t 65 ) 
IV. — On the Similarity between the Bed Blood-corpuscles of Man 
and those of certain other Mammals, especially the Dog ; con- 
sidered in connection with the Diagnosis of Blood Stains in 
Criminal Cases. By Dr. J. J. Woodward, U. S. Army. 
In his recent paper “ On the Value of High Powers in the Diagnosis 
of Blood Stains,”* Dr. Joseph Gr. Kichardson, of Philadelphia, affirms 
the possibility of distinguishing the blood of man from that of the 
pig, os, red-deer, cat, horse, sheep, and goat, by the measurement 
of the red blood-corpuscles, even in dried stains such as the micro- 
scopist is called upon to examine in criminal cases. 
The circumstance that Dr. Richardson does not mention any 
animal whose blood-corpuscles cannot be thus distinguished from 
those of man, and the warmth with which he combats the prudent 
counsels which Virchow, t Casper, f and Taylor, § in common with 
other experts, || have offered to enthusiastic microscopists in connec- 
tion with this subject, led me, on perusing his paper, to fear he 
would be understood as teaching in a general way, that it can be 
* ‘American Journal of the Medical Sciences,’ July, 1874, p. 102; also the 
‘Monthly Microscopical Journal,’ September, 1874, p. 130. This paper has 
attracted considerable attention. See, for* example, the ‘ Lancet,’ August, 1874, 
p. 210; the ‘Medical Times and Gazette,’ August 8, 1874, p. 151; and the 
‘ London Medical Record,’ September 9, 1874, p. 560. The last of these journals 
is the only one to raise a warning voice : “ Dr. Richardson’s paper is interesting, 
but we are afraid the question often put, ‘ What is the source of the blood in a 
stain ? ’ must still go unanswered. In questions where capital punishment hangs 
on scientific evidence, that evidence must be of no doubtful or questionable 
nature.” 
t Rud. Virchow, “ Ueber die forensische Untersuchung von trockenen Blut- 
flecken,” Virchow’s ‘Archiv,’ Bd. xii. (1857), s. 334. 
J J. L. Casper, ‘Handbook of Forensic Medicine.’ Translation of new 
Sydenham Society, London, 1861-5, vol. i., p. 138, et seq. ; also p. 198, et seq. See 
also the new and enlarged German edition of the same by Dr. Carl Liman, 
‘ Practisches Handbuch der Gerichtlichen Medicin,’ 5te aufl. Berlin, 1871, Bd. ii., 
s. 173, et seq. 
§ A. S. Taylor, ’The Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence,’ 
2nd edit., London, 1873, vol. i., p. 54S. 
|| Among others, I may mention E. Briicke, “ Ueber die gerichts'arztliche Unter- 
suchung von Blutflecken,” Wiener ‘Med. Wochenschrift,’ Jahrgang, 1857, s. 425 ; 
Hermann Friedberg, ‘ Histologie des Blutes mit besonderer Riicksicht auf die 
forensische Diagnostik,’ Berlin, 1852 ; Andrew Fleming, “ Blood Stains,” ‘ The 
American Journal of the Medical Sciences,’ vol. xxxvii., N.S. (1859), p. 84 ; 
Wharton and Stille, ‘ Medical Jurisprudence,’ 3rd edit., Philadelphia, 1873, vol. ii., 
p. 696; M. Z. Roussin, “Examen Me'dico-Legal des taches de sang,” ‘Annales 
d’Hygiene,’ tome xxiii. (1865), p. 139. For an elaborate history of the growth of 
our knowledge on this subject, up to 1860, the reader may consult B. Ritter, 
“ Zur Geschichte der gerichtsarztlichen Ausmittelung der Blutflecken,” in Henke’s 
‘Zeitschrift fiir die Staatsarzneikunde,’ 1860; Drittes Vierteljahrheft, s. 31. 
The chief authority in favour of the possibility of distinguishing the blood-cor- 
puscles of man from those of other mammalia is Carl Schmidt, “ Die Diagnostik 
verdachtiger Fleeke,” Mitau u. Leipzig, 1848. I have not yet obtained a copy 
of this paper, but find abstracts of it in Schmidt’s ‘ Jahrbiich’ for 1849, p. 258, 
and Ritter’s history, just cited. The reader will also find liberal extracts in 
Fleming’s paper, cited above. The extravagant views of Schmidt are especially 
confuted by Briicke and Virchow in the papers cited above. 
