At this point we must introduce a remark relative to the true nature of so-called "reflex" effects. The word is constantly used, and is also much abused, as Eulenburg remarks. We all understand, of course, what is intended by the commonest use of the word: the case of sneezing produced by the irritation of snuff applied to the peripheral branches of the fifth nerve in the nose is a stock example. But another application of the phrase, of much more questionable propriety, is that where it is employed to designate functional nervous actions, which merely arise simultaneously with or subsequently to sensory phenomena as to which there is no proof whatever that they were produced by peripheral irritation. This particular inaccuracy of customary speech has probably contributed largely to the inveteracy with which writers on nervous disease have insisted on assuming a peripheral origin in every case for neuralgia itself. In the case of sciatica, for example, complicated, secondarily, with paralysis of the flexors of the limb, it seemed easy and scientific to speak both of the neuralgia and the paralysis as "reflex" effects of a local peripheral mischief--gouty, rheumatic, or the like; and it appears to have been perfectly forgotten by many that the whole phenomena might be explained by an original morbid action in the sensory root of the nerve, extending subsequently to the motor root, without any intervention of peripheral irritation whatever, or under the influence only of the ordinary peripheral impressions, which, in health, evoke no painful nor paralytic symptoms. It is by this kind of extension of a central morbific process, leading to radiation of the perturbing influence centrifugally along divers nervous paths, that I believe we must explain the facts observed in complicated cases.