268 APPENDIX A 



were proved that a sterilized injection of this sarcomatous 

 growth failed to reproduce the original disease, it would 

 still be far from proved that more than irritation was 

 needed to cause it. It is, indeed, quite probable that the 

 toxins of the injection, if not broken up by the process 

 of sterilization, might still produce the sarcoma by abnormal 

 stimulation of the connective tissues, a view in accordance 

 with those suggested in the paper. If malignancy were 

 caused by the suggested agents we should expect like 

 results to be found in more cases than this. I suggest 

 that such experiments in aged fowls might produce 

 carcinoma, not sarcoma. 



Certain results obtained by Bashford with regard to 

 the immunization of mice to mouse-cancer by the injection 

 of mouse skin, need further elucidation. I am not sure 

 whether pure epithelial products were injected, or whether 

 connective tissue was used with it. According to the 

 developmental theory it may be suggested that if epithelium 

 was used alone, mouse-cancer might more properly be called 

 a sarcoma. But in any case it remains very suggestive 

 that animal tissues, whose action must be in the nature of 

 the products of the endocrine organs, do produce inhibitory 

 effects. It is, perhaps, the more surprising that the work 

 of Shattock, Seligmann, and Dudgeon, when they attempted 

 to produce chondromatous growths by grafting fcetal 

 bones, did not lead them in the direction of the develop- 

 mental view rather than in that of parasitism or infection. 

 Their statements as to restraining bodies, or " corpora 

 cohibentia " are strictly parallel with the doctrine of the 

 endocrines which obviously inhibit as well as stimulate. 

 They state that " the cartilage of the body (like each of 

 the other tissues) tends, we may assume, per se, to grow 

 indefinitely and without limitation. But against this 



