756 FBEDEKICK S. HAMMETT 



(1920) have shown that the cerebrospinal fluid does not normally exhibit 

 any of the activities of posterior lobe extracts the hypothesis is of doubt- 

 ful valiM* Waddell(a)(6)(c)(d) (1916-17) tested the activity of the 

 drug on a wide variety of smooth muscle tissues and found that while the 

 uterus masculinus of the rabbit and isolated strips of the vagina were 

 stimulated to contraction, a depressor effect was obtained with the frog 

 esophagus and no effect at all with the quiescent vas deferens. 



Effects on Intestine. The studies of Ott and Scott (c) (1911), Meoni 

 (1913) and Shamoff (1915-16) indicated that the action of posterior lobe 

 extracts on the intestinal musculature was also that of constriction. Never- 

 theless, Parisot and Mathieu(a) (&) (1914) noticed that an inhibitory re- 

 action and relaxation occasionally occurred and Hoskins (1916) called at- 

 tention to the fact that this depression of intestinal tone and peristalsis on 

 intravenous injection occurred not infrequently and that the test of this 

 activity should be made on all commercial products, inasmuch as they are 

 occasionally used to stimulate intestinal tone. Pancoast and Hopkins 

 (1917) made a careful study, using the X-ray, of the action of the extracts 

 on movements of the alimentary tract and found that a primary inhibition 

 of the stomach occurred which was followed by a secondary augmentation 

 of activity, with a delayed or negative reaction of the small and large intes- 

 tine. Kecently Zondek (1920) ingeniously fashioned a little celluloid win- 

 dow in the abdominal wall of his experimental animals and got a first-hand 

 view of the processes taking place after the injection of the extracts. He 

 also found that a preliminary inhibition occurred that, however, was 

 followed by an evident stimulatory period in which peristalsis was in- 

 creased. He is of the opinion that the hypophyseal secretion exerts a regu- 

 latory effect on peristalsis. The studies of Santi (1914) of the compara- 

 tive stimulative effect of extracts of posterior lobes from pregnant and non- 

 pregnant animals led him to the conclusion that the former were more 

 active. 



Effects on Uterus. Dale (a) (1906) was the first to record that pitui- 

 tary extracts exert a constrictor action on the uterine musculature. This 

 was confirmed by Bell and Hick (1907), Flihner (1913), Itagaki (1917) 

 and many others. Although Bell and Hick (1907) observed that the rest- 

 ing uterus of the rabbit did not respond to the application of posterior lobe 

 extracts, this has not been found to occur with the uteri from other mam- 

 mals. Lieb (1914-15) and Charteris (1917) have shown that the sur- 

 viving human uterus reacts by a contraction whether pregnancy has begun 

 or not. Cow (1919) has confirmed tins and made the further observation 

 that a relaxation may occur at times instead of a contraction. He is of 

 the opinion that the point of attack of the drug is the peripheral nervous 

 system and not the end organ. 



Effects on Circulation. From an historical point of view the discov- 

 ery by IIowell(6) (1898) that the pressor effect of hypophyseal extracts 



