THEORIES RELATING TO ANAPHYLAXIS 109 



of the guinea-pig. Now, the experiment shews that 

 peptone . confers no immunity from anaphylactic 

 accidents upon the guinea-pig sensitised to serum. 



We must, then, conclude that the immunity which 

 Biedl and Kraus observed when injecting the dog 

 with peptone is a special immunity, an immunity 

 against the lowering of arterial pressure, but in 

 nowise an anti-anaphylactic immunity. In other 

 words, the symptoms that these authors note in the 

 dog are dependent on changes of vascular equilibrium, 

 and not on anaphylaxis. 



As Charles Richet has rightly observed, the authors 

 have taken for the cause of anaphylaxis what is in 

 reality only the effect. 



Whilst Kraus and Biedl pay special attention to 

 what takes place in the blood, the attention of Auer 

 and Lewis^ has been drawn chiefly to the lungs. 

 The view of these American authors regarding 

 anaphylactic shock is as follows : As soon as the trial 

 injection is made, a tetanic contraction of the m-uscles 

 of the bronchi is produced; occlusion follows, and 

 prevents the entrance of air to the bronchi. Accord- 

 ing to them, the cause of asphyxia is in the bronchi, 

 and is not of central origin. They rely on the appear- 

 ance of the lungs, which, at the autopsy, are distended, 

 bluish-pink in colour, do not collapse on incision., 

 and are free from oedema. 



According to M. Nicolle and Abt,^ the hyper- 

 sensitiveness of guinea-pigs is explained by the 

 development of lysin, and the absence of coagulation 

 is purely an example of hypersensitiveness. Anti- 

 anaphylaxis results from the reduction of lytic 

 power. " The excess of serum not split up at the 

 time of the Besredka-Steinhardt experiment is suffi- 

 <:ient to produce (in time) enough supplementary 



1 Journal of Experimental Medicine, xii., p. 151, 1910. 



2 Annales de I'Institut Pasteur, xxii., p. 143, 1908. 



