202 REPORT—1868. 
the drug ; of these, three (Dogs A, B, and C) were small dogs without fistula, 
while two (Dogs KE and F) were large strong dogs with fistule. 
In dogs A and B the action of the drug upon the salivary glands was 
inferred from the occurrence of unusual wetness of the mouth merely ; while 
in dogs C, E, and F a stream of saliva was observed flowing from the mouth. 
In the three dogs without fistule—aged 5 (Dog B), 12 (Dog A), and 15 
(Dog C) months respectively,—all of them small animals, decided salivation 
followed the administration of 4} grains of corrosive sublimate, extending 
over a period of eight days, to the dog aged 5 months ; of 12+ grains, extending 
over a period of eighteen days, to the dog 12 months old; and of 74 grains, 
extending over a period of nine days, to the dog 15 months old. 
In the two large strong dogs (Dogs E and F) with biliary fistule, much 
larger quantities of the drug were required to produce well-marked salivation. 
19.4, grains, extending over a period of seven days, to dog F, aged 18 months, 
and 192 grains, extending over a period of thirteen days, to dog KE, aged 24 
months. The dog which was not salivated (Dog D) wasa retriever 6 months 
old, which was poisoned by 13 grain of corrosive sublimate, given in two doses 
during twenty hours. , 
In all the six dogs a discharge of mucus from the nostrils was observed 
during the administration of the drug ; In some cases it preceded, in others it 
Was coincident with decided salivation. In dog D the nasal discharge was 
decided, although salivation was not observed. 
It can hardly fail to strike anyone that the doses required to produce sali- 
vation in these dogs are much larger than those usually required in the case 
of man. The dose required in the dog is, however, perhaps not nearly so 
great as Table I. makes it appear; for it must be remembered that a dog 
cannot, like a man, tell us when it feels unusual moisture in the mouth. When, 
therefore, we have noted salivation as having been produced, it has only been 
when the salivation had become very marked, giving rise to unusual wetness 
of the mouth, or to a stream of saliva flowing from it. 
In all the dogs, excepting dog D, the appetite became much impaired, and 
the breath remarkably feetid. In dogs A, C, and E the mucous membrane of 
the mouth became ulcerated. Mere sponginess of the gums was never observed. 
All the dogs, with the exception of dog D, became much emaciated. During 
the very decided action of the drug, blood appeared in the feces of all the dogs, 
excepting dog E. Profuse diarrhoea was produced in all the dogs without 
biliary fistule ; it was slight in the little dog D, while it was entirely absent 
in the other two dogs with fistulz, although these, like all the other dogs, 
were killed by corrosive snblimate. During the exhibition of the drug, the 
feeces in dog A changed from a light to dark brown, brownish yellow, and 
greenish brown; in dog B they changed from brown to greenish brown, greenish 
yellow, and slate-brown ; while in dog C they hardly underwent any change 
in colour. In dogs D and E there was no change in the colour, while in dog F 
they changed from a clay to a slate-colour: this dog, like the two previous 
ones, had a biliary fistula. 
Appearances found on Dissection. 
In all the dogs the mucous membrane of the stomach was found healthy. 
In all there were numerous bright red vascular patches found on the mucous 
membrane of the small intestine, extending from the pylorus to the ileo-colic 
valve. In dog B there were patches of lymph on the inner surface of the 
mucous membrane of the ilium. In dogs C and F this redness was most 
marked in the duodenum, but the orifice of the common bile-duct was not | 
redder than the other portions of the duodenum. In all the dogs, except 
LY pete oe ili 
