XV1 VENOMOUS SNAKES AND THE PHENOMENA OF THEIR VENOMS 
The introduction of snake venom into the domain of immunity has been 
quite fruitful in obtaining various facts which served to increase our knowl- 
edge of the nature of immunization in general. On its practical side we all 
know that Calmette was the first to recommend his antivenin for the treat- 
ment of snake poisoning, and, despite much protest and dispute as to its 
value as a therapeutic, it has no doubt saved many victims from death. This 
assertion requires no advocate, because the antitoxic property of the anti- 
venomous serum has long been established on the purely experimental basis, 
and this alone is enough to encourage the use of the antivenin in as large doses 
as practicable in all cases of snake bites. 
Many lives must have perished through the minute excess of venom beyond 
the limit of human toleration, whereas the removal of that excess by the injec- 
tion of a few vials of antivenin would have spared them from the grip of 
death. There are to-day at least several different specific antivenins that can 
be employed in combating snake bites. These are of comparatively feeble 
strength, yet we may reasonably expect some benefit from these preparations. 
I do not believe that the limit of antitoxic units attainable by these immune 
serums has been reached, but I am convinced that in the future much more 
potential antivenins will be obtained through the employment of various 
methods and improvements in the modes of immunization. 
The importance of a thorough consideration of the specificity of anti- 
venomous serums was recognized in the earlier work of C. J. Martin and the 
later investigations of George Lamb and also of the present writer. While 
Calmette once erred as to the specificity of antivenin — although not without 
possible grounds for his assumption —C. J. Martin keenly observed that 
the action of antivenin is specific in the sense that the physiological actions 
of the venom of different species of snake are the work of different constitu- 
ents of each specimen; hence the antivenin capable of counteracting the 
lethal principle A fails or may fail against the lethal principle B or C of other 
venoms. Here Martin openly regards the venom as a polytropic poison and 
sees the necessity of securing a polytropic antitoxin. This line of thought is 
in perfect harmony with the early views of Mitchell and Reichert and the 
later treatise of Flexner and Noguchi. 
The question of specificity did not, however, remain long without another 
and still more urgent modification —the question of individual specificity. 
Lamb and Noguchi investigated another problem, as to whether or not the 
individual toxic constituents of the venoms belonging to the different species 
are identical. ‘That the physiological and pathological effects do not reliably 
indicate the principles that produce them, hence disclose no identity of the 
active agents, is well understood. But, when we come to deal with such 
substances as snake venoms — so closely related to each other both in action 
and origin —there is but little reason for one to doubt their complete identity. 
It is most extraordinary that the hemolytic or neurotoxic or hemorrhagic 
constituents of one kind of snake venom should differ from the similar con- 
stituents of another kind; yet this was found to be the case. In its infinite 
