Dr. Janeway. In October, 1871, he was called to see a young man living in a "dug-out" a few miles from the fort. He had been bitten by a skunk, seventeen days previous, in the little finger of the left hand. His face was flushed and he complained that his throat seemed to be turning into bone. On hearing the sound of water poured from a pail into a tin cup, he went into convulsions that followed each other with rapidity and violence for sixteen hours, terminating in death. This man's dog had also been bitten, and it was suggested that he had better be shut up. He chanced at the time to be in the hog pen, and he was confined in that enclosure. Ere long he began to gnaw furiously at the nails and posts of the pen, and to bite the hogs, until the by-standers, convinced that he was mad, ended the scene by shooting all the animals in the pen.

It is evidently the opinion of Dr. Janeway that the malady produced by mephitic virus is simply hydrophobia. Should he be correct, then all that is established by these facts would be this, viz., that henceforth the varieties of Mephitis must be classed with those animals that spontaneously generate poison in the glands of the mouth and communicate it by salivary inoculation. From this, as a starting-point, we might go further and see a solution of the whole mystery of hydrophobia in the theory that this dread malady primarily originates with the allied genera of Mephitis putorius and Mustela, widely scattered over the earth, being from them transferred to Felida and Canidæ, and other families of animals.

And then if it could be proved, experimentally, that the characteristic mephitic secretions contained an antidote for the virus of the saliva we should have the whole subject arranged very beautifully. I am favoured by Dr. M. M. Shearer, Surgeon in the 6th U. S. Cavalry, with notes. from his case-book, of four cases in which persons have died from the bite of the skunk; and he also mentions additional instances reported to him by other observers. He thinks there is a marked difference between the symptoms of this malady and those of hydrophobia. I shall

refer to this testimony again, but pause for a moment to notice his final conclusions, from which, original and interesting as they are, I must dissent. He says "I regard this virus as being as peculiar to the skunk as the venom of the rattlesnake is to that creature, and not an occasional outbreak of disease as the æstus veneris of the wolf or the rabies canina." Singular as this theory may seem, it is not wholly without support. It is remarkable that of all the cases thus far reported to me, there is but one instance of recovery. It is stated in Watson's Physic (vol. i, p. 615) that of one hundred and fourteen bitten by rabid wolves only sixty-seven died; and of those bitten by rabid dogs the proportion is still less. But mephitic Then, again, it is to be

inoculation is a sure death.

observed that the only peculiarity noticeable in these biting skunks is the arrest of their effluvium. They approach stealthily, while their victims are asleep, and inflict the deadly wound upon some minor member-the thumb, the little finger, the lobe of the ear, one of the alæ of the nose. How different from the fierce assault of a mad dog! how subtle and snakelike! It may be remarked also that dogs are generally as cautious and adroit in attacking these odious animals as they are in seizing venomous snakes. But we must remember, on the other hand, that thousands of skunks are killed annually, partly as pests and partly for the fur trade; and it is incredible that an animal, whose ordinary bite is as venomous as that of a rattlesnake, should so seldom resort to that mode of defence if it be his. The resulting disease resembles hydrophobia more than it does the effect of ophidian venom. But here, as observed at the outset, the likeness is only generic, while specifically there are marked differences. These have purposely been kept in the background until now, and in giving a differential diagnosis I shall avoid repetitious details, and combine facts gathered from many sources with the close and accurate observation which Dr. Shearer has put at my disposal.

1. The period of incubation is alike in Rabies canina and Rabies mephitica: that is, it is indefinite, ranging from

ten days to twelve months, with no opportunity meanwhile for subsequent inoculation. But during the incubative period of R. mephitica no perceptible changes take place in the constitution as in hydrophobia. In only one instance was

there unusual nervousness, and that might have been due to alcohol. In every case where there was time for it the wounds healed over smoothly and permanently, and in several instances not even a scar was visible. In no case was there the recrudescence of the wound always seen in hydrophobia; indeed, there were even so few premonitions of any kind that in most instances the attendant physicians themselves supposed the ailment to be simple and trivial, until the sudden and fearful convulsions came on to baffle all their skill.

