflexe des pattes chez les crustacés," presents us with the results of a long series of experiments of his, undertaken with the view of throwing additional light upon this subject. M. Varigny studied the phenomenon in quite a variety of species and in several hundred individuals. He claims that in every instance the amputation is voluntary, and is truly an amputation, and not a disarticulation due to the feebleness of the interarticular membrane of the joint. Much less is the throwing-off of the limb ever due to a fracture.
Then referring to the previous researches of M. Frédéricq, M. Varigny further claims that this act on the part of the crustacean will not only follow a direct blow, but may often be induced through either scratching or bruising the claw, or simply rubbing it, or through the action of the electric current. Moreover, it is found that the amputation is reflex, and depends upon the action of the central nervous system, for when the latter
is injured, or the animal brought under the influence of an anaesthetic, it cannot be performed; that when the amputation is voluntary, the crab loses but little blood, which is not the case when the limb is removed by the experimenter, thus going to show that the act is purely a protective one, often saving the life of the animal with the minimum amount of injury.
The power to perform the act with promptness varies with the different species, and in any of them, when the animal is fatigued, it is not apt to resort to it. In experimenting with vigorous specimens of Carcinus maenas, it was observed that when the ten limbs were successively struck, allowing sufficient time for each one to detach itself before the next leg was struck, a far greater number were thrown off than when they were all struck together, or in very rapid succession.
Then, in one hundred and ten specimens of the same species, it was found that a second blow upon the undetached claws would cause them, in nearly all cases, to come away likewise, especially after the animal had somewhat recovered from the shock caused by the loss of its other limbs. And when the same experiments are undertaken in the case of only five of the limbs, the number that come away was proportionately much greater. Further, it was noted that the animal was more successful in getting rid of its great claws, or pincers, than it was with the ambulatory limbs.
To sum up, then, M. Varigny believes this reflex function of defence, as performed among crustaceans, consists in a voluntary amputation, indifferently executed among those species wherein the musculature of the limbs is but feebly developed, and among individuals exhausted by severe pain, as in such cases where all the limbs have been simultaneously removed.
As the hemorrhage is so much less as resulting from the voluntary amputation, when compared with what takes place after the removal of the limb by artificial means, it will not be questioned but that this power as possessed by these animals is one of service to them.
Further investigations in this direction will be not only interesting, but valuable.
ELLIOTT'S ALASKA AND THE SEAL
THIS handsomely illustrated and printed volume is evidently intended for a popular audience. Little of its contents is new. That which is original with the author, and due to his personal observation, is in great part a re-arrangement and amplification of matter printed by him two or
Our arctic province Alaska and the Seal Islands. By HENRY W. ELLIOTT. New York, Scribner, 186. 8°.
three times previously, especially in the octavo report on the 'Condition of affairs in Alaska,' issued by the government in 1875, and in the quarto document of the census series of 1880, relating to the fur-seal fisheries and kindred topics, published in 1882, from which part of the illustrations of the present volume have been adapted or reduced. This, however, will not diminish the interest or value of the work for those who are not in the habit of consulting government documents, or who read merely for general information. The part of the work which is a re-arrangement of matter original with others is naturally less satisfactory than that on the Aleutian and Seal islands, where the author is at home in the scenes he, for the most part, very fairly and accurately describes. Many of the illustrations are faithful and good, especially those due to pen-and-ink sketches. From these, however, the human figure-pieces must be excepted the faces in particular partake somewhat of caricature, are generally out of drawing, and have absolutely no anthropological value. The landscapes, excepting a few representing mountains, are generally very good. In the copy before us, Mount Shishaldin has disappeared from the plate which claims to give a glimpse of it (p. 146); Mount Iliamna is represented with a slope near the peak (p. 87) of about twenty-three degrees from the vertical; and Verstovia (p. 32) has hardly more than forty-five.
