244 TOXINES AND ANTITOXINES. 



cells and in the erythrocytes. If we assume that the toxic and 

 hsemolytic principle of eels' serum are identical, we must also 

 assume that receptors adapted to it are present in the body cells 

 as well as in the erythrocytes ; a cessation of the formation of 

 receptors under the influence of the immunisation process would 

 then be sufficient to account for both the immunity to the action 

 of the poison notwithstanding the diminished production of anti- 

 toxine and also the want of susceptibility of the erythrocytes. 



It is, of course, open to question whether both principles are 

 really identical. Here we meet with the same difficulty as in 

 the case of ricine, in which, too, the action upon the blood can 

 be easily prevented without destroying its toxic power; and 

 there, also, the protective influence upon the erythrocytes 

 affords, under normal conditions, a measure of the antitoxic 

 power. And yet, as we have seen above, the question whether 

 or no ricine contains two active substances has not yet been 

 settled, although there is much to be said in favour of JACOBY'S 

 view (q.v.) that we may here be dealing with a double-branched 

 receptor. 



In the case of eels' blood, however, the conditions are some- 

 what different. 



Here the question is whether the blood- sol vent function of 

 the serum ought not to be separated entirely from the toxic 

 function, inasmuch as there may here be hsemolytic processes 

 exactly analogous to those produced by several other normal 

 sera acting upon foreign erythrocytes. As EHRLICH and 

 MORGENROTH have shown, in numerous researches, the action 

 in those cases is to be attributed to series of peculiar haptines 

 with different specific amboceptors and complements. 



It has, of course, not yet been proved that there are not also 

 here, as JACOBY assumes for ricine, two separate cryophore groups 

 on one amboceptor, one of which has a hsemolytic and the other 

 a toxic action. 



This is also not irreconcilable with the results obtained by 

 TCHISTOVITCH, who found that the hsemolytic function was 

 destroyed by heating the toxine to 55 C. (which, however, is 

 absolutely denied by CAMUS and GLEY), and that the serum 

 thus rendered partially inactive produced antitoxine just as 

 before. All these facts could be explained just as well by a 

 partial formation of toxoid as by assuming the existence of two 

 specific haptines with different haptophore groups. 



In any case, a definite conclusion can only be obtained by 

 exact combination experiments, on the lines devised by EHRLICH. 

 An attempt must be made to determine whether or no eels' 



