You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
240 DESIGN IN NATURE<br />
§ 45. Irritability.<br />
This term is erroneously applied to both plants and animals. Plants and animals in a healthy normal con-<br />
dition cannot be said to be irritable. They are sensitive ; but this is quite another matter. IrritabiUty, strictly<br />
speaking, can only be applied to unhealthy and abnormal plants and animals. The term irritability was first<br />
employed to indicate that something in plants and animals which caused them to respond to external stimulation.<br />
The term involved a theory, and, to prove the theory, a second theory— namely, that of artificial stimulation—was<br />
invented.<br />
§ 46. Irritability plus Stimulation.<br />
The theories of irritability and stimulation are necessary to each other. They take for granted that plants<br />
and animals require to be jogged into activity by something outside of themselves. They ignore the life, spon-<br />
taneity, and independence of plants and animals, and regard them as mere automata, which they certainly are not.<br />
To make this matter quite plain, it is only necessary to state that healthy plants and animals can, and do,<br />
habitually perform all their normal functions as apart from both irritability and extraneous stimulation.<br />
It is not denied that healthy plants and animals, and parts thereof, respond to electric and other stimulation,<br />
such as pricking, cauterisation, the application of mustard, acids, &c. This fact, however, does not prove that the<br />
plants and animals are irritable, and that they can only act in response to stimuli. Healthy plants and animals,<br />
as explained, are sensitive, and, as a consequence, shrink from violent treatment. As further explained, they<br />
perform all their functions spontaneously and independently, that is, as apart from irritability and stimulation.<br />
Moreover, the results obtained by artificial stimulation are not identical with similar results obtained in plants<br />
and animals which are not artificially stimulated. The most that can be said is that in certain cases, and under<br />
certain circumstances, artificial stimulation produces results akin to, but not identical with, results obtained by<br />
natural stimulation, which has its origin in the original endowments and life of the individual. If a muscle be<br />
pricked, or a nerve excited by an electric shock, it cannot be shown that the results obtained are identical with<br />
those witnessed in natural muscles and nerves not so pricked and excited. In the one case, the stimulation is<br />
artificial and from without :<br />
in the other case, it is natural and from within. The modus operandi is essentially<br />
different. The mechanical treatment of hving plants and animals as if they were automatic machines has great<br />
attractions for a large number of enthusiastic modern physiologists. They pride themselves on obtaining what<br />
they are pleased to designate exact results. They are ambitious to measure, to weigh, to demonstrate, and conscientiously<br />
record everything ; and they inconsistently, in many cases, resort to the employment of the most dehcate,<br />
complicated, and expensive instruments, which they use in a clumsy, careless, inexact manner. Their modes of<br />
experiment are inexact and crude to a degree. They profess to obtain the secrets of the most sensitive tissues and<br />
organs in plants and animals by the employment of every conceivable kind of stimulus, and by hacking them about<br />
with knives, scissors, needles, &c., and torturing them until they are abnormal to an alarming extent, in the vain<br />
hope that they are imitating nature. I have seen one of th* so-called exact mechanical physiologists constructing<br />
a chart of the power exerted by and the movements characteristic of the heart of a frog by partially detaching the<br />
organ from the body, by lacerating and displacing its nervous and muscular fibres, and by attaching the latter to<br />
a balance furnished with a stile or pen and connected with a recording cylinder. Nothing could possibly be more<br />
untrustworthy and incongruous. There was the usual employment of delicate, complicated, exact instruments with<br />
the most violent and barbarous, and, I am afraid I must add, ignorant procedure. The heart was deprived of its<br />
blood supply, the ganglia of the heart were displaced, torn, and abnormally excited, and, in many cases, destroyed ;<br />
and the cavities of the heart, especially that of the ventricle, were opened and partly teased out. To crown all,<br />
the lacerated, fatally injured, bloodless heart was occasionally jogged into spasmodic activity by the apphcation of<br />
electrical stimulation. Here was an imitation of nature's methods with a vengeance ; yet the results thus artificially<br />
and ruthlessly obtained were duly published and paraded in a scientific journal as an exact physiological research.<br />
On another occasion I saw two well-known scientists open the abdomen of a rabbit and literally tear, and maul<br />
beyond recognition, the solar plexus with needles to discover the functions of the plexus by direct 'experiment.<br />
These are examples of badly directed experiments and faulty manipulation, but they illustrate the methods in<br />
many cases followed by the mechanical school. As compared with natural methods, the results obtained by even<br />
the most experienced and adroit experimenters are, at the best, doubtful, and to be received with the extreme of<br />
caution. It cannot be otherwise. If animal tissues and organs are lacerated or stimulated to any great extent, the<br />
circulatory, nervous, muscular, and other systems are abnormally disturbed, and a perfectly normal result, under<br />
the circumstances, is impossible.