226 THE VENOM OF HELODERMA. 



On the whole, kidney and liver act similarly in the case of the various 

 species; when a definite adsorbing power is present in the kidney of a certain 

 species, the liver will behave in approximately the same manner. 



We find in certain cases that the residue is not particularly toxic, although 

 much venom had been removed from the supernatant fluid through adsorption. 

 In such cases (heloderma and turtle liver and kidney) several possible explana- 

 tions have to be taken into consideration. The venom may be so strongly 

 attached to the residue that at a given time very little venom enters into the 

 circulation not more than can easily be eliminated or neutralized by the body ; 

 or the venom may in part have been rendered innocuous through chemical 

 action of certain parts of the organ pulp on the venom; or a not very probable 

 assumption a part of the venom may have been removed from the residue in 

 the process of washing. Further investigations will have to decide between 

 these various explanations. 



In the case of dog erythrocytes we found both the supernatant fluid and 

 the residue toxic. This apparently contradictory behavior will also have to be 

 investigated in further experiments. 



In a preliminary manner we may arrange the organs (liver and kidney) of 

 various species of animals in the order of their decreasing adsorptive power for 

 heloderma venom: Heloderma, turtle, pigeon, guinea-pig, frog, rabbit, and dog. 

 This order suggests a connection between the natural relationship of various 

 species and their adsorptive power for heloderma venom. Heloderma and 

 turtle, both reptiles, showed in our experiments the greatest adsorptive power. 

 The natural immunity of Heloderma against its own venom may possibly in 

 part depend on a specific adsorbing and neutralizing power of certain of its 

 organs. These results should, however, at present not be regarded as definite, 

 the number of our experiments being as yet relatively small; but they should 

 serve as indicating the direction of further experiments, which might yield 

 definite results of importance. 



We may summarize some of our results as follows: In the case of helo- 

 derma venom no specific adsorptive or neutralizing action of the brain exists; 

 other organs, like liver and kidney, adsorb in the case of some animals equally 

 as much, and in other cases even more venom than the brain. 



The adsorption of venom by organ pulp is considerably inferior to the 

 adsorption by certain other materials,|like charcoal, carmine, or aluminium oxide. 



There is some indication that differences exist in the adsorptive power of 

 the organs of different species of animals, and that the organs of heloderma and 

 of animals nearly related to Heloderma adsorb more venom than some other 

 animals less nearly related, and that the natural immunity of Heloderma to its 

 own venom may in part depend on this specific adsorptive power. The num- 

 ber of our experiments is perhaps not yet large enough to establish these con- 

 clusions; they, however, suggest such an interpretation. It remains for further 

 experiments to decide definitely the value of this hypothesis.* 



Wolff-Eisner also suggested that the liver and perhaps other organs were of importance in protecting the brain 

 from the action of certain poisons and in conferring immunity against certain toxic substances. (Centralblatt f. Bact., 

 Originate, Bd. 47, 1908; Bd. 48, 1908-09. 