The book is to some extent a misnomer, the most interesting and available part of Alaska lying between latitudes 50° and 60° north, as does the greater part of the British Islands, which no one would think of calling arctic. The nomenclature and transliteration of Russian words are very irregular and often inaccurate, in no respect conforming to the systems generally adopted. Apart from the biology of the fur-seals and birds of the Seal Islands, the natural history of the book is very shaky, and the anthropology almost a minus quantity. But it is hardly worth while to lay much stress on its deficiencies from a scientific stand-point, since it is hardly likely to be consulted for precise data of that sort. Its historical errors are less numerous but more important. To give a single instance, the author repeats the error of Petroff in Bancroft's Alaska,' by stating that in 1868 Messrs. Hutchinson and Morgan passed the season in exclusive control of the sealing on St. George and St. Paul islands. As a matter of fact, there were five or more competing companies. There is an insufficient index; and the map, though well drawn and printed, in spite of the date, 1886, which it bears, is destitute of all the more important geographical discoveries of the last few years.
THE number of species collected by the Challenger in the group Marseniadae was but three, two of which, however, belong to a new genus. Dr. Rudolph Bergh, who is monographing this family, has not only given very full accounts of the anatomy of the species collected, but has added to them a general history of the nomenclature of the family, a list of the known genera and species, notes on their geographical distribution, and other matter of importance. He regards the group as most nearly related to the Velutinidae, and even suggests that a more thorough knowledge of both families may render it necessary to consolidate them.
The report on the Scaphopoda (tooth-shells) and Gasteropoda, by Rev. Robert Boog Watson, exhibits a stupendous amount of labor. It is accompanied by an appendix in which the Marquis de Folin reports on the Caecidae, a group of minute and interesting shells. The collection included some 1,300 recognizable species, new and old, with some 400 undeterminable fragments or specimens. Shore-collections furnished 86 species, of which 7 were new. Dredging-stations to 400 fathoms yielded 604 old species and 405 new ones. From forty-one stations between 2,650 and 400 fathoms, 89 known and 135 previously unknown species were obtained. The greatest depth at which any gastropod was secured was 2,650 fathoms, at station 325. Here a Stilifer, parasitic on some echinoderm, was obtained. Basilissa, Dentalium, and Trochus were found in 1,900 fathoms; Dentalium, Cithna, and various Pleurotomas were found in between 2,000 and 2,500 fathoms; and the large and interesting Guivillea alabastrina was dredged off the Crozets in 1,600 fathoms. Oöcorys, Fusus, Cadulus, Seguenzia, Cylichna, and Actaeon are among the genera which presented themselves most frequently from the abysses. Leaving the shallow waters out of account, perhaps the richest haul of the voyage for the conchologists was that in 390 fathoms, off Culebra Island in the West Indies. This produced about 150 species, of which only about ten per cent were previously known to science. The average number of species of mollusks collected at a station was less than twelve. Mr. Watson's introduction is short. He lays stress on the importance to molluscan life of temperature; to a less degree, of depth; great differences in these respects operating as barriers against dispersion. He notes the importance of time in affording opportunities for distribution; so that species which
Report of the scientific results of the voyage of the Challenger during 1873–76, Vol. xv. Zoology. London, Government, 1886. fo.
are found fossil and still exist, being presumably ancient, may be expected to occur over wide geographical areas. Where barriers of depth and temperature do not check distribution, the species tend to become universal, and in some cases have attained universal distribution. Finally, Mr. Watson affirms that even in the oldest and most widely distributed forms there is no trace of essential, lasting, and progressive change. This assertion may well be accepted, for it is precisely among such ancient and universally distributed forms that we should expect those evidences of inflexibility which have been recognized as characteristic of certain species by naturalists from Darwin down. It is the local and restricted species which should be studied for evidences of change. Where each pond has its form of Limnaea, and each tree its Clausilia or its Achatinella, there should evidences of change or adaptation be most easily recognized. Every one who has occasion to deal with deep-sea mollusks will find the learned, painstaking, voluminous, and profusely illustrated report of Mr. Watson an absolute necessity; and for other malacologists it will be, not a mine, but rather a warehouse of elaborated and systematized information.
