Abstract
WE have on the table before us two muscles. The animal was dead when they were taken from it a short while ago. But the animal was, as we are ourselves, an assemblage of organs, and many of these organs go on living for a certain time after the animal, as an animal, is dead. Hence these muscles, carefully removed, are still alive. We notice a marked difference between their behaviour now. To understand the behaviour of organisms we have to think of them as processes rather than as structures. An animal is something happening. The function of muscles is to contract. Of the two muscles now before us, one still goes on contracting, although quite isolated from the body of which it formed a part; but the other does not contract, although that is its function in the body. The muscle which still goes on contracting is the heart; the other is a muscle like the biceps of our own arm. We might think that, as it rests there motionless, it is not alive. It is, however, fully alive. We can satisfy ourselves of that. If I apply to it a faint electric current, it answers by exhibiting its functional activity it contracts. Yet it does not contract of itself, nor will it, however long we may preserve it; it will die without of itself even contracting once. What is the significance of this difference between the two?
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nerve as a Master of Muscle . Nature 77, 569–572 (1908). https://doi.org/10.1038/077569a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/077569a0