82 Dr. Y. Harley. The Influence of Removal of the Large 



quantity of nitrogen in the urine falls from 4*445 grams and 4*374 

 grams to 3 '2 43 grams and 2 '965 grams. 



The quantity of faeces during the different periods compared very 

 much better than the quantity of urine, and on a small fat diet the 

 quantity was 75 '55 grams and 74*71 grams, that is to say, more than 

 double the quantity on the same diet in normal dogs. On increasing 

 the fat in the diet the quantity rose to 83*78 grams and 83*49 grams, 

 so that we have here the same as in the normal dogs an increase in the 

 quantity of faeces caused by increasing the quantity of fat in the diet. 

 At the same time the total quantity of faeces is very much in excess of 

 that on the same diet in normal dogs. 



The nitrogen in the faeces during the periods a and b was 1*064 

 grams and 1*081 grams, nearly three times the amount obtained in 

 normal dogs, while on increasing the fat it only increased slightly to 

 1*088 grams and 1*095 grams. The fat in the faeces during periods a 

 and b was 0*777 gram and 0*605 gram, and on increasing the fat in the 

 diet it rose to 0*769 gram and 0*873 gram, so that the total quantity 

 of fat obtained in the faeces in dogs in which the large intestine, had 

 been removed was almost the same as in the normal dog, and the 

 increase of fat in the diet caused an increase in the quantity of 

 fasces. 



Now, turning to the absorption as indicated by the quantity found 

 in the faeces, we see while the normal dogs absorbed over 90 per cent, 

 of the nitrogen given, in the absence of the large intestine only 84 per 

 cent, was absorbed, and that the increase in the quantity of fat given 

 caused very little decrease in the absorption of nitrogen per cent. The 

 absorption of fat in the normal dogs varied from 93 per cent, to 97 per 

 cent., while in these dogs we see that it varies from 92 per cent, to 

 97 per cent., so that as far as the absorption of fat is concerned the 

 large intestine plays no part. 



In dog 5, in period b, when 41*55 grams of fat were given, the 

 animal refused to take its f o<3d, so that only two days' analysis were able 

 to be given ; but the results obtained in dog 5 correspond with those in 

 dog 4, and it was found in other dogs that it was impossible to increase 

 the quantity of fat in the diet in the absence of the large intestine, as 

 the animals invariably went off their feed. 



The above results showed that the removal of the large intestine 

 has a great influence on the quantity of faeces, it will be as well now to 

 discuss the change in the quantity of water eliminated in the faeces and 

 its percentage composition. 



On comparing the averages of the above dogs we see (Table XIV) 

 that in the normal dog the quantity of faeces varies from 18*61 grams to 

 36*26 grams, while when the large intestine is partially removed the 

 quantity is slightly increased, although the small quantity found may 

 be partly explained by constipation. On removal of the whole of the 



