fi. 
 
 l^ 
 
 ^0 
 > 
 
 q) 
 
 O 
 
 e 
 
 3^ 
 
 I. 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■*2 
 
 i 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2012 with funding from 
 Dul<e University Libraries 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/monkeysbrainsoncOOclar 
 
/ 
 
 '(jI, 1^^^ .'2^/^.4 
 
 FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALS FROM VIVISECTION. 
 
 MONKEYS' BEAINS ONCE MOKE. 
 
 SCHAEFER v. FERRIER. 
 By J. H. CLARKE, M.D. 
 
 {Ecprinlcd from The Zoophilist, April, 1888.) 
 The monkey has little cause for rejoicing in the fact that, 
 of all animals, it comes nearest to man in the conformation 
 of its brain and skull. The modern school of physiologists, 
 who look upon their science as if it were nothing more than 
 applied mechanics, find in the brains of monkeys the most 
 convenient material for submitting the problems of human 
 brain physiology to the test of experiment. 
 
 England possesses an unenviable pre-eminence in the vivi- 
 section of the monkey ; and, singularly enough, England has 
 been the first to proclaim the existence of a close kinship 
 between monkeys and man. It is somewhat " less than 
 kind" on the part of Dauwin and his co-religionists (if we 
 may so term them), who worship Evolution (with a large E), 
 after proving that the monkey is man's cousin (several 
 thousand times removed) to maintain the right of man to 
 vivisect him. We suppose that if the conditions were 
 reversed — if monkeys had the right -conferring might to 
 vivisect man — the physiologists would raise no objection, 
 provided they were not themselves the victims. 
 

 The name of Professor Ferriek is inclif='.solubly connected 
 with the vivisection of monkeys. He was among the first 
 of physiologists to make experiments on monkeys' brains. 
 All readers of The Zoophilist have heard of the mutilated 
 monkeys he exhibited at the International Medical Congress, 
 held in London in 1881 ; and they will scarcely need to be 
 reminded of what followed that exhibition. When those 
 monkeys were experimented on, Dr. Ferrier had no license. 
 Both the Lancet and the British Medical Journal attributed 
 the experiments to Dr. Ferrier. Dr. Ferrier was sum- 
 moned at the instance of the Victoria Street Society, and 
 the summons was heard at Bow Street. The summons was 
 dismissed ; the reporters, who had attributed the experi- 
 ments to Dr. Ferrier in the journals, swore, or were pre- 
 pared to swear, that not Dr. Ferrier, but Dr. Gerald 
 Yeo (who did possess a license) was the experimenter. This, 
 as Dr. Ferrier's counsel, Mr. Gully, observed in never-to- 
 be-forgotten words, was " accurate enough for scientific 
 purposes." Four years after this occurrence. Dr. Ferrier 
 published, in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal 
 Society for 1884, an account of the same experiments. In 
 this account he claims that he himself performed them, 
 and that he was assisted in the performance of them by Dr. 
 Gerald Yeo. 
 
 It is important to recall this piece of prevarication, because 
 it will be seen from what follows that this kind of scientific 
 "accuracy" is characteristic not only of the reporters of 
 the experiments, but of the experiments themselves. We 
 have heard much of late years about these experiments of 
 Dr. Ferrier's, and how they have enabled himself and 
 others to make out exactly where diseases in the brain were 
 situated. We have always disputed the correctness of these 
 assertions, and one of our reasons for so doing has been the 
 want of agreement among physiologists themselves as to the 
 correctness of Professor Ferrier's observations and results. 
 
 First among his critics were Hitzig, Munk, and Hermann, 
 in Germany ; after them came Luciani and Tabibourini, in 
 Italy ; and lastly comes Dr. Schaefer, in England. 
 
3 
 
 The most distressing feature in these experiments is this, 
 there is no finality in them ; the offering up of one victim 
 on the altar of science necessarily entails the offering up of 
 many more. Of course, no competent physiologist could 
 accept Professor Ferrier's statements without subjecting 
 them to the test of experiment, and this entails the indefinite 
 multiplication of vivisected monkeys. Among those who 
 thus submitted them to test was Dr. Schaefer, and it will 
 give a better idea of what that testing means if I quote his 
 own words. In the January number of Brain, a (quarterly) 
 Journal of Xeurolofiy, is an article by Dr. Schaefee, entitled : 
 Experiments on sjjecial sense localizations in the cortex centre 
 of the monkey, which opens in this way : — 
 
 " In the long series of experiments upon the morikey's brain 
 with which I was engaged with Mr. Victor Horsley (hiring 
 more than tiro years," &c. 
 
