470 REPORT OF NATIONAL MUSEUM, 1893. 



Buake poisou, ami aiiiioimces, \>\ luiujistakable symptoms, when it has accomplished 

 this task, and would, if coutinned, become a poison itself. Previous to this annouuce- 

 nieut its poisonous action is completely neutralized by the snake poison, and the lat- 

 ter would thei'efore be equally as efficacious in strychnine poisoning as strychnine 

 is in snake poisoning.* 



I ain not iiwaie tbat this test has beeu applied, but I may here call 

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

 similar train of reasoning, was led to appl}'^ rattlesnake poisou 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, wlio iu 187 L 

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

 the Poison of Snakes," | in which he somewhat vaguely refers to live 

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

 equally successful experiments made by him iu 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 arsenious acid." 

 It is now well known that arsenic is no specific 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, iu 

 18.S3, came also dangerously near making the same discovery. 



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

 as 1868 experniiented with strychnine, but that it was given up on 

 account of the failure of experiments upon aninuiln'. Dr. Shortt's efforts 

 may possibly have been published iu the unprofessional local press; 

 but in 1868 as well as in 1870 he recommended liquor potassse as an 

 antidote, without mentioning strychnine. The honor of the discovery 

 can, therefore, not be claimed for him. 



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

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

 most positive mannuer, 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 phenomena 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 Venom as a Remedial Agent in Tetanus. Medic. News, Phila., 1883, 

 XLiii, p. 339. Also, Crotaline as a Remedy in Tetanus. Med. and Surg. Rep., 

 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. .Tourn., 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 (I); pp. 68-69 (u): pp. 124-126 (in); pp. 179-182 (iv); pp. 209-210 (v). 



