ФИЗИКО-МАТЕМАТИЧЕСКОЕ 0ТД'БЛЕН1Е. LUI 



I wonder that Dr. Moor fcreats me as a partisan of bis „discovery", 

 when he says: „I can be tliankf'ul for the good fortune that made it possible 

 for Dr. Kuliabko and mysolf to obtain Ureine". 



Attherequest of Dr. Moor, I indeed directed my attention to lus „Urei- 

 ne". I studied it in an „impartial and just manner", as Dr. Moor bas stated. 

 I bave studied the literature of the question, hâve repeated the prépa- 

 ration of and bave obtained the said substance, which Dr. Moor calls 

 „Uroine". Further I bave experimented with it aud altbough the „disco- 

 very" seemed tobe more than doubtful — I bave tried tobe perfectly impar- 

 tial. My conclusions therefore cannot be called superficial or uugrounded. 



Now, I find no „good fortune" in obtaining a quantity of watery-alco- 

 holic extract of Condensed urine.... I do not find it either in repeating some 

 of PouchePs valuable expérimente. For as I bave said andirepeat it erapha- 

 tically, the substance whioh Dr. Moor calls „?7reme" is no partieular chemical 

 body, but a mixture of tnany différent constituents of urine, representiug a wa- 

 tery-alcoholic extract ofit. Itis perfectly identical with Pouchet's „matières 

 extractives de l'urine" '). 



And therefore in my first communication „Über das „Urein" des Dr. 

 Moor und seine physiologischen Wirkungen" (Bull, de Г Ас. d. So. de S-Pb. 

 T. XIII, Jsl 6), I said: „I retain the word „Ureine" only for its shortness" 

 and I always put this word in inverted commas: „Ui'ein". I bave shown 

 that Dr. Moor (but not Liebig!) committed an error in estimating the 

 total amount of Urea in the urine. Now, Dr. Moor says it is a „great 

 error" of the most eminent meu of Science, among them Liebig, to think 

 that urine contains 2 — 3"./o of Urea. For „the good fortune" of Dr. Moor 

 it would be more convenient to reduce it to only 0.5 — O.S'/o! Does not 

 Dr. Moor know that it is possible by means of careful préparation to 

 obtain in well formed crystals nearly the same quantity of Urea as is yiel- 

 ded byLiebig's, the azotometric, and many other very exact methods, which 

 perfectly confirm one another. 



In his new paper Dr. Moor does not give any new facts nor any sub- 

 stantial ans wer to the opposition in my thesis. His reflections are as erro- 

 neous as before and his methods have no scientific value (e. g. the method of 

 estimating „Ureine" in diabetic urine by décantation!) The answer to the 

 two questions with which he fiuishes his article can be only in the negative: 



1. The liquid obtained by him from the urine is по cJiemical nor physio- 

 logical unity. 



2. It is по new discovery, for not only Pouchet, but many others have 

 studied the extractive substances of Urine. 



But it isnot my purpose nowto criticize the views of Dr. Moor. lonly 

 beg Dr. Moor very respectfully not to include me among the partisans 

 of his „Urein e"-discovery and not to attribute to me opinions which I have 

 never held. Dr. AL Kuliabko. 



Leipzig, 21. VIL 1901. 



1) Dr. Moor bas, as it seems, not until uo-w read Pouchet's chief article: „Contri- 

 butiou à la connaissance des matières extractives de l'urine". Thèse de l'Acad. de med. 

 de Paris 1880 and bases his opposition only on a short article which appeared later. 



