The bi-polar cells of the spinal cord and their connections / by Fredk. W. Mott.

  • Mott, F. W. (Frederick Walker), 1853-1926.
Date:
[1890]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The bi-polar cells of the spinal cord and their connections / by Fredk. W. Mott. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    16/30 (page 448)
    into two groups, nor do I interpret the observations of Mott^ to be in support- of the division of cells into two groups.” I think I can explain this discrepancy. Schwalbe^ has pointed out in connection with the anterior cornual cells, that where a column is well developed the cells are larger—therefore the cells of the lower end of Clarke’s column are larger. Moreover, owing to their con- nections with the fibres of the postero-external column on the one hand, as shown in fig. 2, and on the other hand with the fibres of the direct cerebellar tract, the cells are placed not with their long axis vertical, but either obliquely or horizontally, so that they appear in transverse sections much larger here than higher up. Consequently in transverse sections of the lower end of the column one sees the long axis of the cell, whereas higher up one sees the vertically- placed bi-polar cell cut transversely, and, therefore, only the narrower transverse axis is measured. I also stated that in the postero-external column were two sets of fibres, lart^e and comparatively small, as shown in micro-photo. 2. The former I believed to be coimected with the larger cells of Clarke’s column, the latter with the smaller. This may be so, but still the impulses passing through the cells would be afferent. Trom experimental observations I am more incHned to believe that these smaller fibres belong to Goll’s column, being on their way there through the postero-external column. This much may certainly be said, that the smallest cells I have seen in Clarke’s column, under any circumstances, have been larger than the largest cells found in the other two groups. This fact, when coupled with the fact that at birth the cells of Clarke’s column are only one-third of the size of the cells at two years, strongly suggests that they are not comiected with fine efferent fibres having an organic function such as the innervation of the wsceral-vascular system. Moreover, the whole of the cells of the spinal cor'd would be absorbed for efferent fibres, according to Dr. Gaskell’s theory, leaving no cells for two distinct afferent tracts to the brain, viz.,the direct cerebellar and antero-lateral, which have been shown not to have their origin in the ganglion cells of the posterior root. ' Loc, cit.