The number of chitons collected by the expedition was small, as they are chiefly littoral in habit. There are reported on by Professor A. C. Haddon some thirty species of fifteen genera, of which seven were previously undescribed, and others, though described, had not been figured. The really deep-sea chitons all belong to the genus Leptochiton, and, judging by their sculpture, are nearly related forms. Leptochiton Belknapi, Dall, was dredged in over one thousand fathoms near the Aleutian Islands by the U.S.S. Tuscarora, and by the Challenger in about the same depth off the Philippine Islands. An allied species (L. benthus, Had.) was found in twenty-three hundred fathoms in the North Pacific, nine hundred miles north of the Sandwich Islands. It is so far the most abyssal chiton known. In all these cases the temperature was low, not exceeding 37° F. The genus, as one might expect, appears in shallower water toward the poles. Professor Haddon gives a synopsis of Carpenter's classification, and of the genera of Leptoidea. In his discussion of the species, he gives a valuable résumé of the status of the genera, and proves beyond question that the genus generally known as Chitonellus must be referred to Cryptoplax, Blainville, the various subdivisions resting upon insufficient or erroneous figures and observations. The plates to Professor Haddon's memoir are particularly excellent, and the paper marks a distinct step in advance in our knowledge of this very interesting group.
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1886.
COMMENT AND CRITICISM.
THE OBLIGATIONS and the rights of physicians throughout the state of New York are matters of such importance that we propose to give those extracts from the laws which bear upon the question of registration, and also such opinions as have come to our notice under the law. This matter is being critically examined by very many practitioners, and it is a subject about which there should be no doubt if any exists, the legislature should, at its coming session, enact such a law as will not be subject to the different interpretations which seem to have been given to the present law. The law under which physicians register is chapter 513 of the laws of 1880. Section 2 of the law reads as follows: "Every person now lawfully engaged in the practice of physic and surgery within the state shall, on or before the first day of October, eighteen hundred and eighty, and every person hereafter duly authorized to practise physic and surgery, shall, before commencing to practise, register in the clerk's office of the county where he is practising, or intends to commence the practice of physic and surgery, in a book to be kept by said clerk, his name, residence, and place of birth, together with his authority for so practising physic and surgery as prescribed in this act." Very many physicians neglected to register before the 1st of October, and in the following year another act was passed, and is chapter 186, laws of 1881. The section bearing on the point in question (section 1) is as follows: "Any person who was duly authorized to practise physic . . . and who shall not have registered as required by the provision of said chapter (513, laws of 1880) shall have until the first day of October, eighteen hundred and eighty-one, in which to register as prescribed by section two of said act, entitled 'An act,' etc."
Several questions have arisen since these laws were enacted, among others the following: can a physician register who is a graduate of one of the medical colleges of the state, but who was out of the state at the time these acts were passed, and
did not return until after the 1st of October, 1881 ? The following case occurred in Brooklyn, and practically answers the question in the affirmative. The papers referring to it and the other cases mentioned hereafter are in the office of the clerk of Kings county, and the substance of them only is here given. Willis E. Crowell received a diploma in June, 1874, from the New York eclectic medical college, authorizing him to practise medicine. He subsequently left the state, being absent five years, and was not within the state to register in compliance with the law of 1880. In 1883 he applied to the clerk of Kings county for registration, but was refused. On Feb. 1, 1883, Hon. Charles F. Brown, justice of the supreme court, ordered the clerk to register his name. A similar case occurred in Brooklyn in 1885, in which the county clerk refused to register Horace B. Ransom, who had a diploma from the University of the city of New York, granted in 1857. Dr. Ransom had soon thereafter gone to Burlington, Io., not returning until 1885. Upon presentation of the facts to the Hon. E. M. Cullen, justice of the supreme court, he ordered the clerk to register him. The order is dated April 22, 1885. In January, 1886, Ashbel P. Grinnell applied to the clerk of Kings county to be registered, and was refused. The facts in the case were these: Dr. Grinnell received his diploma from Bellevue hospital medical college in March, 1869; afterwards he moved to the state of Vermont, where he resided until Jan. 1, 1886, when he again came within the state. In reference to this case, Hon. E. M. Cullen, justice of the supreme court, said, "I think, on making the affidavit or exhibiting the diploma or certificate, a physician is entitled to be registered at any time. The first of October, 1881, mentioned in the act, does not limit the time within which physicians can be registered, but any physician practising after that time without registering is guilty of an offence." It would appear from this latter case to be the opinion of Justice Cullen that a physician not only can register at any time, but must do so, even though he neglected to do so prior to Oct. 1, 1881, and that if he fails to do so he is guilty of an offence.' Until this decision was made, a considerable number of physicians had applied to be registered, who had,
through neglect or absence from the state, failed to register before October, 1881, and whose subsequent application had been refused. Some of these are still unregistered, not aware of the fact that Justice Cullen has decided not only that they have the right to register, but that it is their duty to do so. If this statement comes to the knowledge of any such, they should at once apply for registration.
