doses of antimony administered to her by her husband. A short notice is appended, of four other cases of criminal poisoning by antimony, including that of John Parsons Cook. XX. On the Detection of Absorbed Strychnia and other Poisons. By ALFRED S. TAYLOR, M.D., F.R.S.-The object of this communication is to bring forward additional facts to aid in the solution of certain questions propounded by the author in a paper in the last volume of theGuy's Hospital Reports.'* 1. Can strychnia be infallibly detected in the tissues of the body as a result of its absorption and deposition in all cases in which it has destroyed life? A remarkable instance is adduced to prove the contrary. In February, 1857, a gentleman died in the Isle of Wight, with all the symptoms of strychnia poisoning, six hours after swallowing three grains of that drug. Portions of his viscera were examined by Professor Christison and Dr. Douglas Maclagan of Edinburgh, by Professor Geoghegan of Dublin, and by Dr. Taylor himself. Not one of these eminent chemists could detect in them a vestige of strychnia; although the same process of testing was employed as that by which Dr. Letheby asserted he could detect in the putrid body of an animal poisoned with half a grain, within a small fraction of the dose given ! Some experiments also are alluded to by Dr. de Vry of Rotterdam, from which it appears to be highly probable that that part of the strychnia which acts mortally is decomposed in the living body, and that if a larger quantity has not been administered than is just necessary to cause death, the cause of death cannot be proved by a chemical examination of the intestines. 2. Can a person die from poison, and no poison, either free or absorbed, be found in the body? Two cases within the last year show that such may be the case. The first was the case of the Rev. Dr. Alexander, who died in sixteen days, from the effects of arsenic which had been accidentally mixed with arrow-root, of which he partook. The symptoms were unmistakeably those of arsenical poisoning, yet Professor Geoghegan was unable to discover a trace of arsenic in the viscera after death. The second was a case in which even Mr. Herapath believed that a child had been poisoned by phosphorus, although he could not find any trace of this substance in the body. 3. Can we place confidence in the employment of colour-tests for the detection of alkaloids in a dead body, in the absence of any corroborative evidence? Dr. Taylor most truly observes, that if a man is to be condemned to death on chemical evidence, that evidence should be conclusive and satisfactory to every reasonable mind; otherwise innocent persons might be brought to the scaffold, and all confidence in chemical evidence would be destroyed. He does not think that colour-tests alone are to be depended on for the detection of the poisonous alkaloids, and brings forward an instance in which Dr. Letheby fell into a grievous error by too implicit a reliance upon them. Of a patient who died suddenly of disease of the heart, after * See British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review, July, 1857, p. 139. taking a pill and two doses of a mixture, Dr. Letheby, from placing too implicit a reliance upon colour-tests, declared that he had detected in the stomach "about one-tenth of a grain" of morphia; yet after examining the medicines, which contained no opium in any form, he allowed that he must have mistaken taraxacum for morphia! REVIEW VII. 1. The Enlarged Prostate, its Pathology and Treatment; with Observations on the Relation of this Complaint to Stone in the Bladder. By HENRY THOMPSON, F.R.C.S., M.B. Lond., Assist.-Surgeon to University College Hospital; Consulting Surgeon to the St. Marylebone Infirmary, &c.-London, 1858. 8vo, pp. 320. With Five Plates. 2. The Prostate Gland, and its Enlargement in Old Age. By DECIMUS HODGSON, M.D. Edin., M.R.C.S. Eng., Demonstrator of Anatomy in the University of Glasgow.-London, 1856. Svo, pp. 84. With Twelve Plates. So many reasons concur to recommend the study of the diseases of the genito-urinary organs, that the interest of novelty could hardly be expected to attach to any fresh researches and publications upon them. Yet neither scientific zeal nor any other motive has caused previous investigators to exhaust the subject, and we have before us a couple of works, making up together some 400 pages, on the prostate, and, according to the title pages, on the enlarged prostate, in one of which at least there is something both valuable and new. Nearly the first half of the work of Dr. Decimus Hodgson is occupied with the descriptive anatomy and the physiology of the organ. It is in every way worthy of a teacher of these subjects in the Glasgow University, and of the gold medal awarded to its author on his graduation by the University of Edinburgh; but the publication of it, in addition to the sufficiently exact descriptions of the parts which we already possess, appears to us superfluous. The latter half of the book contains an excellent account of the present state of our knowledge on the hypertrophy of the prostate. Mr. Thompson reproduces the results of his numerous dissections of the organ, nearly as