566 SALT AND ITS PHYSIOLOGICAL USES. 



are oenerally relativolA" poor in those compounds. In fine, the capital 

 difference — we do not say the only one — that distinguishes in the eyes 

 of the chemist the two modes of diet, is the a])undance of potash in the 

 vegetarian ration and its deficiency in the meat ration. 



If we maivo a list of foods arranged according to the increasing 

 quantity of potash which they contain, it will be seen that animal 

 substances (blood, milk, meat) stand at the head, while lowest are vege- 

 tal)les (beans, strawl)erries, potatoes, clover). Still, there are some 

 reiuarkable exceptions. Rice, for example, is very poor in potash, a 

 kilogram of rice in a dry state furnishing onh' a gram. It is true that 

 it furnishes still less soda (33 tiiues less). In this respect a rice diet 

 approaches an animal diet; and, in fact, provokes but a slight appetite 

 for salt. On the contrar}^ a kilogram of potatoes contains 2Jr grams 

 of potash and 60 times less of soda. This food approaches, from this 

 point of view, the vegetarian type in its perfection. 



The information given us b}- chemical analysis ma}^ then be suc- 

 cinctly stated as follows: The yegeta])le kingdom furnishes the 

 economy with much potash and ^'ery little soda — about 25 to 150 times 

 more potash than soda. On the other hand, the animal kingdom reduces 

 the supply of potash without reducing in the same degree the supply 

 of soda. It introduces into the economy no more than 2 to 6 times 

 as much potash as soda. 



All this is perfectly true and interesting in itself, but it may )» 

 asked what it has to do with the question we are considering, and 

 what hidden relation there is between the proportion of potash that 

 distinguishes the two diets and the ine(|uality in the need for salt 

 which they produce. M. Bunge believes that he has discovered this 

 relation. His hypothesis is that potash is responsible for our like or 

 dislike of salt in cookery. This he justifies l)y a series of closely con- 

 nected inductions. The need for salt is the consequence of the loss 

 of salt from the oi'ganism, as thirst is the consequence of the loss of 

 water due to hemorrhage, transpiration, or other causes. The need 

 for salt implies a previous loss of salt. Secondl}^, the loss of salt 

 should ]^e a phenomenon of a chemical nature resulting from reactions 

 of disintegration. Thirdly, this chemical phenomenon having, as is 

 proved by experiment, a relation to the different kinds of diet, should 

 be caused by their ch«Muical characteristics — that is to say, b^^^the dif- 

 ference in their pro])ortions of potash. That is his doctrine. Theory 

 having led him to this point, the rest is a simple matter for the clever 

 chemist of Basel; he has no dilliculty in discovering the me<'hanism by 

 which the vi])rations ol" the potash introduced into the system control 

 the proportion of salt that is eliminated. 



When a theorist declares that something hJiouM be, he usually sus- 

 pects that it 111(11/ l)e otherwise; this occurs twice in the reasoning 

 which we have just cited. Hence, there arc two weak links in the 



