Feb. i8, i9i8 Efficacy of Some Anthelmintics 425 



Dipylidium caninum. That the administration of thymol to dogs is 

 not without danger is shown by the death of 2 out of the 1 1 experiment 

 animals. 



The low efficacy and the danger in the use of thymol do not compare well 

 with the comparatively high efficacy and safety in the use of chloroform, 

 so far as the experiments with dogs are concerned. While the writers 

 are impressed with the dangers in connection with the administration of 

 most anthelmintics, and these dangers are quite impressive for chloro- 

 form as well as thymol, nevertheless, it seems that, with the exceptions 

 already noted in the discussion of chloroform for cases where there is heart 

 trouble, or lesions of the parenchymatous viscera, chloroform is not only 

 much more effective than thymol, but, in therapeutic doses, is safer. 



Turpentine 



Turpentine is a remedy very commonly advocated for use against 

 nematode parasites, especially those in chickens, horses, and swine. The 

 obvious objection to its use is its well-known injurious effect on the 

 kidneys. 



For worms in poultry. — Since the treatment of chickens for worms 

 is for obvious reasons so seldom undertaken by veterinarians and so 

 commonly by owners of poultry who are not especially trained in medi- 

 cal lines, it is not surprising that the dose advocated for use in this con- 

 nection is very variable. Some writers recommend a half teaspoonful of 

 turpentine in an equal amount of olive oil ; others recommend i to 3 tea- 

 spoonfuls of turpentine undiluted. 



An experimental test of the efficacy of the lighter dose of turpentine 

 against worms in poultry was made as follows: Six chickens weighing 

 between 0.45 and 0.9 kgm. were given 2 mils of turpentine mixed with 

 2 mils of olive oil, the birds being fasted from the previous day and the 

 dose being followed at once with 8 mils of castor oil. About five hours 

 after treatment all the birds had passed some feces, the feces having an 

 odor of turpentine. 



The treatment appeared to be fairly satisfactory for the large round- 

 worm (Ascaridia perspicillum) in the small intestine of chickens, since it 

 removed more than three-fourths of the worms present, as shown by 

 post-morten examination. It had little effect in cases of infestation with 

 large numbers of cecum worms (Heterakis papulosa) with which chicks 

 are frequently infested. According to the experience of the writers, this 

 worm is difficult to remove with any anthelmintic, since its location 

 protects it to a greater or less extent from contact with the drug. 



Turpentine was equally inefficacious as a remedy for tapeworms in 

 fowls, removing only 8 out of 444. It should be stated, however, that it 

 is very difficult to count the tapeworm heads which may be present in the 