2. Characteristic pustules form, in hydrophobia, beneath the tongue and near the orifices of the submaxillary glands (see Aitken, Science and Practice of Medicine, vol. i, p. 653). These were not reported in a single case of R. mephitica. Dr. Shearer looked for them carefully in all his cases, but did not find them.

3. The specific action of hydrophobic virus affects the eighth pair of cranial nerves and their branches, especially the œsophageal branch, the result being great difficulty in swallowing; and the motor nerve of the larynx, causing sighing, catching of the breath, and difficulty in expelling the frothy mucus accumulated in the throat. These invariable accompaniments of R. canina are usually wanting in R. mephitica, the exceptions being in the case of the Swedish girl, who complained of pain in her chest; and the young man, Dr. Janeway's patient, whose constriction of the throat was decided, as well as his sensitiveness to water. Dr. Shearer's patients had no such trouble. A taxidermist, who had seen four dogs die from R. mephitica, in Michigan, says they did not seem to have any fear of water, or other signs which he had supposed were characteristic of R. canina. Ordinary hydrophobia, again, is marked by constant hyperæsthesia of the skin, so that the slightest breath of air will precipitate convulsions. But in R. mephitica fanning the face affords relief, VOL. XXXII, NO. CXXIX.-JULY, 1874.

FF

and even cloths dipped into water and laid on the forehead were soothing.

4. In hydrophobia the perceptions are intensified, so that the deaf are said to have their hearing restored; the pupils are strongly dilated, imparting to the eyes a wild glaring expression; the spasms are tonic, i. e. steady and continuous; the pulse is feeble, and delirium is occasionally relieved by lucid intervals. But the symptoms are wholly different in R. mephitica; there is oscillation of the pupil, the spasms are clonic, i. e. marked by rapid alternate contraction and relaxation of the muscles; small but wiry radial pulse and rapid carotids; positive loss of perception and volition throughout, until delirium ends in persistent unconsciousness, simultaneously with cold perspiration and relaxation of the sphincters.

5. The mode of death is by asthenia in both forms of rabies s; but in R. canina the frightful struggles of nature to eliminate the poison are more prolonged than in R. mephitica, and in the latter they may, on occasion, be still further abridged by the use of Morphine, which has no narcotic effect upon the former even in the largest doses and injected into the veins.

I have thus endeavoured to describe, and also to explain, these strange and painful phenomena. I must leave the reader to form his own decision, only hoping that some one may be induced to follow this pioneer work in a new path by further and more able investigations of his own.

451

HAHNEMANN'S EARLIEST DISCIPLES.

Discourse by Dr. LORBACHER, of Leipsic, on the 119th anniversary of Hahnemann's birth.

[THE interest that attaches to a great man, the founder of a new philosophy, a new religion or a new system of medicine, extends in a minor degree to his immediate followers and associates, and we have pleasure in laying before our readers a translation of this notice of the early disciples and companions in labour of the founder of homœopathy, as it form's a fitting sequel to the previous account by the same author of Hahnemann himself, which we gave in a former number.-EDS.]

At the two last festivals of this Society on this anniversary I attempted to lay before you a brief sketch of our master as the propagator of the new truth discovered by him, and as the reformer of medicine. But a master requires followers and disciples in order to obtain the extension and recognition of his doctrine; he must find men who accept it without preconceived prejudice and subject it to an impartial proof, who, when convinced of its truth, have the courage to defend it with all their power, and willingly to submit to the martyrdom that awaits them. Let us this day, on which we celebrate the 119th birthday of Hahnemann, devote a little time to the consideration of how it fared with him in this respect.

new

At the period when he first promulgated his doctrine medicine languished in the fetters of the oppressive Galenic dogmatism. The attempts of some illustrious men, such as Paracelsus, Hoffmann, Stahl and others to break these bonds had been productive of no permanent results. The university chairs were occupied by the partisans of the Galenic dogmas that had held sway in medicine for centuries. They zealously endeavoured to allow no doubt to disturb them, to crush at once in the bud every heretical doctrine that might arise. Owing to the innate indolence of