they are to be found in the last volume of the Medico-Chirurgical Transactions,' and he discusses every disease which could be brought under the general title, the enlarged prostate. Both works are illustrated with excellent plates. Since the publication of the researches of Dr. C. Handfield Jones, Professor Kölliker, and Mr. Adams, the prostate has been regarded less as a secreting, than as a muscular organ. For although it possesses numerous ducts, the orifices of which are visible in the urethra, on either side of the veru montanum, yet upon microscopic examination, and even with careful dissection, it can be ascertained that the follicles, out of which the ducts issue, are embedded in organic muscular fibres. Professor Ellis has extended our knowledge even further, and has shown that the vesical portion of the organ is not glandular at all, but doses of antimony administered to her by her husband. A short notice is appended, of four other cases of criminal poisoning by antimony, including that of John Parsons Cook. XX. On the Detection of Absorbed Strychnia and other Poisons. By ALFRED S. TAYLOR, M.D., F.R.S.-The object of this communication is to bring forward additional facts to aid in the solution of certain questions propounded by the author in a paper in the last volume of the Guy's Hospital Reports." 1. Can strychnia be infallibly detected in the tissues of the body as a result of its absorption and deposition in all cases in which it has destroyed life? A remarkable instance is adduced to prove the contrary. In February, 1857, a gentleman died in the Isle of Wight, with all the symptoms of strychnia poisoning, six hours after swallowing three grains of that drug. Portions of his viscera were examined by Professor Christison and Dr. Douglas Maclagan of Edinburgh, by Professor Geoghegan of Dublin, and by Dr. Taylor himself. Not one of these eminent chemists could detect in them a vestige of strychnia; although the same process of testing was employed as that by which Dr. Letheby asserted he could detect in the putrid body of an animal poisoned with half a grain, within a small fraction of the dose given! Some experiments also are alluded to by Dr. de Vry of Rotterdam, from which it appears to be highly probable that that part of the strychnia which acts mortally is decomposed in the living body, and that if a larger quantity has not been administered than is just necessary to cause death, the cause of death cannot be proved by a chemical examination of the intestines. 2. Can a person die from poison, and no poison, either free or absorbed, be found in the body? Two cases within the last year show that such may be the case. The first was the case of the Rev. Dr. Alexander, who died in sixteen days, from the effects of arsenic which had been accidentally mixed with arrow-root, of which he partook. The symptoms were unmistakeably those of arsenical poisoning, yet Professor Geoghegan was unable to discover a trace of arsenic in the viscera after death. The second was a case in which even Mr. Herapath believed that a child had been poisoned by phosphorus, although he could not find any trace of this substance in the body. 3. Can we place confidence in the employment of colour-tests for the detection of alkaloids in a dead body, in the absence of any corroborative evidence? Dr. Taylor most truly observes, that if a man is to be condemned to death on chemical evidence, that evidence should be conclusive and satisfactory to every reasonable mind; otherwise innocent persons might be brought to the scaffold, and all confidence in chemical evidence would be destroyed. He does not think that colour-tests alone are to be depended on for the detection of the poisonous alkaloids, and brings forward an instance in which Dr. Letheby fell into a grievous error by too implicit a reliance upon them. Of a patient who died suddenly of disease of the heart, after * See British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review, July, 1857, p. 139. taking a pill and two doses of a mixture, Dr. Letheby, from placing too implicit a reliance upon colour-tests, declared that he had detected in the stomach "about one-tenth of a grain" of morphia; yet after examining the medicines, which contained no opium in any form, he allowed that he must have mistaken taraxacum for morphia! REVIEW VII. 1. The Enlarged Prostate, its Pathology and Treatment; with Observations on the Relation of this Complaint to Stone in the Bladder. By HENRY THOMPSON, F.R.C.S., M.B. Lond., Assist.-Surgeon to University College Hospital; Consulting Surgeon to the St. Marylebone Infirmary, &c.-London, 1858. 8vo, pp. 320. With Five Plates. 2. The Prostate Gland, and its Enlargement in Old Age. By DECIMUS HODGSON, M.D. Edin., M.R.C.S. Eng., Demonstrator of Anatomy in the University of Glasgow.