TRANSMISSION OF INDUCED EYE-DEFECTS 179 
on the fact that under somewhat similar circumstances we have 
sometimes found in the hutches of other does chunks that seemed 
to be placentas, although all trace of the fetuses had disappeared. 
Since, in one case at least, we found the doe eating this material, 
it is possible that other abortions have occurred and gone unre- 
corded because the aborted young were eaten. 
TABLE 1 
Experiment 10 
I. Sensitization of fowls 
IDENTIFICATION 
pars—1017 | wonnens orsowus [PMDERQFZApDI| Nonuasaur | possoe res 
cc. cc. 
October 31 5atO) 12) 1 ed7, 6 20 3 
November 7 | 5, 10, 12, 13, 17 16 25 4 
November 14 | 5, 10, 12, 13, 17 6 20 3 
November 21 | 5, 10, 12, 13, 17 6 45 8 
November 28 | 5, 10, 12, 13, 17 6 20 3 
December 8 5, Os I, i ales 10 25 4 
II. Treatment of rabbits 
IDENTIFICATION DAYS 
DATE OF INJECTION beer easing PREGNANT DOSE OF SERUM REMARKS 
December 14 I 11 8 Mating,1 9 X2¢ 
13 21 8 Mating, 13 2-x2¢ 
8 Mating, B 9 X20 
December 16 1 13 9 Very ill; no young 
13 23 8 Very ill; no young 
B 2a 8 Died Dec. 18; had mac- 
erated young in 
uterus 
It is possible also that the severity of the treatment in experi- 
ment 10 was in some measure due to a more rapid entrance of 
the serum into the fetus because of greater permeability of the 
placenta in late fetal life, though we have no direct evidence on 
this point. But even if this were a sufficient explanation for the 
result in the case of rabbit 13 and rabbit B, it would hardly ac- 
count for it in rabbit 1, since she had been pregnant only eleven 
days when the serum was first injected. 
