470 REPORT OF NATIONAL MUSEUM, 1893. 



suake poisou, aiicl aunouuces, by unmistakable symptoms, when it has accomplished 

 this task, and wonld, if continued, become a poison itself. Previous to this announce- 

 ment its poisonous action is completely neutralized by the suake poison, and the lat- 

 ter would therefore be equally as efficacious in strychnine poisoning as strychnine 

 is in snake poisoning.* 



I am not aware tbat this te.st lias beeu applied, but I may here call 

 attention to the fact tbat Dr. A. O. Ameden, of Glens Falls, X. Y., by a 

 similar train of reasoning, was led to apply rattlesnake poison to a case 

 of tetanus apparently with most signal success, t 



It seems that the great discovery of strychnine as the antidote par 

 excellence was barely missed by Dr. Louis Lanszweert, who in 187 L 

 published a short article, "Arseniate of Strychnia: Xew Antidote to 

 the Poison of Snakes," t in which he somewhat vaguely refers to hve 

 cases successfully treated by him in San Francisco, as well as to some 

 equally successful experiments made by him in Paris upon rabbits. 

 It is evident that he regarded the arsenic as the antidote, and it is not 

 at all clear why he added the strychnine, except that by this addition 

 he obtained "a more readily soluble substance than ar.senious acid." 

 It is now well known that arsenic is no specitic antidote, and it seems 

 almost certain that the success of Dr. Lanszweert's treatment was due 

 to the strychnine. From what I have shown above, Dr. Ameden, in 

 1883, came also dangerously near making the same discovery. 



It has recently been claimed that Dr. John Shortt, of India, as early 

 as 1808 experimented with strychnine, but that it was given up on 

 account of the failure of experiments upon animals. Dr. Shortt\s eftbrts 

 may possibly have been published in the unprofessional local press; 

 but in 18G8 as well as in 1870 he recommended liquor potassa? as an 

 antidote, without mentioning strychnine. The honor of the discovery 

 can, tlierefore, not be claimed for him. 



This was reserved, however, to a then obscure Australian practi- 

 tioner. Dr. A, Mueller, of Yackandandah, Victoria, who in 1888, in the 

 most positive mannner, claimed that he had practically proved strych. 

 nine to be the specific antidote by the success of his cures, and to have 

 demonstrated the scientific correctness of the theory by accounting 

 satisfactorily for all the i)henomena observable in connection with the 

 subject. 



Dr. Mueller's discovery, which was published in a series of articles 

 in the Australasian Medical Gazette, in Sydney,§ at once started a vig- 

 orous, sometimes even acrimonious, discussion in Australia, and the 



* On Snake Poison, by A. Mueller, 1893, p. 42. 



t Serpent A'^enom as a Remedial Agent in Tetanus. Medic. News, Phila., 1883, 

 XLiii, J). 339. Also, Crotaline as a Remedy in Tetanus. Med. and Surg. Rej)., 

 Phila., 1883, xlix (p. 642). Also, Rattlesnake Venom in a Case of Tetanus. 

 Albany Med. Ann., 1885, vi (p. 91). 



t Pacif. Med. and Surg. Journ., San Francisco, Aug. 1871 (n. s.), v. pp. 108-115. 



^ On the Pathology and Cure of Snake Bite. Australas. Med. Gaz., 1888, 1889, viii, 

 pp. 41-42 d); pp. 68-69 (ii): pp. 124-126 (in) ; pp. 179-182 (iv) ; pp. 209-210 (v). 



