§ 301. Of the inner tissues which remain let us next take bone. In what manner is differentiated this dense substance serving in most cases for internal support?
When considering the vertebrate skeleton under its morphological aspect ([§ 256]), it was pointed out that the formation of dense tissues, internal as well as external, is, in some cases at least, brought about by the mechanical forces to be resisted. Through what process it is brought about we could not then stay to inquire: this question being not morphological but physiological. Answers to some kindred questions have since been attempted. Certain actions to which the internal dense tissues of plants may be ascribed, have been indicated; and more recently, analogous actions have been assigned as causes of some external dense tissues of animals. We have now to ask whether actions of the same nature have produced these internal dense tissues of animals.
The problem is an involved one. Bones have more than one stage. They are membranous or cartilaginous before they become osseous; and their successive component substances so far differ that the effects of mechanical actions upon them differ. And having to deal with transitional states in which bone is formed of mixed tissues, having unlike physical properties and unlike minute structures, the effects of strains become too complicated to follow with precision. Anything in the way of interpretation must therefore be regarded as tentative. If analysis and comparison show that the phenomena are not inconsistent with the hypothesis of mechanical genesis, it is as much as can be expected. Let us first observe more nearly the mechanical conditions to which bones are subject.
The endo-skeleton of a mammal with the muscles and ligaments holding it together, may be rudely compared to a structure built up of struts and ties; of which, speaking generally, the struts bear the pressures and the ties bear the tensions. The framework of an ordinary iron roof will give an idea of the functions of these two elements, and of the mechanical characters required by them. Such a framework consists partly of pieces which have each to bear a thrust in the direction of its length, and partly of pieces which have each to bear a pull in the direction of its length; and these struts and ties are differently formed to adapt them to these different strains. Further, it should be remarked that though the rigidity of the framework depends on the ties which are flexible, as much as on the struts which are stiff, yet the ties help to give the rigidity simply by so holding the struts in position that they cannot escape from the thrusts which fall on them. Now the like relation holds with a difference among the bones and muscles: the difference being that here the ties admit of being lengthened or shortened and the struts of being moved about upon their joints. The mechanical relations are not altered by this, however. The actions are of essentially the same kind in an animal that is standing, or keeping itself in a strained attitude, as in one that is changing its attitude—the same in so far that we have in each a set of flexible parts that are pulling and a set of rigid parts that are resisting. It needs but to remember the sudden collapse and fall which take place when the muscles are paralyzed, or to remember the inability of a bare skeleton to support itself, to see that the struts without the ties cannot suffice. And we have but to think of the formless mass into which a man would sink when deprived of his bones, to see that the ties without the struts cannot suffice. To trace the way in which a particular bone has its particular thrust thrown upon it, may not always be practicable. Though it is easy to perceive how a flexor or extensor of the arm causes by its tension a reactive pressure along the line of the humerus, and is enabled to produce its effect only by the rigidity of the humerus; yet it is not so easy to perceive how such bones as those of a horse’s pelvis are similarly acted upon. Still, as the weight of the hind quarters has to be transferred from the back to the feet, and must be so transferred through the bones, it is manifest that though these bones form a very crooked line, the weight must produce a pressure along the axis of each: the muscles and ligaments concerned serving here, as in other cases, so to hold the bones that they bear the pressure instead of being displaced by it. Not forgetting that many processes of the bones have to bear tensions, we may then say that generally, though by no means universally, bones are internal dense masses that have to bear pressures—pressures which in the cylindrical bones become longitudinal thrusts. Leaving out exceptional cases, let us consider bones as masses thus circumstanced.
