1048 THE GERMS OF THE SEA.

’receive compensation in some form if their present privilegeis withdrawn. Into this part of the question, however, it isBnot necessary for us to enter. We may safely entrust its

Bsettlement to the consideration of the Government.

Annotations.

THE GERMS OF THE SEA.

"Ne quid nimis."

AT no particular spot has the sea been found to -be freeFrom organisms, although those isolated and recognisedhave proved to be harmless, consisting of actively motile’rods and vibrios, cocci being less numerous. As might be

expected, the number of organisms increases immensely as-the shore is approached. Thus about a mile from the shore

something like 4000 germs per cubic centimetre have beenfound, and this influence of the shore extends for four orfive miles. Some hundreds of miles from land the numberdiminishes to 600 and at greater distances to 200 or less. Of

course, the fact that algal vegetation is richest near the shore,,providing a highly nourishing hunting ground for the marineorganism, accounts for the myriads usually found there.

Samples of sea water taken at some depth below the surfaceproved to contain only a few bacteria per cubic centimetre.Thus at half a mile below the surface only from eight to 12bacteria were present. There is little doubt that evenshould pathogenic organisms gain access to the sea, as mustbe the case when sewers discharge raw sewage into it,

’their activity must sooner or later be destroyed. The

sea is remarkable from a bacteriological point of view

-in containing phosphorescent bacteria and it is probablethat some of these are disease-producing so far, at

,.any rate, as regards certain aquatic animals. Thus

- a bacterium has been successfully cultivated from the

body of the luminous talitrus which is both pathogenicand luminous. This bacterium invades the abdominal cavityof this aquatic animal and all its organs with a fatal issue.

During the presence of the disease the victim shines with a. green light which is said to be visible nearly a dozen yards-away and which persists for some hours after the demise ofthe animal. It is not improbable that the luminosity of othermarine animals may be due to the invasion of this light- anddisease-producing organism. The very beautiful phenomenonof the phosphorescence of the sea is caused by photo-bacteria in part as well as by a variety of low forms ofanimal life. The eerie light is in no way connectedwith the element phosphorus as is very commonly supposed.The cause of the phenomenon is respiratory exchange oroxidation, an aerobic function. Sea phosphorescence is

never witnessed in perfectly smooth water, while the

brilliancy of the light when it is observed is always greatestupon the crests of the waves or where the water is in a

’violent state of agitation, as in the wake of a steamer. It<<

occurrence, therefore, is evidence of active oxidation.

Could, again, the sea be sterilised phosphorescence would.cease. The presence of highly combustible matter increasesthe light. A very simple experiment proves this. If the

flesh of a fresh haddock or herring be placed in a 3 per cent.salt solution and kept at a low temperature (from 400 to

50&deg; F.) the liquid will rapidly develop phosphorescence whichbecomes quite brilliant on adding a little glycerine or sugar,or what, in other words, is respirable material. It is curious

’that in marine life disease and death should be associated- ’with luminous phenomena.

EFFECTS OF STRYCHNINE ON RABBITS INWHICH DOUBLE NEPHRECTOMY HAS

BEEN PERFORMED.

IT has been well established that strychnine is eliminated’ from the body mainly through the kidneys. DragendorfEhas shown that all the strychnine leaves the body unchangedand Kratter succeeded even with such a small medicinaldose as two milligrammes in recovering the entire quantityfrom the urine. If the subcutaneous administration be

accomplished very slowly even more than a fatal dose maybe injected without causing any characteristic effect, whichhas been explained on the assumption that in such a caseenough strychnine is eliminated by the kidneys to preventthe accumulation in the blood of an effective dose.

It has been presupposed as a matter that is self-evident that in an animal from which the kidneys havebeen removed subminimum doses will even aggregate withinthe blood to a poisonous dose simply because the eliminatingorgan is removed. This supposition has been proved not to becorrect by Dr. S. J. Meltzer and Dr. W. Salant, who publishthe result of their researches in the Jo.-trnal of ExperimeiitilJct’M, vol. vi., No. 2. The title of their communicationis The Effects of Subminimum Doses of Strychnine in

Nephrectomised Rabbits." " Their investigations bring out

the following points. 1. For a rabbit without its chief

eliminating organs-the kidneys-the minimum toxic

and fatal doses of strychnine are, nevertheless, not smallerthan are those for the normal animals. 2. Even in a rabbitwithout its kidneys a single cumulative toxic dose of

strychnine induces only one attack, or a few attacks, of thecharacteristic spasm and the animal soon recovers and

shows no further effects of the strychnine. Hence a toxic

dose apparently remains within the body, causing a con-

tinual effect. 3. If proper subminimum doses at properintervals are employed "nephrectomised"

" rabbits can

gradually receive thrice the fatal dose of strychnine with-out showing any reaction. Large fatal doses of the poisonare apparently accumulated within the body without causingany effect. Dr. Meltzer and Dr. Salant then proceedto suggest various explanations of these facts, but, as

they admit, these are only hypotheses which require furtherstudy. We consider the most plausible suggestion to be

that after the removal of the kidneys the act of eliminationis carried on by other organs ; for instance, by the gastro-intestinal canal. The above observations are interesting fromseveral points of view but the most practical result is thefollowing consideration. It has been claimed by cliniciansthat in chronic diseases of the kidneys certain drugs, such asstrychnine, should not be administered since, owing to thelessened power of elimination on the part of the kidneys,serious or even fatal accumulative results might follow.

According to the experiments which we have been consider-ing, however, such a theory is incorrect and the animal bodyapparently possesses a mechanism capable of regulating thecumulative capacities of the blood even in the absence of thekidneys. It would be interesting to know the results of

similar investigations with other drugs, such as morphine, forthe fear of cumulative effect in renal’ disease would seem torest at present on theoretical grounds alone.

ON THE RELATIVE PREVALENCE OF DIS-SEMINATED SCLEROSIS.

I Ax important discussion on the relative prevalence of c1i-seminated sclerosis in the United States based upon very z

extensive and exact records collected by leading neurologistsis published in the lIerical ft(!I1:g of New York of March 22ndlast. In opening the discussion Professor C. L. Dana reportedthat he had collected the histories of 3000 private patients

suffering from various forms of nervous disorders and that