But further, the restriction of the term stimulation to those alterations which increase the course of the changes in the living substance involves the observer in still greater contradictions. It can easily be shown that one and the same factor in one and the same form of living substance has now an exciting, now a depressing effect on the vital processes. This fact can be readily demonstrated[19] by means of the infusoria _Colpidium colpoda_, which can be grown without difficulty in a hay infusion. A number of individuals in a drop of fluid may be placed in a warm stage and observed under the microscope; one then sees that at room temperature they swim about by moving their ciliary processes at a definite rate. Now if the temperature is raised to about 35° C., the ciliary movement becomes enormously increased. The infusoria swim madly through the field of vision. They are in a state of violent excitement. The increase has, therefore, acted as a strong, exciting stimulus. But if one allows the temperature to further increase only a few degrees the ciliary movements are suddenly greatly retarded. The infusoria now swim sluggishly through the field of vision and finally remain stationary. In this case the increase in the temperature has had a depressing effect. If the infusoria are not quickly removed, the depression is followed by death. Should the increase in temperature be regarded in the _first_ instance as a stimulus, and _not as such_ in the _second_, in which the temperature rises only a few degrees higher? Here the change in the vital conditions concerned is in both instances positive. In all cases of overstimulation we are confronted by the same question. Nevertheless it is not at all necessary to refer to such strong or even life-endangering stimuli for the observation of these conditions. In this connection I would like to cite an even more striking instance and which is of special interest for the understanding of the phenomena in nerve centers. If the posterior spinal roots of a _Rana temporara_ are severed, and the eighth root stimulated with a faradic current, whilst the _musculus Gastrocnemius_ of the same side is connected with a writing lever, one obtains, as _Vészi_[20] has found, at the moment of the beginning of stimulation a contraction of the muscle. The faradic stimulus has, therefore, produced an excitation reflexly. If instead of the _eighth_ the _ninth_ posterior root is stimulated, the result obtained is also an excitation of the muscle. In this case, however, the excitation in the form of a tetanic contraction lasts for some time, provided that the stimulation is not at once stopped. If now during tetanic stimulation of the ninth root the eighth is at the same time stimulated, with a strength of current equal to that which previously brought about contraction of the muscle, instead of an _increase_ and a _strengthening_ of contraction there is, on the