When giving reasons for the belief that the vertebrate skeleton is mechanically originated, one of the facts put in evidence was, that in the vertebrate series the transition from the cartilaginous to the osseous spine begins peripherally ([§ 257]): each vertebra being at first a ring of bone surrounding a mass of cartilage. And it was pointed out that this peripheral ossification is ossification at the region of greatest pressures. Now it is not vertebræ only that follow this course of development. In a cylindrical bone, though it is differently circumstanced, the places of commencing ossification are still the places on which the severest stress falls. Let us consider how such a bone that has to bear a longitudinal pressure is mechanically affected. If the end of a walking-cane be thrust with force against the ground, the cane bends; and partially resuming its straightness when relieved, again bends, usually towards the same side, when the thrust is renewed. A bend so caused acts on the fibres of the cane in nearly the same way as does a bend caused by supporting the cane horizontally at its two ends and suspending a weight from its middle. In either case the fibres on the convex side are extended and the fibres on the concave side compressed. Kindred actions occur in a rod that is so thick as not to yield visibly under the force applied. In the absence of complete homogeneity of its substance, complete symmetry in its form, and an application of a force exactly along its axis, there must be some lateral deflection; and therefore some distribution of tensions and pressures of the kind indicated. And then, as the fact which here specially concerns us, we have to note that the strongest tensions and pressures are borne by the outer layers of fibres. Now the shaft of a long bone, subject to mechanical actions of this kind, similarly has its outer layer most strained. In this layer, therefore, on the mechanical hypothesis, ossification should commence, and here it does commence—commences, too, midway between the ends, where the bends produce on the superficial parts their most intense effects. But we have not in this place simply to observe that ossification commences at the places of greatest stress, but to ask what causes it to do this. Can we trace the physical actions which set up this deposit of dense tissue? It is, I think, possible to indicate a “true cause” that is at work; though whether it is a sufficient cause may be questioned. We concluded that in certain other cases, the formation of dense tissue indirectly results from the alternate squeezing and relaxation of the vessels running through the part; and the inquiry now to be made is, whether, in developing bone, the same actions go on in such ways as to produce the observed effects. At the outset we are met by what seems a fatal difficulty—cartilage is a non-vascular tissue: this substance of which unossified bones consist is not permeated by minute canals carrying nutritive liquid, and cannot, therefore, be a seat of actions such as those assigned. This apparent difficulty, however, furnishes a confirmation. For cartilage that is wholly without permeating canals does not ossify: ossification takes place only at those parts of it into which the canals penetrate. Hence, we get additional reason for suspecting that bone-formation is due to the alleged cause; since it occurs where mechanical strains can produce the actions described, but does not occur where mechanical strains cannot produce them. Let us consider more closely what the several factors are. It will suffice for the argument if we commence with the external vascular layer as already existing, and consider what will take place in it. Cartilage is elastic—is somewhat extensible, and spreads out laterally under pressure, but resumes its form when relieved. How, then, will the minute channels traversing it in all directions be affected at the places where it is strained by a bend? Those on the convex side will be laterally squeezed, in the same way that we saw the sap-vessels on the convex side of a bent branch are squeezed; and as exudation of the sap into the adjacent prosenchyma will be caused in the one case, so, in the other, there will be caused exudation of serum into the adjacent cartilage: extra nutrition and increase of strength resulting in both cases. The parallel ceases here, however. In the shoot of a plant, bent in various directions by the wind, the side which was lately compressed is now extended; and hence that squeezing of the sap-vessels which results from extension, suffices to feed and harden the tissue on all sides of the shoot. But it is not so with a bone. Having yielded on one side under longitudinal pressure, and resumed as nearly as may be its previous shape when the pressure is taken off, the bone yields again towards the same side when again longitudinally pressed. Hence the substance of its concave side, never rendered convex by a bend in the opposite direction, would not receive any extra nutrition did no other action come into play. But if we consider how intermittent pressures must act on cartilage, we shall see that there will result extra nutrition of the concave side also. Squeeze between two pieces of glass a thin bit of caoutchouc which has a hole through it. While the caoutchouc spreads out away from the centre, it also spreads inwards, so as partially to close the hole. Everywhere its molecules move away in directions of least resistance; and for those near the hole, the direction of least resistance is towards the hole. Let this hole stand for the transverse section of one of the minute canals or channels passing through cartilage, and it will be manifest that on the side of the unossified bone made concave in the way described, the compressed cartilage will squeeze the canals traversing it; and, in the absence of perfect homogeneity in the cartilage, the squeeze will cause extra exudation from the canals into the cartilage. Thus every additional strain will give to the cartilage it falls upon, an additional supply of the materials for growth. So that presently the side which, by yielding