256 KANSAS UNIVERSITY QUARTERLY. 



variations in character often exists. These differences, when they 

 occur, are readily distinguishable by the microscope, and, in most 

 every case, it is, by this means, possible to conclude, of two test 

 samples, whether they could ox. could not have come from the same 

 source; and this is true, under favorable conditions, even if one of 

 the samples has been subjected, for some time, to the action of the 

 stomach." 



The work of Professor Dana is well known, but at first I had 

 only at command the limited notice given to it in the works on 

 toxicology. Later I received the article of Professor Dana, which 

 he kindly sent me, and was interested in carrying out more in 

 detail the methods of work which he describes. My method of 

 work follows: 



I mounted a few slides of each of the samples (the limited amount 

 of crystals separated from the whiskey made but one slide) as well 

 as samples of white arsenic from the laboratories of the university 

 and from the drug stores of the city. Differences were so marked 

 that I at once concluded that the sample submitted by the county 

 attorney and the arsenic from the malted milk could not have had 

 the same source. To assure myself that the treatment with ether 

 had not changed the character of the crystals from the malted milk, 

 I mixed some of the arsenic from the suspected source with pure 

 malted milk, using the same proportions as were found in the 

 malted milk containing the poison, then panned out the arsenic in 

 the same manner as from the original sample of malted milk. Sev- 

 eral slides were made with the arsenic treated in this way. After 

 the process there was no difference in the appearance of the 

 sample. 



In the microscopical examination, I noted the size of the crys- 

 tals, the size of the amorphous bodies present, the character of the 

 amorplious bodies, and the relative number of crystals and amorph- 

 ous bodies. We may thus summarize the observations of the 

 crystals from the milk (Fig. 4), the whiskey (Fig. 3), and the 

 suspected sample (Figs, i and 2). The crystals from the sus- 

 pected sample were the smallest, those from the whiskey were the 

 largest, though not much larger than those from the malted milk. 

 The amorphous bodies were of a similar size in each sample. In 

 each case were some much larger than the crystalline bodies. 

 Those from the milk were of a transparent nature, while the others 

 were opaque. In the suspected sample, about 25 per cent were 

 well shaped crystals. In the sample from the whiskey about 15 

 per cent were crystals. That from the malted milk showed about 



