This explanation is drawn from observing the following facts. Hearts, taken from the living thorax, and exposed to the action of a strong stimulus, contract vividly for a time, and then cease to be effected by any further application. If they be then removed from the stimulus, and placed for a time either in cold water or in open air, they are observed to regain their susceptibility of the action of stimuli, and again contract. Mr Coleman, in his excellent dissertation on Suspended Respiration, makes an observation, which I have often had opportunity of verifying: that hearts distended with blood, and in which no contraction can be produced, by scratching their surface with a pointed instrument, contract spontaneously, if one of the large vessels, at some distance from them, be cut so as to evacuate some of the blood. The organization, in this case, is suffered to recover by the removal of the stimulus, (distention) which had deranged it. Even, in the living and entire animal, the heart does not renew its contractions, on the first influx of blood. Some time must elapse, while it recovers from the derangement occasioned by the preceding contraction. I have repeatedly excited, by means of zinc and silver, contractions in the leg of a frog, whose head had been divided from its body, upwards of three days before. The receptacle, for the electrical fluid, was in these cases removed. Now, either the nerves continued extracting it from the internal parts of muscles, or they did not. If they did, having no longer a receptacle, in which they could deposite their electricity, they must have remained positively electrified; and thus, being in the same state with the outer surface of the muscles, no contraction should, according to the hypothesis, have been excited by the application of the metals. But this is contrary to the fact. If it be contended, on the other hand, that their pumping power had ceased; then the first application of the metals, which produced a contraction, having restored the equilibrium, which could not afterwards be broken, must have precluded the possibility of further contractions. But this too is contrary to fact. This argument appears, to me, to do away all support, which the hypothesis may seem to derive from the experiment, before quoted, of applying the metals equally to both sciatic nerves, after one of them had been divided; I may however remark, that the pain necessarily excited by arming a nerve, whose communication with the brain was not interrupted, would fully account for the more rapid exhaustion of the muscles, to which it belonged, compared with such as had not been acted upon by so strong an additional stimulus. As fact, however, is always more satisfactory than argument, I shall relate the following accidental experiment, in proof of the relevancy of the foregoing observation.