 This will give our readers an idea of what these experi- 
 ments entail when once started. We should expect that 
 two years of experiment would be sufiicient to settle all 
 disputed points, but this is by no means the case. "With 
 regard to vision," says Dr. Schaefer, " our experiments 
 were not conclusive." Professor Fereiee maintained that 
 the one particular fold or " convolution " of brain 
 substance, called the "angular gyrus" was the seat 
 of the function of seeing, and that another portion, the 
 " occipital lobe " had also something to do with it, but in a 
 subordinate way. Munk contested these assertions. During 
 their two years of experiments Drs. Schaefer and Horsley 
 only made four upon these regions ; and they found 
 when they came to examine the brains of the monkeys 
 after they had died that they might just as well have 
 spared them, for they had failed to remove the Avhole of the 
 " occipital lobe," around which the contest was taking 
 place. Of course, therefore, " it became necessary to pursue 
 further enquiries in order to test " the accuracy of Munk's 
 statement — the converse of Feeeiee's — that the occipitnl 
 lobe was the seat of the power of vision, and that the 
 angular gyrus had nothing whatever to do with it. These 
 
further " enquiries " (a new name for vivisections) form the 
 subject of Dr. Schaefee's article, and they were made (in 
 the phj-siological laborator}' of University College, probably, 
 Dr. ScHAEFEK being Jodi'ell Professor of Physiology to 
 the College) in conjunction with Dr. Sanger Brown, of 
 Chicago. 
 
 It is astonishing how much mutilation the brain of 
 monkeys will endure without entailing the death of the 
 creature. There is loss of function, either temporary or per- 
 manent, and when the mutilation is extensive, loss of the 
 faculty of enjoying life, but not necessarily loss of life itself. 
 This is a very doubtful advantage to the monkey when it 
 falls into the hands of the physiologist, whatever beneficial 
 purposes it may otherwise subserve. But now to the 
 experiments. 
 
 " lu one monkey," says Dr. Schaefer, " a small, active and 
 intelligent Rhcesus, we destroj-ed, as completely as we could 
 from the surface, by the actual cautery the grej' matter 
 of one angular gyrus. We tested the sight after comj)lete 
 recovery from the anaesthetic, but could discover no defect of 
 vision, nor any loss of movement of the eyelids, nor any 
 anaesthesia of the cornea or conjunctiva [surface of the eye] . 
 When the eye of the same side was closed by plaister, the 
 animal continued to see ]oerfectly well with the eye of the 
 other side, nor could we discover any diminution in the visual 
 field." 
 
 For a week the same tests were applied regularly, and 
 failed to show any failure of sight. Then a second opera- 
 tion was performed on the opposite side, and the other 
 angular gyrus was destroyed in the same way, and with the 
 same negative results. " This animal was kept for several 
 months, was examined carefully, not only by ourselves but 
 by many other people, and was exhibited to the Neurological 
 Society at its meeting in their laboratory last winter." 
 These experiments Dr. Schaefer regarded as conclusive 
 against Feerier's opinion ; but to make quite certain, he 
 operated on another monkey, and this time instead of 
 cauterising the gyrus scraped it out to its whole extent and 
 
depth. In this case there was temporary disturbance of 
 vision, but only temporary, the result still not agreeing with 
 Professor Fereier's statements. The next step was to 
 remove the occipital lobe first on one side, and then on both 
 sides, with the effect, in the former case, of causing 
 " bilateral homonymous hemianopsia," which means blindness 
 of one half of each eye, objects placed so that their images 
 fall on left half of the retina (that being the half affected) of 
 either eye remaining unseen ; and in the latter case, in which 
 both lobes were removed, total blindness resulted. Dr. 
 ScHAEFER does not appear to have adopted Dr. Ferriee's cruel 
 methods of ascertaining whether the animals were actually 
 blind, namely, terrifying them and chasing them about a room 
 till they ran " full tilt " against walls and table-legs. But 
 this did happen in one case : " Brought into a strange room it 
 ran against every obstacle." Generally, other means were 
 adopted, as flashing lights upon the animal when in a dark 
 room, and observing how it found its food by groping and 
 smelling. 
 
 Dr. ScHAEFEE explains the results obtained by Dr. Ferrier 
 from his vivisections — which are diametrically opposite to 
 those of Dr. Schaefer — to be due to the incompleteness 
 of the operations. 
 
