Medical commentaries. Part I. Containing a plain and direct answer to Professor Monro jun. Interspersed with remarks on the structure, functions and diseases of several parts of the human body / [William Hunter].

  • Hunter, William, 1718-1783.
Date:
1762
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Medical commentaries. Part I. Containing a plain and direct answer to Professor Monro jun. Interspersed with remarks on the structure, functions and diseases of several parts of the human body / [William Hunter]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    118/176 (page 96)
    “ fome friends at Berlin, to whom he fhewed his treatife on the lym- “ phatics, he publifhed it there in the beginning of 1757. 7. “ Let every reader judge from this fimple narrative of fadts, the “ truth of which can be proved by the teflimony of hundreds, to what “ or to whom Dr. Monro owed his knowledge of the lymphatics being a fyftem of abforbents. Could it be to Dr. Hunter ? 8. “You may perhaps fay, that whatever way Dr. Monro had his “ knowledge. Dr. Hunter has a right to the honour of the difcovery, “ for he has publickly read ledtures in anatomy eleven years, in every “ courfe of which he made the obfervations inferted in your Review, “ which are faid to be the eftence of Dr. Monro’s treatife; and you ap- “ peal to Dr. Reimarus’s thelis, where Dr. Hunter is quoted for his “ dodtrine of the lymphatics. 9. “I dare fay your obfervator has given Dr. Hunter’s dodtrine very “ full, as it is now, but as you tell us that Dr. Hunter was particularly “ full on the fubjedt of lymphatics during that courfe, to wit, in the win- “ ter 1755-6, that is, after he had Dr. Monro’s differtation de tefiibus> “ and had converfed with Dr. Reimarus, I muft beg leave to doubt, “ whether in the preceding years Dr. Hunter was fo explicit as your “ obfervator reprefents. 10. “I fhall furprife you in the following alfertion, that your obferva- “ tions are neither the eftence of Dr. Monro’s dodtrine, nor indeed a “ fufficient proof of the general dodtrine of the lymphatics being ab- “ forbents. 11. “ Dr. Hunter is faid to believe the lymphatics to be the fyftem of “ abforbing veftels, and afterts that every abforbed liquor muft pafs “ through the lymphatic glands.—Dr. Monro proves, that the lyrnpha- *l tics are a fyftem of abforbing velfels, but allows that only a portion of “ abforbed liquors paffes into the lymphatics, while the inhalant branches “ of the fanguiferous veins take alfo a fhare of the abforbed liquors *. 12. “ You % Dr. Hunter not only believed the lymphatics to be the fyftem of abforbing veflels, but gave very fufficient reafons for that belief. Vide Critical Review, No. XX. That the in¬ halant branches of the fanguiferous veins take alfo a fhare of the abforbed liquors, is the _o!d doctrine, which feems to be inconfiftent with the difcovery made as to the ufe of the lymphatics. That the lymphatic veins are a fyftem of abforbents, has been proved : that the fanguiferous veins are furnifhed with inhalant branches for the fame purpofe, has been fup- pofed : but nature would hardly form two fyftems for the fame operation. Such a fuppo- fition is inconfiftent with the fimplicity, uniformity, and perfeclion of her works.