_ his ”. a 
—_ 
y 
“lh 
A 
an Le Da 
a ee Fe, 
: 
| 
| 
1901) - MICROSCOPICAL JOURNAL. ‘155 
of a similar size in each sample. In each case were some 
much larger than the crystalline bodies. Those from ithe 
milk were of a transparent nature, while the others were 
opaque. In the suspected sample, about 25 per cent were 
well shaped crystals. In the sample from the whiskey 
about 15 per cent were crystals. That from the malted 
milk showed about 40 per cent of crystals. From these 
differences I concluded that the arsenic in the suspected 
sample could not have had the same source as that found 
in the milk and the wragkey: 
Amorphous ee eet ta schartiaoy. x 75. 
_ In order to be sure that my separation of the various 
slides into groups was not due to my familiarity with 
them, I submitted these slides, together with slides pre- , 
pared from arsenic from other sources, to Professor 8. W. 
Williston, to Professor W. C. Stevens, and to Professor 
EK. Haworth. Each had no difficulty in separating the 
slides submitted into groups, always putting those from 
the same source into the same group, and never classify- 
ing the suspected sample with the specimens from the milk 
and the whiskey, thus confirming my own conclusions. 