 Further experiments were made by Drs. Schaefer 
 and Sanger Brown regarding the localisation of the 
 senses of hearing, smell, and taste, and in almost every 
 instance their results contradicted those of Professor 
 Fereiee. 
 
 Of course these experiments of Dr. Schaefer cannot be 
 regarded as final. They will doubtless have to be tested in 
 their turn. Perhaps he did not use the right species of 
 monkey. In any case we fear it means a multiplication of 
 victims. 
 
 And now let us look at these martyrs of science. What 
 becomes of the " active and intelligent " creatures thus 
 ruthlessly mutilated '? In one there was produced a 
 "condition resembling idiocy, which was well marked for 
 a fcAV days, but afterwards passed off'." A similar condition 
 
6 
 
 was observed in another "subject" — a "large female 
 Rhoesus." Dr. Schaefer says : — 
 
 " The condition was marked by loss of intelligence and 
 memory, so that the animals, although they received and 
 responded to impressions from all the senses, appeared to under- 
 stand imperfectly the meaning of such impressions 
 
 Their dispositions also became completely changed ; both 
 animals exhibited the utmost greediness, losing all the 
 daintiness which characterises the feeding of monkeys ; they 
 also entirely lost their fear of man." 
 
 A strange result this last ! One monkey, which had a 
 certain portion of its brain destroyed, lost sensation of the 
 whole of the opposite side. 
 
 Dr. ScHAEFEK, in a foot-note, points out how easy it is to 
 make mistakes about the senses of monkeys : — 
 
 " These two animals " [the two idiotic monkeys referred to 
 above] " were exhibited to the Neurological Society, and a 
 Committee of that Society was appointed to examine them. 
 Another monkey, which was erroneously believed to have 
 been submitted to the same operation (removal of both 
 superior temporal gyri), and a fourth, which had been 
 subjected to no operation at all, were also i^ut before the 
 members of the Committee. No doubt was raised as to the 
 hearing of the first two " [the hearing of all four was actually 
 unimpaired, though, according to Dr. Ferrier, the first two 
 ought to have been deaf] ; " but one member of the Committee 
 thought that the third, and another member that the fourth, 
 was totally deaf ! This I mention to illustrate the difficulty 
 which even skilled observers, unacquainted with the habits 
 and disposition of the individual animals, experience in 
 deciding the question of the possession or loss of hearing in 
 monkeys." 
 
 Regarding some of Professor Ferrier's experiments and 
 conclusions as to the sense of taste of monkeys, Dr. Schaefer 
 makes this criticism : — 
 
 " The animals lived but a short time, and were in an 
 entirely abnormal condition when tested, nor was the testing 
 performed with purely sapid substances, but with acid and 
 aromatic articles." 
 
From these little by-remarks it is uot difficult to under- 
 stand how hard a matter it is to get experimenters to agree. No 
 two animals are exactly alike ; no two experimenters operate 
 in precisely the same way ; and no two observers see the 
 same phenomena in exactly the same light. 
 
 In the same number of Brain, which contains Dr. 
 Schaefer's article, is a review of the great work on The Brain 
 considered Anatomically , Phi/siologically, and Philosophicalli/, 
 by the illustrious Emanuel Swedenborg, edited by Dr. R. L. 
 Tafel. From thisreviewit appears that SwEDENBOEGpossessed 
 a knowledge of the anatomy and physiology of the brain 
 which was wonderfully exact, and so far in advance of any 
 possessed by the physiologists of his time that only in the 
 light of the most recent discoveries is it becoming plain how 
 exact his knowledge and insight were. 
 
 "Our own opinion," says the reviewer — " after time has 
 been allowed for recovery from the shock of supposing it 
 possible that a metaphysician, an ontologist, or theologian, 
 could, by sheer insight and force of inductive reasoning, 
 teach anything whatever to anatomists and physiologists 
 regarding things in their department — undoubtedly is that 
 Swedenborg and his editor have proved completely that the 
 pituitary gland is a gland engaged in the elaboration of blood, 
 whatever else it may be ; and that, in the other things which 
 he says about it, even if he has not proved them, he has put 
 a strong case for respectful consideration." Further on, we 
 read: "It is surely remarkable that Swedenborg's views 
 should have led him to expect that a cavity not yet known 
 to exist would, in the future, be discovered ; and that his 
 anticipation should be verified." 
 
 For Swedenborg's views and teachings of anatomy we 
 cannot answer, but we venture to say this, that if Sweden- 
 borg's faith, devoutness, and humility were brought to the 
 study of Physiology and Anatomy now, instead of the cold, 
 proud, atheistic spirit that distinguishes modern investi- 
 gators, a higher order of knowledge would take the place 
 of the confusion that now prevails, and there would be an 
 end to Physiological cruelty. 
 
