Some Concepts of Nerve Structure and Function in Britain, 1875–1885: Background to Sir Charles Sherrington and the Synapse Concept

Abstract

2 See, e.g. H. McIlwain, 'Chemical contributions, especially from the nineteenth century, to knowledge of the brain and its functioning', in F. N. L. Poynter (ed.), History and Philosophy of Knowledge of the Brain and its Functions, Oxford, 1957, p. 183. ' Nerve cell, in its modem usage, did not attain real currency until around the turn of the century. 'I do not know why one should restrict the term "nerve-cell" to the body of the cell and thus exclude from that term the cell-processes. This is not done for any other kind of cell, and it appears to me that the custom which has hitherto prevailed with regard to nerve-cells in this matter is not only inadvisable but even misleading'. E. A. Schafer, 'The nerve cell considered as the basis of neurology', Brain, 1893, 16, 134. 4 Clarke and O'Malley, 'The neuron versus nerve net controversy', op. cit., 87-138. Quote from p. 88. ' For other general accounts, see A. Andreoli, Zur geschichtlichen Entwicklung der Neuronentheorie, Basle, Stuttgart, 1961. C. McC. Brooks, 'Current developments in thought and the past evolution of ideas concerning integrative function' in F. N. L. Poynter (ed.), op. cit., 235-52. F. Fearing, Reflex Action, 182-85. E. G. T. Liddell, The Discovery of Reflexes, 25-30. See also the studies of Sherrington cited below.

The physiological construction of the neurone concept (1891–1952)

“…This context is highlighted by the famous collaboration between physiologist George Romanes (1848-1894) and histologist Edward Sharpey- Schäfer (1850Schäfer ( -1935. This episode provides an excellent example of British multidisciplinary relations in the context of Foster's young school of physiology, finally permeable to the novel idea that nerve fibres were independent structures functioning physiologically as a whole [15,16]. Romanes, one of Foster's first pupils, studied locomotion of jelly fish.…”

“…These events were analysed from the standpoint of the neurone doctrine, showing how Sharpey-Schäfer became one of its prominent British forerunners ( [15], [16], p. 47). Sharpey-Schäfer himself felt his 1878 paper was the first demonstration of contiguity between nerve cells ( [15], p. 160).…”

“…These events were analysed from the standpoint of the neurone doctrine, showing how Sharpey-Schäfer became one of its prominent British forerunners ( [15], [16], p. 47). Sharpey-Schäfer himself felt his 1878 paper was the first demonstration of contiguity between nerve cells ( [15], p. 160). However, the specificity of the British reception of the neurone doctrine did not rely in Schäfer's discovery, but was shaped by close relations among physiologists and histologists, and the anatomical background of many physiologists.…”

“…When Sharpey-Schäfer demonstrated free nerve endings in jellyfish, other studies using the gold staining techniques of Julius Cohnheim (1839-1884) and Joseph von Gerlach (1820-1896) [18] allowed investigators from other countries to clearly refute fibre nets [19][20][21]. Furthermore, the statements of Sharpey-Schäfer on the contiguity of fibres were received sceptically by contemporary reports ( [15], p. 160), including one from Romanes. Hence, Sharpey-Schäfer's ideas should not be seen as the "first clear statement of the neurone theory" ( [22], p. 246).…”

“…Hence, Sharpey-Schäfer's ideas should not be seen as the "first clear statement of the neurone theory" ( [22], p. 246). More important seemed Sharpey-Schäfer's influence in convincing his friend Romanes, who had initially written critically to Sharpey-Schäfer (1877) ( [15], p. 162). For Romanes, physiological continuity of jelly-fish contractile elements was based on coordinated activities of lithocysts, considered as analogous to ganglia.…”