SALIVARY GLANDS, STOMACH AND INTESTINES 739 



uniformly inactive. They further found that the gastrin activity in these 

 various extracts is not increased by using a pepsin hyprochloric acia 

 digestion instead of a simple 0.4. per cent hydrochloric acid extraction. 

 At times they found liver tissue to yield a very much more active product 

 than the gastric mucosa, and at other times the reverse was true. The 

 gastric mucous membrane has been found quite uniformly active, but the 

 pancreas and liver vary considerably. Rogers, Rahe, Fawcett and Hackett 

 (1915-16) find the activity in the alcohol soluble portions obtained from 

 the non-coagulable or extractive fractions from, parathyroid, thyroid, 

 spleen, liver, pineal body and pancreas. In muscle, Witte peptone, pitui- 

 tary and suprarenal they did not find the activity. Several other studies 

 should be cited here, although they do not bear directly on the endocrine 

 function of the stomach. Eisenhardt, Bickel, Djenab and Uhlmann have 

 independently reported finding a gastric secretagogue in spinach. This 

 also is active mainly when injected subcutaneously and appears to have 

 many properties in common with the substance found in gastric mucous 

 membrane. 



Specificity of Action. The work of Edkins and Gross, and of others, 

 suggests that the physiologically active substance in gastric mucosa not 

 only is specifically distributed, but that it also acts specifically as a 

 gastric secretagogue, just as Bayliss and Starling (a) (b) (c) claim secre- 

 tin acts specifically as a pancreatic stimulant. Popielski, however, as stated 

 above, does not consider either specificity to exist. Neither school has defi- 

 nitely proven its case. Thus Mironescu (1910), in his studies on intestinal 

 secretion from a Thiry-Vella fistula, found that extracts from gastric 

 mucosa, salivary glands, liver and duodenum, act as intestinal secreta- 

 gogues. Brain, pancreas, heart muscle and peptone he found inactive. 

 These results favor Popielski's view, although the secretion noted may 

 not have been the direct result of the injected substance, but a secondary 

 one following a primary gastric or pancreatic secretion. Tomaszewski (&) 

 (1918) observed that the subcutaneous injection of his preparations 

 caused mainly a gastric secretion in Pawlow pouch dogs, sometimes a 

 slight increased flow of bile, but only a very slight, if any, increase in the 

 flow of saliva and no change in pancreatic secretion. He could, however, 

 cause the pancreas to secrete more rapidly by introducing the extract intra- 

 venously; when thus administered he observed no effect on gastric secre- 

 tion. The latter has been practically confirmed in the earlier work by 

 Keeton and Koch (1915). In the earlier, as well as in their later work, 

 Keeton, Luckhardt and Koch repeatedly found that the intramuscular in- 

 jection of the gastrin product from gastric mucosa never caused salivation 

 and, in a few crucial experiments, they were unable to stimulate the 

 pancreas to secretion 'by the same mode of administration. In case one 

 were to note a stimulation of pancreatic secretion, it might be due to the 

 same secretagogue acting on both mechanisms, to a general vasodilator 



