Influence of Eemoval of Large Intestine, &c., on Dogs. 255 



that from KC1 to mercury when the tension of the surface separating 

 the solution from the mercury is a maximum. 



These results follow from direct observations with dropping elec- 

 trodes, and give further support to the view that the first assumption 

 of the Lippmann-Helmholtz theory is true and that the second is not. 



" The Influence of Kemoval of the Large Intestine and Increasing 

 Quantities of Fat in the Diet on General Metabolism in 

 Dogs." By VAUGHAN HARLEY, M.D., Professor of Pathological 

 Chemistry, University College, London. Communicated by 

 Professor VICTOR HORSLEY, F.K.S. Eeceived July 25, 

 Bead November 17, 1898.* 



CONTENTS. 



1. Introduction. 



2. The composition of the excretion of a loop of the large intestine. 



3. The operation, diet, and analytical methods employed. 



4. The influence of the removal of the large intestine on the absorption of carbo- 



hydrates. 



5. The influence of diet on the urine and the normal absorption of proteid and 



fat, together with its influence when the large intestine is partially or entirely 

 removed. 



6. The effects of the diet on the total solids of the faeces. 



7. The daily quantity of the water and the percentage of the water in the faeces 



in normal dogs and after partial or complete removal of the large intestine. 



8. The breaking up of fat in the alimentary canal in normal dogs, and after partial 



or complete removal of the large intestine. 



9. The action of the removal of the large intestine on the urobilin formation in 



the fseces. 



10. The influence of diet on the total alkaline and aromatic sulphates in normal 



dogs and in those in which the large intestine has been in part or completely 

 removed. 



11. Summary. 



Introduction. 



When I commenced my investigations into the functions of the large 

 intestine by means of experimenting with isolated loops, into which 

 milk was injected, and after some hours again collected, I found that 

 the analysis yielded most unsatisfactory results. In consequence, in 

 order to get over the difficulty, it seemed better to try the effect of the 

 removal of the large intestine on nutrition. I believed that by com- 

 paring the analysis of the urine and faeces of dogs after removal of 

 the large intestine with that of normal dogs on precisely similar diet, 

 the effect of the absence of the large intestine would be sufficiently 

 clearly demonstrated, and by this means its functions would be better 

 understood. 



* Eeceived during recess and published in abstract in this volume at p. 77 supra. 

 VOL. LXIV. X 



