continued in conjunction with tampons of Glyco-Thymoline and Ichthyol for two weeks. Fifteen months later the patient was delivered by me of a full term, eleven pound child and enjoyed a rapid convalescence. Since then I have employed Glyco-Thymoline as an intra-uterine application in a great many cases and cannot recall one instance where it failed to prove most satisfactory. Abstracts. SUBLAMINE AS A HAND DISIFECTANT. BY PROF. B. KROENIG, OF JENA. Abstracted from the Monatsschrift für Geburtshilfe & Gynakologie, No. 1, 1904. I desire herewith to correct some mistaken conclusions drawn by Dr. Schaeffer (Vol. I, No. 3, of this publication) from the experiments made with Sublamine by Blumberg and me. On the basis of very thorough bacteriological examinations this drug has been praised very highly indeed by Paul, Sarvey, Fürbringer, Fueth, Engels and many others, and it has been employed for years with most excellent results in the Leipsic, Jena, and other clinics. Shaeffer is in error when he claims that all comparative experiments with hand disinfection, to be decisive, must be done on the hands of the same subject. Such tests would be fallacious, as each disinfection would lessen the receptiveness of the hand for bacteria; and if we were to wait a few days each time in order to allow the effects of the last disinfection to disappear, it would be impossible to employ bacteria of equal resistance for each test. The liability of error is far less when different hands are infected with a medium of nearly the same virulence on the same day. I have made due allowance for every possible source of error in these tests, and have always emphasized that my results are not of absolute, but only of comparative conclusiveness. Schaeffer also thinks that it would be better to test concentrated solutions of antiseptics on pure bacterial cultures. But this method would lead to false conclusions. Paul and I at first used it, trying over 100 antiseptics in pure solution. But when we tested them in the presence of organic substances, especially upon the skin, we recognized that their action there is entirely different. For instance, chlorine water is the most powerful antiseptic in its action on spores and vegetative forms, as is also chlorine gas as developed in a watery solution of potassium permanganate and hydrochloric acid. Even solutions of I per cent. of the potash and 1⁄2 per cent. of the acid were extremely effective. But when this solution was tried on the properly prepared skin, there was no such intense bactericide effect to be seen. For not only spores, but vegetative forms of the bacteria could be gotten from hands so treated, even when the antiseptic was allowed to act for many minutes. Chlorine loses almost all its efficacy in the presence of organic substances. A 1.1000 Sublamine solution, whose action is not to be compared with that of chlorine water on pure bacterial cultures, has a much more intense bactericide energy on the skin. This shows that we can draw no conclusion as to the action of disinfectants on the skin by their effect on pure bacterial cultures. When dealing with solutions containing organic combinations, a direct bactericide action is far less necessary than inhibitory effect on bacterial growth. For if we succeed in impregnating the skin with a disinfectant which continues to exhibit an inhibitory action when particles of the skin are transferred into an animal body, we have attained the desired object,--namely, to disinfect the skin so that it can no longer infect. Hence we do not need to employ those metallic salts which are most actively inimical to pure cultures; there may be others which are better, either because of superior penetration or other practical advantages. Schaeffer further objects to the animal experiment as a means of testing the efficacy of disinfection. The manifold difficulties connected with it, and the various possible sources of error, we have stated in our various reports. But Schaeffer mistakes in preferring his method, namely, subsequent culture of the skin scrapings on artificial media as a means of determining whether the bacteria have been killed. Disinfection is not necessarily synonymous with destruction of all bacteria. By disinfection we mean that the antiseptic employed has so reduced the virulence of the bacteria that they are no longer capable of growth and multiplication on a given medium under a certain temperature; but it by no means follows that the bacteria have been absolutely killed, and it is readily possible that under favorable conditions, perhaps in the body, they may again develop. The culture test is especially unsuited after disinfection with mercurial salts; for it is impossible to entirely avoid, by the use of ammonium sulphide, transferring some of the material into the medium with the skin scrapings. Schaeffer will not deny that the comparative results of the animal experiments do enable certain definite, reliable conclusions. If, for instance, twenty persons infect their hands with the most uniformly