Kirkes' Physiology

Abstract

I HAVE observed in your issue of Jan. 28 (vol. xi. p. 248) a letter in answer to some previous remarks of mine concerning the true function of the sinuses of Valsalva. Your correspondent, Mr. Prideaux, does not, it seems, quarrel with the actual method of my reasoning, but urges that the conditions necessary for the existence of the premises do not practically obtain. I may remark, however, that Mr. Prideaux does not show how or in what manner my arguments are inapplicable, but contents himself with pointing out what he imagines to be an error in my conception of the mechanism of the part in question. Now, I candidly confess that my knowledge of the state of things at the base of the aorta was not based upon practical observation, but at the same time I must, in justice to myself, say that in the mental review which I took of the possibilities of construction of the valves, I recognised the probable existence of the case which forms the subject of Mr. Prideaux's demonstration. But as he seems to think that if this error be granted the whole reasoning which follows is consequently invalid, I assert that it is by no means obviously certain, à priori, that an alteration in the conditions of its application must necessarily modify the conclusion. On the contrary, this very point which he deems it needless to prove because he has no doubt that it will be allowed, is the very point on which the whole question turns. I think also that in the further illustration of this I shall be able to show that Mr. Prideaux has missed the sole idea for which I was anxious to contend, viz., “that no mechanical advantage is gained by the expansion of the aorta towards its termination.” Moreover, if I can point out the occasion of his difference from myself, I shall at the same time be rendering my own assurance the more complete.