86 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



publication. Kurajew 1 showed that the vegetable ferment 

 papayotin possessed the same power of producing precipitates 

 in albumose solutions. Later, another Russian observer, 

 Sawjalow, 2 gave a fairly complete account of the various 

 chemical properties of this body. Lawrow and Salaskin, 3 

 however, conceive this formation not to be a true regenerative 

 process, nor a real example of synthetic action, and, further, 

 hold that it is the result of digestion under what might be 

 termed unfavourable conditions. Again, Herzog 4 and Volhard 5 

 believe that this so-called plastei'n formation is not the result 

 of the action of rennin at all, but may be regarded as another 

 example of the reversibility of reaction of proteolytic ferments 

 (Herzog), or of pepsin (Volhard). As to whether it is due to 

 pepsin or rennin does not seem to be of very great importance, 

 especially as some of the more modern workers like Pawlow 

 and Parastschuk 6 hold that the so-called peptic action and 

 the so-called rennet action are merely two phases of action 

 of one and the same ferment. 



Another theory of resynthesis was brought forward many 

 years ago by Ott, 7 Popoff, 8 and Brinck, 9 who held that albumoses 

 and peptones injected into the stomach of a living animal, or 

 of one just dead, are converted into protein bodies in the 

 stomach wall. It was further asserted that the protein which 

 was formed was serum albumen. Brinck put this action down 

 as being brought about by a micro-organism, to which she gave 

 the name of Micrococcus restituens. 



Hofmeister, 10 as I have already mentioned, held that on 

 absorption the peptone was taken up by the leucocytes, and 

 then, either through their agency or through that of the 

 adenoid tissue, it is converted into cell protoplasm. Heiden- 

 hain denied this hypothesis, but both he and Shore ll held to 



1 Kurajew, Hofmeister 's Archiv, I, 1901, 121. 



2 Sawjalow, Pfliiger's Archiv, 85, 1901, 171. 



3 Lawrow and Salaskin, Zeit. f. physiol. Chem. 36, 1902, 277. 

 * Herzog, Zeit. f. physiol. Chem, 39, 1903, 305. 



5 Volhard, Munch, med. Wochsch. 50, 1903, 2129. 



6 Pawlow and Parastschuk, Zeit. f. physiol. Chem. 42, 1904, 415. 



7 Ott, Archiv f. Physiolog. 1, 1883. 



8 Popoff, Zeit.f. Biol. 25, 1889, 427. 



9 Brinck, Zeit.f. Biol. 25, 1889, 453. 



10 Hofmeister, Schmiedeberg's Archiv, 22, 1887, 306. 



11 Shore Journ. of Physiology, 11, 1890, 528. 



