July 28, 1911] 



SCIENCE 



113 



DISCUSSION AND COSSESFONDENCE 



ON " SOMA INFLUENCE " IN OVARIAN 

 TRANSPLANTATION 



To THE Editor op Science: May I take 

 space in your columns for a brief discussion 

 of the matter which Professor Guthrie pre- 

 sents in your issue of May 26, the diametric- 

 ally opposite conclusions as regards the effects 

 of ovarian transplantation reached, on the one 

 hand by himself and, on the other, by Dr. 

 Phillips and myself? 



Beyond the point of clearly stating the 

 essential difference in our conclusions and the 

 ground on which this difference rests, I take 

 it, neither Professor Guthrie nor I would care 

 to go in the way of discussion. 



The question at issue is first of all one of 

 the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence. 

 Guthrie says regarding his own work (p. 816) : 

 " The primary object of the experiments was 

 to determine if an engrafted ovary might 

 retain its reproductive function. . . . And in- 

 cidentally information on soma influence was 

 secured." The incidental result happens to 

 be the one of more general interest, but is 

 impossible without the survival and function- 

 ing of " an engrafted ovary." So that the 

 whole discussion narrows itself down to this: 

 Has Guthrie presented adequate evidence that 

 in his experiments an engrafted ovary did 

 survive and function? 



The facts are these. He transplanted the 

 ovary of one hen into another hen. The sec- 

 ond hen afterward laid eggs. Does it follow 

 that the eggs came from that transplanted 

 ovary? Not unless it can be shown that 

 there was no other possible source from which 

 they could have come. 



What should we say to this sort of evi- 

 dence ? A boy rushes into ' the house. 

 " Father," he says, " I have killed a hen." 

 " How do you know, my son ? " " Why, I 

 threw a stone over the fence into the henyard, 

 and when I opened the gate and went in, 

 there lay a dead hen." Is that proof that the 

 hen was killed by the stone which the boy 

 threw over the fence? 



To prove Guthrie's conclusion two facts 



must be established neither of which has he 

 made any attempt to establish. These are, 

 first, that the introduced tissue survived; and 

 second, that no other ovarian tissue was pres- 

 ent in the engrafted animal. Our own ex- 

 periments show that in guinea-pigs engrafted 

 ovarian tissue taken from another animal sur- 

 vives in only a small percentage of eases, and 

 further that complete castration of the female 

 is difficult. Even though every apparent ves- 

 tige of the ovary is removed, nevertheless a 

 functional ovary may later be developed at 

 the original ovarian site. This possibility for 

 fowls Guthrie ignores, yet in fowls complete 

 castration would seem to be a much more 

 difficult matter than in guinea-pigs, because 

 of the diffuse nature of the ovary and its 

 close adherence to large blood vessels. It 

 seems to me essential to Guthrie's contention 

 that he should establish his ability completely 

 to castrate a hen. This he has not done. 

 For if the hen can not be castrated, what 

 warrant have we to speak of somatic influence 

 in the offspring of grafted hens, these off- 

 spring being of doubtful origin? I can think 

 of only two ways in which the survival of 

 engrafted ovarian tissue could be established, 

 viz., (1) by transplanting the ovary into some 

 situation other than the normal one and sub- 

 sequently demonstrating its existence there by 

 autopsy and histological examination. This, 

 the most direct and certain method, we have 

 used with success in a number of cases, as 

 have also several earlier investigators, whose 

 work has been reviewed by Dr. Phillips and 

 myself. Guthrie is prevented from employ- 

 ing this criterion by his uniform practise of 

 transplanting the ovary to the original ovarian 

 site. There is left to him only the criterion 

 next to be mentioned, viz., to judge by the 

 character of the young produced by the 

 grafted animal. He finds in general that the 

 young strongly resemble the grafted mother. 

 Now, this fact admits of two interpretations, 

 one of which Guthrie offers; the other has 

 been offered by Phillips and myself. Guthrie 

 holds that the introduced ovarian cells 

 changed their character to conform with that 



