THE AUTO-TOXICITY OF SNAKES.
The latest contribution
to
the literature of
the pen of Dr. snake-poisoning Waildell, Deputy Sanitary Commissioner for Bengal. Finding, that there was a conflict of opinion upon the question as to whether from
comes
snakes
venomous
ing
its
solution, might possibly
for the
combating to
the
is,
result
upon the
Army
with Dr.
Those who
Waddell's
investigations,
need to be told that the far
enquiry,
of India."
conducted with
venom
on
and
contribution to the by Medical Officers of
this
Scientific Memoirs
the
and believ-
afford indications
the action of the
work
man, he set '
auto-toxic,
are
are
familiar will
not
task he undertook is
ability, scientific,
accuracy, and
opportunity afforded?thoroughness. prepared or not to endorse his the estimate of possible therapeutic value ot the investigations, we certainly must admit that the satisfactory elucidation of the point
so
as
Whether
we fire
has assumed
importance
a
?
scientific interest?it may light of the recent
in the
be, re-
Reichert and formerly claim. This
searches of Weir Mitchell and
Wolfenden, fact,
iu
it could not
some measure,
explains the crudeness
1
146
of
THE"INDIAN MEDICAL GAZETTE. methods of
previous investigator's
testing
the matter, to which Dr. Waddell lias drawn attention. As it is now proved that snakediffer
chemically physiological effects, it would venoms
and
in
their
be of consider-
able interest to learn
conclusively whether toxic to the are snakes themselves, and they whether the venom of one species is poisonous to a snake of another species. Dr. Waddell
if he extended
apply
his
experiments that this would species also. The question,
to other
whether
1889.
[May,
is fatal to innocent
venom
answered in the affirmative
snakes,
by Waddell,
thus confirms the observations of others
is
who
on
this
but still he remarks that
point, pythons
on
desirable.
are
is
and
absolutely
the rat-snake He
experiments on (Ptyas mucosus) that there
thinks, however,
that
doubt
no reason to
venom?
has very properly been at some pains to ascertain what has already been done in this direc-
in suitable doses?would be
tion, and has very fairly summarised the results.
A very interesting portiou of Dr. Waddell's report is that in which he deals with the ques-
In
conducting his experiments employed none but freshly-caught
Waddell
Dr.
snakes for the
purpose?a measure of the first importance? and adopted the more exact, and now generally method of
accepted,
hypodermically injecting
the venom, thus avoiding a source of fallacy might otherwise have vitiated the results.
them than it has
"
tion.
What
proved
immunity
cause
their
venom
says:?"In what immunity to be explained ? this I have at present only
to
what
ophidia.
of the ?"
nection he is
less fatal to
to be to other
is the
from
no
serpent's
In this
then,
manner, "
"
one
In
con-
answer
hypothesis before, it
which
to
He further verified his observations by control experiments and post-mortem examinations. So
would appear that the venomous snake does secure its immunity through auy peculiarity in general structure or physiology per se,
far, therefore,
his observations
as
there is not the
slightest
As to the effect of itself
its
or
room
are
for
concerned,
scepticism.
serpent upon Dr. Waddell, after
species, experiments
own
several
on cobras, thus summarises the results of his observations-
performing
be
"It will elements
when
that,
seen
the
suspicious
eliminated from the experiments
are
of Mitchell and of
the results
Fayrer,
are
in
accordance with those of the present series of experiments, and also with the recorded rough of Russell and
experiments cobras
biting
confirm and
extend