HU Fi:vi:ii. 



that fur pviTj- praininv <lisi'lior(fe<l n c|imiility iiuist be pciicrati-i] in tlio Ixiily "iiffirirnl to worm a 

 grikiiiinv uf wntcr fruiii lliv uriliiiitry ii-ni|ifriitiirv to that t>f the hlood. K<> far fruiii this \tv'ui\( tlio 

 case, i' ' T wutiT is, OS n rtiU-, Hii|>|ilii'd in the diet of fever liy liquid, of which the tein|KTuiuru 

 is us i. !' Iii(,'iier than, lliut which it hue) to acquire in order lu he dis('iiur);cd, in ulilcii case 



it ia obvious ihut the wuter, as it actually leaveH the body cooler thun it entered it, must (in ho far an 

 it has any appreciabla action on tlic tenijieraturo of the body) tend rather to fuvor the accuuulutiou 

 of heal thun to promote its discharge." 



I hnvo fjiven this loiij; extract boranse I am not able to fully see the force of the 

 oi>j<(ti(>ii urf^id l»y Dr. Sainlcrson, and do not wish to niisrcprcst'iit him. liir question 

 is sini|ilY wiiether more heat is or is not jjiven off during fever. It makes no dif- 

 ference how the heat is taken out of the body. If it yoes from the body in any 

 way at all, it is dissipated — which is the sum of the whole matter. Further, it is 

 well known that cold and not hot drinks are generally used in fever. The amount of 

 heat carried into the system even by hot drinks is proiKirtionally trifling, and I 

 conceive that Dr. Sanderson's idea of the amount of heat carrieil out by water which 

 escapes vaporization is an exaggeration. Moreover Dr. Leyden very positively 

 asserts that ti\cre was increased dissipation in fever cases when there was no trans- 

 piration and wlten there was ascending tcmpi>rature. 



A more plausible objection to Dr. Leyden's method is that it is perfectly con- 

 ceivable that in fever such alterations of circulation may occur as to change the 

 relation between the limbs and the trunk in regard to the dissipation of heat. 



It might also be urged that the experinunts were all in the da) time, and that it 

 may be the dissipation of heat is diminished at night. It is difficult to determine 

 how much of force there is in these objections. It does certainly seem a fair con- 

 clusion that the investigations of Liebermeister and Leyden, whilst not actually 

 demonstrative, in their accordance corroborate very strongly the theory which 

 teaches that in fever the rate of heat pruducti(m is beyond its norm. 



I'rof. Senator has made a very elaborate study in regard to febrile thrrmogenesis 

 in tlogs {Uiilcr»whunff(u iihrr die Fkherha/tcn Process vnd wimp liiJiandliintjt 

 Herliii, 1H73). His experiments were made with a calorimeter similar in its gj-nenil 

 iilea to that employed by myself. The dog to be used was, pirvious to the experi- 

 ment, kept fed regtilarly once a day with a determinate amount of food. I'rom 

 riglitern to tw«'nty-six hours after the last meal be was placed in tlie calorimeter 

 tor a period of from one to four hours. I'pon this observation w;is based the cal- 

 cidation of heat dissipation for the "first hunger tlay." Twenty-four hours later, no 

 fiHwl li;iving been given, an observation was taken for the "second hunger day." 

 After fever had In-en produced by septic injections, a parallel series of observations 

 was performed, sometimes for two, sometimes for three days. The restdts of these 

 exjjeriments are summed up in the following table, which I have modified from the 

 article of Prof. Sanderson. It will be noticed that in this table, under the head of 

 "first day," are comprised the "first hunger day" (normal), and the "first fever 

 day" (fever); tnidir that of second day, the "second hunger day" (normal), and 

 the "second fever day" (fever). 