Another question has arisen in connection with the registration law, and that is, must a physician who has registered in one county of the state, if he desires to practise in another county, re-register in that county? We simply desire to have appear what the views of the two justices are on this question. Until the case comes before them in such shape that a judicial opinion in the strictly legal sense can be given, we do not know how their views could be better expressed. In the last number of Science (viii. No. 200, p. 515), we stated these views as those of Justices Cullen and Bartlett. We should have said Justices Bartlett and Brown. The entry in the county clerk's book is as follows: "Dr. John Smith registered as a physician in Greene county in 1880, in compliance with chapter 513, laws of 1880. Dr. Smith afterwards, on the 13th of March, 1885, applied to the county clerk of Kings county to be again registered ; but the county clerk of Kings county refused to register him. The matter was brought before Judges Bartlett and Brown, who decided orally that Dr. Smith was not obliged to register in every county of the state." The deputy informs us that at the time one of the justices remarked that "it was absurd to suppose that a physician must register in the sixty counties of the state if he wanted to practise in them all." In view of all these facts, perhaps it would have been more exact if, instead of saying that re-registration was absurd as a matter of law, we had said that it was absurd as looked upon by a supreme court judge. That these views are not held by other judges appears from the letters of the counsel to the medical society.
WE HAVE RECEIVED a reprint of an article by Dr. Crothers of Hartford, which was printed recently in the Alienist and neurologist. It is entitled 'Certain hereditary and psychical phenomena in inebriety,' and contains some facts which are of great interest not only to students of psychological heredity, but to those taking part in
the social and political arguments on the liquorquestion. Dr. Crothers has found two sorts of instances of inheritance of the symptoms of inebriety, one in which the symptoms of intoxication are present all the time; the other in which these symptoms only appear from some peculiar circumstance or exciting cause. In the first class some prominent defect, such as idiocy, imbecility, and congenital deformity, is present, and gives the case a distinctness irrespective of the signs of intoxication. These symptoms may appear after birth, or be slowly evolved with the growth of the child, coming into prominence at or before puberty. Among other instances, Dr. Crothers cites this one : "In the home of a former patient I found a little girl, an idiot, whose voice and rambling utterance, with intensely red eyes and drunken expression, pointed back to causes and conditions that had not been noticed before. Other defects and deformities of the face and body cover up these peculiar signs of intoxication."
The second class of cases is less common, but the symptoms are very distinct. Unlike the first class, here the persons affected possess average brain-power, and in many instances are men of positive force. They are usually temperate men, never using alcohol, yet under certain circumstances they act and appear as if intoxicated. In these cases some sort of mental shock takes place that destroys the balance and brings uppermost an inherited neurotic effect. These cases come from inebriate parents or moderate drinkers, and they have inherited some defective nerve-organization which thus manifests itself. Dr. Crothers cites this instance: "A merchant, in good health, and temperate, while at work in his counting-room, received a despatch of the death of his daughter. He lay down on a sofa in his office, and very soon became wildly intoxicated. A physician made this diagnosis, although there was no odor of alcohol in the breath. He was taken home, and remained in bed a week. Two opinions prevailed,