more than any other, proves itself to be the weakest, will cease to be the weakest. What further will happen? Some other side will yield a little—the bends will take place in some other plane; and the portions of cartilage on which repeated tensions and pressures now fall will be strengthened. Thus the rate of nutrition, greatest at the place where the bending is greatest, and changing as the incidence of forces changes, will bring about at every point a balance between the resistances and the strains. Thus, too, there will be determined that peripheral induration which we see in bones so circumstanced. As in a shoot we saw that the woody deposit takes place towards the outside of the cylinder, where, according to the hypothesis, it ought to take place; so, here, we see that the excess of exudation and hardening, occurring where the strains are most intense, will form a cylinder having a dense outside and a porous or hollow inside. These processes will be essentially the same in bones subject to more complex mechanical actions, such as sundry of the flat bones and others that serve as internal fulcra. Be the strains transverse or longitudinal, be they torsion strains or mixed strains, the outer parts of the bone will be more affected by them than its inner parts. They will therefore tend everywhere to produce resisting masses having outer parts more dense than their inner parts. And by causing most growth where they are most intense, they will call out reactive forces adequate to balance them. There are doubtless obstacles in the way of this interpretation. It may be said that the forces acting on the outer layers in the manner described, would compress the canals too little to produce the alleged effects; and if evenly distributed along the whole lengths of the layers, they would probably do so. But it needs only to bend a flexible mass and observe the tendency to form creases on the concave surface, to feel assured that along the surface of an ossifying bone, the yielding of the tissue when bent will not be uniform. In the absence of complete homogeneity, the interstitial yielding will take place at some points more than others, and at one point above all others. When, at the weakest point—the centre of commencing ossification—an extra amount of deposit has been caused, it will cease to be the weakest; and adjacent points, now the weakest, will become the places of yielding and induration. It may be further objected that the hypothesis is incompatible with the persistence of cartilage for so long a time between the epiphysis of bones and the bony masses which they terminate. But there is the reply that the places occupied by this cartilage being places at which the bone lengthens, the non-ossification is in part apparent only—it is rather that new cartilage is formed as fast as the pre-existing cartilage ossifies; and there is the further reply that the slowness of the ultimate ossification of this part, is due to its non-vascularity, and to mechanical conditions which are unfavourable to its acquirement of vascularity. Once more, there is the demurrer that in the epiphyses ossification does not begin at the surface but within the mass of the cartilage. Explanation of this implies ability to follow out the mechanical actions in a resilient substance which, like india-rubber, admits of being distorted in all ways by pressure and recovering its form, and it seems impossible to say how the more superficial and more deep-seated canals traversing it will be respectively affected.
Of course it is not meant that this osseous development by direct equilibration takes place in the individual. Though it is a corollary from the argument that in each individual the process must be furthered and modified by the particular actions to which the particular bones are exposed; yet the leading traits of structure assumed by the bones are assumed in conformity with the inherited type. This, however, is no difficulty. The type itself is to be regarded as the accumulated result of such modifications, transmitted and increased from generation to generation. The actions above described as taking place in the bone of an individual, must be understood as producing their total effect little by little in the corresponding bones of a long series of individuals. Even if but a small modification can be so wrought in the individual, yet if such modification, or a part of it, is inheritable, we may readily understand how, in the course of geologic epochs, the observed structures may arise in the assigned way.
Here may fitly be added a strong confirmation. If we find cases where individual bones, subject in exceptional degrees to the actions described, present in exceptional amounts the modifications attributed to them, we are greatly helped in understanding how there may be produced in the race that aggregate of modifications which the hypothesis implies. Such cases occur in ricketty children. I am indebted to Mr. Busk for pointing out these abnormal formations of dense tissue, that are not apparently explicable as results of mechanical actions and reactions. It was only on tracing out the processes here at work, that there suggested itself the specific interpretation of the normal process, as above set forth. When, from constitutional defect, bones do not ossify with due rapidity, and are meanwhile subject to the ordinary strains, they become distorted. Remembering how a mass which has been made to yield in any direction by a force it cannot withstand, is some little time before it recovers completely its previous form, and usually, indeed, undergoes what is called a “permanent set;” it is inferable that when a bone is repeatedly bent at the same time that the liquid contained in its canals is poor in the materials for forming dense tissue, there will not take place a proportionate strengthening of the parts most strained; and these parts will give way. This happens in rickets. But this having happened, there goes on what, in teleological language, we call a remedial process. Supposing the bone to be one commonly affected—a femur; and supposing a permanent bend to have been