632 
in a vessel containing pilocarpin, after this in a vessel with pilo- 
carpin + atropin, then again in pure Tyrode, and subsequently again 
in pilocarpin, the second dosis of pilocarpin will act in the same 
way as before, while this action can, just as the first time, again 
be arrested by atropin in the same way. This experiment may be 
repeated as often as six times, without interfering with the action 
of pilocarpin or atropin. The experiment just described also proved 
that, while the antagonism is being accomplished, only very little 
atropin is adsorbed by the gut, because the experiment (pilocarpin- 
action subsequently arrested by a minimal dosis of atropin) can be 
repeated six times without the necessity of a fresh solution in the 
vessel with pilocarpin + atropin. The fact that during the action of 
atropin only very small quantities of it are absorbed by the gut, 
renders it highly improbable that the atropin action should not 
depend on the conceniration, but on the absolute quantity, for this 
woald be possible only if during the antagonistic action the greater 
part of the atropin were adsorbed from the solution by the gut, 
whereas our experiments showed that the gut can take up only 
very small quantities of atropin. To settle the question whether the 
atropin-action depends on the absolute quantity or on the concen- 
tration, a new series of experiments was undertaken, in which vessels 
of 65 and of 1300 ec. were used, so that action of a certain dose 
of atropin could be examined in various concentrations. The result 
of one of these experiments was, for instance, the following : 0.01 mgr. 
of atropin in 65 ec. Tyrode solution produced a stronger action than 
0.15 mgr. of atropin in 1300 ce. of solution ; 0.03 mgr. of atropin 
in 65 cc. of Tyrode had a greater effect than 0.45 mgr. in 1300 ec, 
but as great an efiect as 0.6 mgr. of atropin in 1300 ce. of solution. 
From these experiments, and others that had been conducted in 
precisely the same way, we are, therefore, justified in concluding 
that the atropin action, like the pilocarpin action is completely 
dependent on the concentration and not on the absolute quantity of 
the poison. This result differs from v. Lipru pr Jrupe's, which is 
owing to the circumstance that our technique differs largely from 
his. Van LipruH pe Jeupr took a different piece of gut for every 
experiment. Besides this, v. Lipra pre Jrupe’s using very small 
vessels (15 ec.) led to many errors, as in this case it is not possible 
to fix a correct dosage — especially because the solution most often 
foams considerably. In the third place the way in which v. Laprn 
DE JUDE administers the atropin and his index of the antagonistic 
atropin-action differ from ours: Van Liprm De Jeupe added to the 
solution that contained the gut, first a definite quantity of pilocarpin 