resistant, pure micrococcus tetragenus cultures possible (absolutely uniform cultures are of course unobtainable), and ten of them disinfect their hands with antiseptic A, while the other ten for the same length of time with antiseptic B; and if, say, 200 mice upon whom A is tested all succumb to tetragenus infection, while 200 other mice, upon whom B is tested, with the exception of two, survive,--the conclusion is justified that antiseptic B is better than A. Sublamine is far less irritant that the bichloride, as has been shown in the years of usage it has had. This has been confirmed by Kruckmann and Imre in ophthalmology, and by others. Often, when our hands were infected by direct contact with pus, we have used it in 1: 200, and 1: 100 concentrations, and never noticed any irritations of consequence. Such sublimate solutions are intensely irritant. In conclusion I can say the following: I. The fact that Sublamine in pure solution has not as strong a disinfectant action as corrosive chloride has long been known; but Schaeffer's conclusions as to the skin-disinfecting power of an antiseptic from its action in pure solution on bacteria are fallacious. 2. Besides its far greater penetration, Sublamine has the ad vantage over corrosive sublimate that it is much less irritant, and can be used in stronger concentrations. 3. The decisive experiments of Engels, Sarwey, Paul, Blumberg, Schenk, Zaufal, Fürbringer, Fueth, Danielsohn, Hess, and others, showing the effective action of Sublamine as a hand disinfectant, cannot be disproved by Schaeffer's experiments with Sublamine in pure solution on bacteria. A CONTRIBUTION TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF ABSTRACT OF A PAPER OF PROF. H. PAULY. Prepared at the Laboratory of the University of Bonn. In a continuation of his former paper on Adrenalin Prof. Pauly takes emphatic exception to the empirical formula, C10 H13NO3 2H,O, proposed by Prof. Abel (Berichte, Vol. 36, p. 368), supporting rather the formula, C,H13NO3, first proposed by Aldrich (The American Journal of Physiology, Vol. 5, 457). 9 In a former paper Abel was very curt (Berichte, Vol. 37, P. 368) with Pauly's analytical results, informing the readers that it is not sufficient to obtain an ashfree preparation, it must also be free from organic phosphorus; furthermore one must avoid the possible retention of ammonia, which was not impossible with Pauly. In order to overcome Abel's objections Pauly prepared an Adrenalin entirely free from organic as well as inorganic phosphorus, and found that the nitrogen-content remained the same as in his four or five previous analyses. Experiments were also carried out which showed that the Adrenalin employed for the analyses was entirely free from adherent ammonia, while the contention of Abel that Adrenalin obtained by precipitation with dilute ammonia contains adherent ammonia that is difficult to wash out is also shown to be erroneous. It is also shown conclusively by drying Adrenalin at different temperatures that 2 it contains no water of crystallization according to the formula C10H13NO3 1⁄2H2O (Abel). That Adrenalin contains no water of crystallization was shown also by Abel's own experimental work when he heated the same to 145°-160° in vacuo without appreciable loss; but nevertheless this observation, evident as it is, did not suggest to him the only possible conclusion that Adrenalin contains no water of crystallization. (The formula C10H13NO3 1⁄2 H2O requires 4 41% H2O). 2 What has been stated in this article together with the excellent agreement of Pauly's former analytical results suffice to show his earlier statements require in no wise a correction, and that the formula C10H13NO, H2O proposed by Abel is incorrect. This formula, together with the name “ Epinephrin Hydrate" which designates the same, should be blotted out of the literature. The name "Epinephrin," however, should remain now as before for the basic substance obtained by treating Adrenalin with concentrated H2SO4, or with dilute acids under pressure, and to this the formula C,,H13 NO, should be given. This body, whose chemical composition is different from that of Adrenalin, and whose physical, chemical, and pharmacological properties are different from the real blood-pressure-raising substance, should be considered a transformation product of the active principle. With respect to names Abel does not distinguish sharply between the designations "Epinephrin" and "Epinephrin Hydrate," although he has stated previously (Berichte, Vol. 36, p. 1846) that a body is produced from "Epinephrin Hydrate" (equivalent to Adrenalin) with alkaloidal properties (which Adrenalin does not show!), "Epinephrin." He uses in the title of his articles, however, the name "Epinephrin" exclusively. This must awake the conviction in the mind of the unsophisticated reader that the active substance of the suprarenal bears the name "Epinephrin," while it is really the name of the transformation product. The consequence of this indefinite manner of designation has, |