28 SEPTEMBER 1839, Page 20

NOTE ON 3IR. MAYO, AND THE CONTROVERSY ON DISCOVERIES IN

THE NERVOUS SYSTEM.

WE have received the following letter from Mr. MAYO, in reference to our last week's review of Mr. SHAW'S Narrative and of Dates and Documents.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.

19, George Street, Hanover Square, 25th September 187.9.

SM—In the Spectator of last week, you attribute to me the having us.ed " arts the reverse of candid, to bolster up a reputation for discovery, to which I hail little or no pretensions," at the expense of Sir CHARLES BELL ; and you conclude the article, which is a notice of a recent publication of Mr. SuAw's, (Mr. SHAW being Sir CHARLES BELL'S brother-in-law,) with the civil re- mark, which you apply to me, "grand anatomiste, grand volenr." May I therefore request you will do me the justice of giving insertion, in the next number of your journal, to the two following extracts referring to the subject of the imputed thefts, the first from a letter published by 31r. WHEWELL, December 11th 1837, of which I enclose you a copy, (and wish that you would reprint the whole,) the second from Dr. BAIN'S translation of Profe.sior un's Physiology.

"Thus the proposition, that there is one set of nerves with ganglions for Sensation, and another set without ,ganglions for motion, was clearly brought into view. Our next business would be to inquire to whom the cape, imental establishment of this proposition is mainly due. This question it is very diffi- cult for a person to decide who has not an intimate and extensive knowledge of physiological researches. A large portion of the credit must be assigned to Sir Charles Bell. For although his experiments on the spinal nerves, made in 1809, bad not led him to assert the proposition, they were readily seen to he evidence of it, when it was once asserted. His experiments on the nerves of the face, when they had been corrected by Mr. Mayo, further confirmed it ; and the earnestness and perseverance which he displayed in seeking to establish differences in the functions of the different nerves, had a leading Maumee on the progress of the subject, both through his own labours and through the impulse he gave to those of other inquirers. Moreover, the very striking and attractive view which he at first presented of the primary distinction of function in nerves, (including its bearing upon tlw expression of comae- nance,) however this siew might afterwards be linsitel or modified, was pro- bably one of the main causes of the advance made in this subject. At the same time, I also think it cannot be doubted that Mr. Mayo showed this view, in its original form, not to be borne out by the experiments. 14Ir. Mayo also added materially to, and in some instances at least corrected, Sir Charles Bell's experiments, and the interpretation of them ; as, for example, when in animals in which the fifth pair of nerves had been cut, he ascribed the disuse of the lips in eating to the loss of sensibility, while Sir Charles Bell, less justly, had at first ascribed it to the loss of muscular power.”—From a Letter of the Reverend w. whewar to the Editor of the 31imlical Gazette.

" Both Sir C. Bell and &limps remark also, that when the facial nerve had been cut through on one side, the animal still moved its lips on both sides in seizing its food. Mr. Mayo first corrected this error. Ile found that after the infinorbital nerve had been divided, the animal did not seize its food with the lip, and could not use it well during mastication ; but it could open the lips, which Sir C. Bell bad. denied. The phrenomena in Sir C. Bell's experiments were justly attributed by Mr. Mayo to the loss of sensation in the lips ; the animal not being able to feel the food, although it had the power to seize it. Mr. Mayo has on the other hand incontestibly proved, that the lips receive their motor power from the facial nerve ; for, by dividing the facial nerves on both sides, he produced paralysis of all the muscles of the face, and of the lips also." —Billy's Translation of Miller's Physiology, Vol. I. p. 642.

Perhaps some of your readers will bedisposed to attach as much weight tithe representations of Mr. WILE WELL and Professor MuLtca, upon this subject, as to those of Mr. SHAW, or even to your own. I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

HERISERT MAVO.

• We publish this letter out of respect to the wish of so distin- guished an anatomist as Mr. MAvo,—although we do not perceive its relation to the point in question; any more than we can under- stand how mere names can settle a matter of fact, especially when we see that one of the authorities (Mr. WHEWELL) is so loose in

facts, as to speak of 1809 when he means 1811.