-London, 1856. Svo, pp. 84. With Twelve Plates. So many reasons concur to recommend the study of the diseases of the genito-urinary organs, that the interest of novelty could hardly be expected to attach to any fresh researches and publications upon them. Yet neither scientific zeal nor any other motive has caused previous investigators to exhaust the subject, and we have before us a couple of works, making up together some 400 pages, on the prostate, and, according to the title pages, on the enlarged prostate, in one of which at least there is something both valuable and new. Nearly the first half of the work of Dr. Decimus Hodgson is occupied with the descriptive anatomy and the physiology of the organ. It is in every way worthy of a teacher of these subjects in the Glasgow University, and of the gold medal awarded to its author on his graduation by the University of Edinburgh; but the publication of it, in addition to the sufficiently exact descriptions of the parts which we already possess, appears to us superfluous. The latter half of the book contains an excellent account of the present state of our knowledge on the hypertrophy of the prostate. Mr. Thompson reproduces the results of his numerous dissections of the organ, nearly as they are to be found in the last volume of the 'Medico-Chirurgical Transactions,' and he discusses every disease which could be brought under the general title, the enlarged prostate. Both works are illustrated with excellent plates. Since the publication of the researches of Dr. C. Handfield Jones, Professor Kölliker, and Mr. Adams, the prostate has been regarded less as a secreting, than as a muscular organ. For although it possesses numerous ducts, the orifices of which are visible in the urethra, on either side of the veru montanum, yet upon microscopic examination, and even with careful dissection, it can be ascertained that the follicles, out of which the ducts issue, are embedded in organic muscular fibres. Professor Ellis has extended our knowledge even further, and has shown that the vesical portion of the organ is not glandular at all, but is entirely composed of a circular muscle, embracing the inner orifice of the urethra. He thus separates the prostate into two parts, the lobes and anterior extremity of which contain in its muscular bed all of the organ that is glandular, whilst its vesical portion is a sphincter of the bladder analogous to the circular thickening of the muscular tunic, which in the female, without a prostate, encircles the corresponding orifice between the bladder and urethra. Both Dr. Hodgson and Mr. Thompson concur with former writers in regarding the prostate as an appurtenance of the sexual organs. That question is settled by John Hunter's observation of its greater size during the procreative period in some animals, whose sexual functions are only occasionally active. But the part taken by the prostate in generation is as obscure now as before these two volumes were issued. That it augments the bulk of the seminal fluid is plain; and it is probable that its acidity conduces in some way to the vigour or the fluidity of the alkaline secretion of the testis. We have known so much since Mr. Adams wrote on the prostate five years ago. The pathology of the organ goes far to complete the proof which physiology has already furnished, that the prostate is the male analogue of the female uterus. Placed, like the uterus, at the confluence of the seminal ducts, the prostate might be expected not only to enclose the utricle, but also to bear traces of a similar structure to that of the womb. The discovery of a large proportion of the organic muscular fibre mixed with its scanty urethral glands, supplies as close a proof of primordial identity as could exist in two organs, whose functions in adult life are fundamentally distinct. The similarity of these diseases, first sketched by M. Velpeau, may best be given in the words of Mr. Thompson. "The two organs thus similarly constructed, are very frequently the subjects of tumours, identical both in external and histological characters. Thus, in the uterus we find these formations nearly or completely isolated, made up of organic muscular fibres, with connective tissue imbedded in the substance of the organ, or standing out in relief from either surface. In the prostate we meet with precisely the same tumours, and they are similarly disposed. "In the uterus we are familiar with another form of tumour, which, springing from the interior, and forming a polypoid growth there, is much more intimately connected with the uterine structure than the variety just described, perfect continuity of tissue existing between it and the polypus. So from the posterior median portion of the prostate we meet with an outgrowth tending in form to become truly polypoid, which continues its development in the direction of least resistance, and exhibiting complete continuity of structure with the prostate itself. It contains also the glandular elements proper of the organ in varying proportions. The two organs are subject to considerable hypertrophic enlargement, mainly consisting of their constituent fibrous elements. And in both, this condition may be associated with some tumour-formation, or it may exist independently of it. In the latter case, the hypertrophy may be general or local, affecting the whole or certain parts of the organ; and when thus local, affecting particular spots more commonly than others. All these remarks apply equally to the prostate and to the uterus. "The two organs are liable to these changes after the prime of life has |