Wukm Strtet an^ litternHtioiml Sotietj for tlj^ 
 ^rottction of Animals from i^itesection. 
 
 Offices: 1, Victoria Street, London, S.W. 
 
 Vice-Presidents. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice of England. 
 
 His Eminence Cardinal Manning. 
 
 S.A.E. The Princess Eugenie of Sweden. 
 
 Prince Lucien Bonaparte. 
 
 The Duke of Newcastle. 
 
 The Duchess of Sutherland. 
 
 The Marquis of Bute. 
 
 The Marquis of Hertford. 
 
 The Marquis of Worcester. 
 
 The Dowager Marchioness of Ormonde. 
 
 The Earl of Darnley. 
 
 The Earl of Leven and Melville. 
 
 The Countess of Portsmouth. 
 
 Viscount Sidmouth. 
 
 The Bishop of Winchester. 
 
 The Bishop of Bath and Wells. 
 
 The Bishop of Oxford. 
 
 The Bishop of Liverpool. 
 
 The Bishop of Wakefield. 
 
 Lord Cardross. 
 
 Lord Congleton. 
 
 Lord KoB.iRTEs. 
 
 Her Excellency Lady Paget. 
 
 Lord Mount-Temple. 
 
 Lord Tennyson. 
 
 Lord Justice Lopes. 
 
 Rt. Hon. A. J. MuNDELLA, M.P. 
 
 Rt. Hon. James Stansfeld, M.P. 
 
 The Archbishop of Tuam. 
 
 Hon. Evelyn Ashley. 
 
 The Dean of Llandaff. 
 
 General Sir Percy Douglas, Bart. 
 
 Sir Gerald Codrington, Bart. 
 
 William Adlam, Esq., F.S.A. 
 
 Frank Morrison, Esq. 
 
 Robert T. Reid, Esq., Q.C., M.P. 
 
 Robert Browning, Esq. 
 
 LiEUT.-CoL. T. Picton Turbervill. 
 
 Central Executive Committee. 
 
 The Lady Abinger. 
 
 Mrs. Adlam. 
 
 Mrs. Arthur Arnold. 
 
 The Lady Edith Ashley. 
 
 Ernest Bell, Esq., M.A. 
 
 Edward Berdoe, Esq., L.R.C.P. 
 
 Alexr. Bowie, Esq., M.D. 
 
 Hon. Mrs. E. V. Boyle. 
 
 Miss Olive Bryant. 
 
 The Countess of Camperdown. 
 
 John H. Clarke, Esq., M.D. 
 
 Miss Frances Power Cobbe. 
 
 Hon. Stephen Coleridge. 
 
 Rev. G. F. HoLDEN, M.A. 
 
 W. S. Lilly, Esq., LL.M. 
 
 Miss Lloyd. 
 
 Viscountess Maidstone. 
 
 Herbert Marsland, Esq. 
 
 Miss Marston. 
 
 PvEV. J. Matthews. 
 
 Mrs. Frank Morrison. 
 
 The Lady Mount-Temple. 
 
 Mrs. James Pender. 
 
 F. E. PiRKis, Esq., R.N., F.R.G.S. 
 
 Mrs. Lloyd Price. 
 
 Miss Ellen E. Rees. 
 
 The Countess of Seafield. 
 
 The Rev. John Verschoyle. 
 
 Hon. Treasurer. — Hon. Bernard Coleridge, M.P. 
 
 Secretary.— BENJAMIN bryan. 
 
 THE object of the Society is the Total Abolition of the practice of Vivisection 
 as defined in the Report of the Royal Coniniissioii. 
 
 Those who sympathise with this object are entreated to afford the Society all 
 the help in their power, by subscribing, and inducing others to subscribe, liberally 
 to its funds ; by obtaining signatures to Petitions to Parliament ; and also 
 by disseminating the publications of the Society, and especially its organ The 
 Zoophilist, wherein the latest information respecting the Anti-vivisection agitation 
 is to be found. 
 
 Member's Annual Subscription, lOs. Life Membership, £5. Subscription 
 to The Zoophilist, the Organ of the Cause, 3s. 6d. per annum, post free. 
 
 Pewtress & Co., Printers, 28, Little Queen Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields, W.C. 4.88 
 
 DUKE MED; CENTER DE 
 HISTORICAL COLLECTION