ON THE “GILA MONSTER.” 7 
“in the Territory from bites of this reptile, it should set 
“at rest, at once and forever, the theory so prevalent that 
“ their bite is not poisonous.” 
For comparison with the foregoing we may bring for- 
ward the evidence of a couple of witnesses of scientific 
reputation. They have no interest in destroying the char- 
acter of the accused and may be expected to give testimony 
without prejudice. If they are less positive in their as- 
sertions than the preceding, it is possibly due to their act- 
ual acquaintance with the creature. 
Dr. F. Sumichrast under date of 1880, in the Bulletin 
de la Société Zoologique de France, page 178, remarks 
concerning Heloderma horridum: “J’ai peu de chose 4 
“ajouter aux observations de moeurs que j'ai publiées sur 
“cette espéce, il y a quelques années, si ce n’est, qu’apreés 
“de nouvelles expériences sur sa morsure, je suis arrivé a 
“la conviction qu’elle occasionne rarement la mort chez les 
“animaux d’une certaine taille et que, la plupart du temps, 
“elle n’est suivie que dune enflure de la partie mordue qui 
“disparait au bout de vingt-quatre heures au plus; c’est au 
“moins le seul effet qu’elle ait produit sur plusieurs jeunes 
“chiens que j’al fait mordre dernierement.” 
Dr. R. W. Shufeldtis one who, from having been incau- 
tious enough to get bitten, is entitled to speak with some 
degree of assurance. His statement is found in the Amer- 
ican Naturalist for 1882, page 908. He was bitten on the 
right thumb, the teeth going to the bone, by a specimen 
at the Smithsonian Institution. The lacerated wound was 
in a few moments the starting point of severe shooting 
pains that passed up the arm and down the corresponding 
side. A profuse perspiration was induced. The pain 
made him so faint as to fall. The hand swelled rapidly, 
but the swelling went no farther than the wrist. The 
treatment included suction which drew not a little blood 
