Four days after I had divided the crural nerve of a female frog, full of spawn, I found her dead; she had been observed alive the night before. The application of the metals to the leg, whose nerve had not been divided, did not excite the slightest contractions, but on applying them to the leg, in which the nerve had been divided, tolerably strong contractions were excitable, for more than twelve hours after she was found. The spawning season had closed, upwards of a week before this happened, and, as this frog had long been without a male to assist her, it is probable, that her death had been occasioned by the retention of her spawn, as it was found in a very dissolved state. The pain, necessarily preceding such a death, could affect the different parts of the animal, only through the medium of its nerves; and hence the exemption of that part from its effects, to which the communication, by nerve, had been interrupted. The same observation will apply to that argument, which Dr Valli has drawn, in support of his hypothesis, from the practice of fishermen. By destroying the brain, they take away all sense of pain, and, consequently, preclude that exhaustion which is so notorious for disposing to putridity. Should it, therefore, be ever proved, that the phenomena discovered by Galvani are effects of the action of electricity, I cannot think Dr Valli’s hypothesis will be deemed a satisfactory account of the manner in which it produces them. Strong, however, as is the analogy, which, in many particulars this influence bears to electricity, considerable doubts must, I think, still remain as to their identity. The grounds of these doubts would best appear in an accurate and full statement of the several points, both of resemblance and of difference between this influence, electricity, and that power which distinguishes the torpedo, the gymnotus, and the silurus; but, I can here promise no more than a very imperfect and desultory sketch of these. In order to accumulate artificial electricity, if I may be allowed the use of such an expression, it seems necessary, that there should be motion between two substances, an electric and a conductor. But, neither motion nor electrics have any share in the production of that influence which occasions the phenomena in question. The motion, here, is the effect, and not the cause of the accumulation: and instead of one conducting substance of any kind whatever, two metallic substances seem indispensably requisite[9].