The central nervous system; below, a synapse (?): schematic views. Drawing, ca. 1920.

1920

1 drawing : ink ; sheet 27.7 x 19.3 cm

Lettering handwritten on verso: Prof Elliott Lettering handwritten on accompanying sheet: You say that your present hypothesis doesn't conflict with your old statements [?]. But it is different, & it does conflict in so far that it makes the old account out of date, and that the old account would have to be entirely re-written if your present hypothesis were taken as the basis of it. Some possibilities left open before are now closed. In consequence, it w' be well to state explicity though briefly the whole of your view [?], so that subsequent writers, though they have to refer to the facts of the previous account, need not trouble, except for history, to try & make out what you meant there. And points that you consider undecided sh' be definitely stated. The exact influence you attribute to neurons impulses requires I think more definite statement. Is it that this produces a chemical change in an already existing myo[?]-neural junction, in proportion to the frequency, different in each class of neurons, but the same within each class? If there has always been union [?] between the muscle and the nerve cell, how is the synaptic membrane then applicable, which implies two surfaces? At this stage one wants the utmost possible statement of the issues. A general discussion with illustration & metaphor is maddening to the worker, who has to spend weary hours to determining what scientific importance is to be attached to literary [... ?]

Wellcome Collection 572056i