Eight letters of Joseph (Lord) Lister to William Sharpey / by C. Robert Rudolf.
- Joseph Lister
- Date:
- 1933
Licence: In copyright
Credit: Eight letters of Joseph (Lord) Lister to William Sharpey / by C. Robert Rudolf. Source: Wellcome Collection.
6/30 page 4
![German authorities that they considered them proof positive that concentra¬ tion was the result of contraction of a cell and diffusion a relaxation of such contractile cell. Now I have shewn as you know, that this view is incorrect, as the cells do not change in form or size, but the pigment granules undergo changes of place in the fluid contents of the cells. And I have in the last few weeks made further observations on these curious processes, which shew that they are more complex than I had supposed. I have observed a cell in which slight diffusion was going on, and saw that the granules were moving in a very complex manner : one granule would be moving from the central dark mass of pigment while another was passing towards it. Sometimes a number of granules would start off together ; then stop and some of them return, etc., etc. Shewing that diffusion is the aggregate result of a compli¬ cated set of movements of granules some towards, others from the centre. Sometimes one saw a single granule start off from the central mass and return to it after a circuitous course, as shewn in the diagram [omitted], where (a) is the central black mass of concentrated pigment, and the dotted line represents the course of a granule. Such movements reminded me of what one sees sometimes within the cells of vegetables. This description of the movements of the granules you will say is a digres¬ sion from the argument, and so it is, but I wish to mention it to you, in order to let you know that I have made some further progress. But, however complex the action of concentration and diffusion be, there nevertheless remain the facts shewing that concentration is what occurs in the cells when stimulated through the medium of the nerves, and diffusion is that which takes place when the influence of the nerves is withdrawn. Hence it appears to me clear that, as an agent which induces inflammation causes the pigment cells to remain in the state in which it found them (say that of medium diffusion) however much they may vary in other parts, this effect is some¬ thing more than paralysis of the extremities of the nerves could cause. Paralysis of the extremities of the nerves would [nay], must lead to diffusion unless the cells themselves were affected. Then I think we need have no doubt whatever that the cells, independently of the extremities of the nerves, are affected in such a way that they no longer act as usual in obedience to stimuli, in other words that the cells have the functions of concentration and diffusion paralysed. What I should like myself, therefore, would be to retain the expression “ paralysis of concentration and diffusion ”, but to avoid the use of the expression paralysis of the concentrating and diffusing forces, or of the attractive and repulsive forces, as that implies what is incorrect regarding the physiology of concentration and diffusion, by giving the idea that during concentration the granules are all being attracted at once towards the centre, and vice versa. One more point and one only : viz., regarding the publication of my supplement on the influence of the nerves on the arteries. Mr. Goodsir has shown me a reference to Pfliiger’s8 experiments on the large esculent frog, in which he found that division of the anterior roots of the spinal nerves causes relaxation of the vessels and stimulation of the same roots with galvanism causes the arteries to contract.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b30629408_0006.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