caused in it by the weight of the body; the subsequent result is an unusual deposition of cartilaginous and osseous matter on the concave side of the bone. If the bone is represented by a strung bow, then the deposit occurs at the part represented by the space between the bow and the string. And thus occurring where its resistance is most effective, it increases until the approximately-straight piece of bone formed within the arc, has become strong enough to bear the pressure without appreciably yielding. Now this direct adaptation, seeming so like a special provision, and furnishing so remarkable an instance of what, in medical but unscientific language, is called the vis medicatrix naturæ, is simply a result of the above-described mechanical actions and reactions, going on under the exceptional conditions. Each time such a bent bone is subject to a force which again bends it, the severest compression falls on the substance of its concave side. Each time, then, the canals running through this part of its substance are violently squeezed—far more squeezed than they or any other of the canals would have been, had the bone remained straight. Hence, on every repetition of the strain, these canals near the concave surface have their contents forced out in more than normal abundance. The materials for the formation of tissue are supplied in quantity greater than can be assimilated by the tissue already formed; and from the excess of exuded plasma, new tissue arises.[50] A layer of organizable material accumulates between the concave surface and the periosteum; in this, according to the ordinary course of tissue-growth, new vessels appear; and the added layer presently assumes the histological character of the layer from which it has grown. What next happens? This added layer, further from the neutral axis than that which has thrown it out, is now the most severely compressed, and its vessels are the most severely squeezed. The place of greatest exudation and most rapid deposit of matter, is therefore transferred to this new layer; and at the same time that active nutrition increases its density, the excess of organizable material forms another layer external to it: the successive layers so added, encroaching on the space between the concave surface of the bone and the chord of its arc. What limits the encroachment on this space?—what stops the process of filling it up? The answer to this question will be manifest when observing that there comes into play a cause which gradually diminishes the forces falling on each new layer. For the transverse sectional area is step by step increased; and an increase of the area over which the weight borne is distributed, implies a relatively smaller pressure upon each part of it. Further, as the transverse dimensions of the bone increase, the materials composing its convex and concave layers, becoming further from the neutral axis, become better placed for resisting the strains to be borne. So that both by the increased quantity of dense matter and by its mechanically more-advantageous position, the bendings of the bone are progressively decreased. But as they are decreased, each new layer formed on the concave surface has its substance and its vessels less compressed; and the resulting growth and induration are rendered less rapid. Evidently, then, the additions, slowly diminishing, will eventually cease; and this will happen when the bone no longer bends. That is to say, the thickening of the bone will reach its limit when there is equilibrium between the incident forces and the forces which resist them. Here, indeed, we may trace with great clearness the process of direct equilibration—may see how an unusual force, falling on the moving equilibrium of an organism and not overthrowing it, goes on working modifications until the reaction balances the action.
That, however, which now chiefly concerns us, is to note how this marked adaptation supports the general argument. Unquestionably bone is in this case formed under the influence of mechanical stress, and formed just where it most effectually meets the stress. This result, not otherwise explained, is explained by the hypothesis above set forth. And when we see that this special deposit of bone is accounted for by actions like those to which bone-formation in general is ascribed, the probability that these are the actions at work becomes very great.[51]
Of course it is not alleged that osseous structures arise in this way alone. The bones of the skull and various dermal bones cannot be thus interpreted. Here the natural selection of favourable variations appears the only assignable cause—the equilibration is indirect. We know that ossific deposits now and then occur in tissues where they are not usually found; and such deposits, originally abnormal, if they occurred in places where advantages arose from them, might readily be established and increased by survival of the fittest. Especially might we expect this to happen when a constitutional tendency to form bone had been established by actions of the kind described; for it is a familiar fact that differentiated types of tissue, having once become elements of an organism, are apt occasionally to arise in unusual places, and there to repeat all their peculiar histological characters. And this may possibly be the reason why the bones of the skull, though not exposed to forces such as those which produce, in other bones, dense outer layers including less dense interiors, nevertheless repeat this general trait of bony structure. While, however, it is beyond doubt that some bones are not due to the direct influence of mechanical stress, we may, I think, conclude that mechanical stress initiates bone-formation.
§ 302. What is the origin of nerve? In what way do its properties stand related to the properties of that protoplasm whence the tissues in general arise? and in what way is it differentiated from protoplasm simultaneously with the other tissues? These are profoundly interesting questions; but questions to which positive answers cannot be expected. All that can be done is to indicate answers which seem feasible.