description of the experiment was published in the same magazine for physiology and pathology. Müller's frog experiment The third scientist, not credited in the name of the law, was the German physician and physiologist Johannes Peter Müller; he carried out neuroanatomical and physiological experiments on rabbits for quite some time and without success . Then he decided to simplify his experiments, and thus analysis, by reducing the object of the study to a less complex nervous system – that of a frog. He was assisted by then student and later famous German physiologist and anatomist Theodor Schwann. Because the frog spinal cord is relatively simple and easy to remove, and the relationships between the nerve roots are more apparent, Müller could simplify his design, which also resulted in better reproducibility of the experiment. His experiment involved innervations of the hind legs of the frog. One procedure involved first severing the posterior roots of the spinal nerve leading to the leg, with the result that the leg became insensible but not paralyzed. The second part of his experiment involved severing the anterior roots, so that the limb became paralyzed but not insensible. Müller's frog experiment became a physiology professor's favorite – it was an easily reproducible experiment, and has been used widely in teaching neurophysiology. The naming controversy The dispute of the findings, and subsequently the naming of the discovery, started with the publication of Magendie's paper in the Journal de physiologie expérimentale et de pathologie. The conflict lasted until Bell's death in 1842. Some science historians have better resolved to name it after both physicians, giving Bell the honorary first mention, although others have claimed that these are essentially two overlapping discoveries. Because of the independent findings of both scientists (Bell's claim over the motor function and Magendie's over the sensory function) and the existing conflict between England and France on the political arena of the 19th century (and prior to that), the debate on the Bell–Magendie law became a matter of national pride. The English medicine professors, especially Bell, and even English politicians rebuked the "crude methods" of the French vivisectionist. English medical staff and faculty were more tuned into seeking anatomical and structural explanations through dissections – taking a sort of medical functionalist approach. The dispute between the two happened in an era of a more secular approach to scientific discovery; positivism had become popular in many sciences.