The charge we made was made expressly on the " statements as we find them in Mr. ALEXANDER Suaw's Narrative ;" whose family relation to Sir CHARLES BELL we intimated, and whose object (" to advocate the claims of Sir CHARLES BELL, and to denounce those of MAGENDIE and MAYO ") we mentioned, as well as the spirit of advocacy he displayed. The charge itself amounted to this—that in August 1822, Mr. MAYO, simultaneously with M. MAGENDIE, wrote upon the Nerves without indicating that he was occupied in investigating the point whose certainty MAGENDIE was then announcing—that different roots give different functions. In July 1823, Mr. MAYO wrote again, adopting the results of MAGEN- DIE'S experiments, and representing himself to have been engaged in similar experiments at the same time as the French phySiohi , Since then, Mr. MAYO (in his Outlines qf Physiology) has net the date of his first paper," we said expressly, on Mr. Strives authority, "so as to make it appear that be was a contemporaneous. discoverer with MAGENDIE." •

If this statement is erroneous, we are very sorry for having aided

its circulation ; but the fitult is Mr. SHAW s, not ours.* And we. put it to our readers, whether the " weight " of Professor Mut, tan, or the greater " weight " of Mr. WHEWELL, has disproved or even touched upon it.

The object of the article Mr. MAyo complains of, was to trace

the history of the great " anatomical discovery of modern times," by which " different functions were assigned to nerves enveloped in the same sheath but PROCEEDING FROM DIFFERENT ROOTS." In itS commencement we stated, that, "In endeavouring to present the case succinctly to our readers, it would be difficult perhaps to avoid omitting points which are necessary to a full exposition of the sub. ject, but totally impossible to avoid omitting what the parties inter- ested consider very important evidence." We also added, that we

,

were not about to exhaust the minutia of the subject ;" and we. conceive that the points discussed in Mr. Mityo's quotations from WHEWELL and MULLER fall under that head—the filet of whether a particular nerve gives motion or sensation being comparatively minutia. Into the main point those writers dwell upon, however„ we have no objection to go. The ease, popularly stated, is this. Amongst BELL'S various experiments, he cut the infraorbitary branch of the fifth nerve of an ass, and found the animal ceased to "pickup his corn ;" whence he inferred that the nerve was a motor or motion-giving nerve. Subsequent research showed this to be wrong; the nerve being a nerve of sensation, and the indifference of the ass towards the oats when he touched them, arising from his not feeling them. The authorities quoted by Mr. Mayo attribute, and perhaps justly, all the praise of this discovery to him ; but Mr. SHAW indicates that part at least of the merit of discovery be- longed to MAGENDIE, who had drawn a similar conclusion tea months before Mr. MAyo was in the field—

Now it was through the joint labours of M. Magendie and Mr. Mayo, that this mistake was discovered. By repeating the experiments on the in.

fraorhitery branch, they showed that By particular branch was incapable of bestowing motor power. To which of these gentlemen, however, the credit of making this correction is mist justly due, I will leave it to others to decide, Suffice it to say, that the result of their experiments was what I have described, narne/y, to demonstrate that the infraorbitary branch provides sensation alone, and gives no power of motion. The lisliowing sentence is taken from M. mngentlie's paper. He is speaking of Sir Charles Bell's experiment on the facial nerves— Lo resultat quo 110113 avous obtenu s'accorde parfaitement avec colui quo nous venous do rapporter—d rexception toulefois de hi seetioa du sonsorbitoire sup in mosticatka, bitimence qui n'a is ad evidente pour moi."—Joura. de Physic,. Erp::.rial. Oelobre 1821.

It was eleven months afterwards that, without making any acknowledgment to M. Magendie. Mr. Mayo repeated the same statement.

" The infraerbital and inferior maxiitary branches of the fifth," he says,

"were dividul on either side, where they emerge from their respective canals: the lips did not lose their tone or customary opposition to each other and to the teeth; but their sensibility seemed destroyed : when oats were offered it, the animal pref.:A its lips against the vessel. which contained the food, and finally rai‘.ed the latter with its tongue and teeth. On pinching with the forceps the extremities nearest the lips of the divided nerves, no movement whatever of the lips ensued. * * * Some days afterwards, though

the animal did not raise its food with its lips, the latter seemed to be moved during mastication by their own muscles."—Anal. and Phys. Comment, p. 110. August 1822.

." Perhaps sonic of our readers" will now be disposed to consider it unsafe to rely upon any "representations," even those of Mr. WHEWELL and Professor Mer.r.mt.

The phrase " grand anatomiste grand voleur," was used as a jocular mode of indicating scientific plagiarism' —or more properly, perhaps that sensitive professional anxiety which prizes reputation as the irst good, awl is not too scrupulous how it is maintained. If Mr. MAio took it in any other sense, we disavow such application. If it be any satisfaction to him, we may say, (what indeed is mani- fest front the conte:a,) that the phrase was equally applied to BELL and MaGENDIE.

* The charge is indicated in very many places in Mr. SHAW'S Narrative, for he devotes three chapters to a review of Mr. Mavo's publications; but be repeats it frequently in terms as distinct as any we have used, notwithstanding the laconic style; which journalism enforces. Sec especially pages 18, 19, 24, 25, and 117, 118, 119.