Again he says: “A more extensive development of the same conjecture, might perhaps dispose the reader to consider each nervous fibrilla, whether in the nerves or in the brain itself, as a little special organ.”[103] Even this is not all. For the sake of Gall’s doctrine, the anatomy of the brain must have a connexion with cranioscopy. And Gall takes great care to place all his organs upon the surface of the brain. “The possibility of a solution of the problem under consideration,” says he, “supposes the organs of the soul to be situated at the surface of the brain.”[104] Indeed, were they not situated at the surface of the brain, how could the cranium bear the impression of them? and what would become of cranioscopy? Cranioscopy has nothing to fear. Gall has made provision for it; all the organs of the brain are placed at the surface of the brain; and Gall most judiciously adds, “This explains the relation or the correspondence that exists between craniology and the doctrine of the cerebral functions (cerebral physiology), the sole aim and end of my researches.”[105] But as to the pretended _organs of the brain_, are they really situated at the surface of the brain, as Gall asserts? In plain terms, is the surface of the brain the only active part of the organ? Here is a physiological experiment that shows how very much mistaken Gall is. You can slice off a considerable portion of an animal’s brain, either in front, behind, on one side, or on the top, without his losing anyone of his faculties.[106] The animal may, therefore, lose all that Gall calls surface of the brain, without losing any of his faculties. Therefore it cannot be that the organs of the faculties reside at the _surface of the brain_. And comparative anatomy is not less opposite to Gall’s opinions than is direct experiment itself. I shall not follow him here in the detail of his localizations. How could these localizations have any meaning? He does not even know whether an organ is a _fascicle of fibres_, or a _fibre_.[107] For example; he places what he calls the instinct of propagation in the cerebellum, and what he calls the _instinct of the love of offspring_, in the posterior cerebral lobes; and he looks upon these two localizations as the very surest in his book. “I should wish,” says he, “that all young naturalists might begin their researches with the study of these two organs. They are both easily to be recognised,”[108] &c. What! The cerebellum, so different in its structure from the great brain, is the cerebellum, like the brain,[109] to be considered an organ of instinct? And what is more, is it to be regarded as the organ of a single instinct only, while the brain shall have twenty-six of them? I have already said that the cerebellum is the seat of the principle that presides over the locomotion[110] of the animal, and that it is not the seat of any instinct.