156 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XVIII, 
it “endows the renal cell with powers of discrimination of a 
very high order’’ being ‘“ capable of detecting, and is aroused 
to activity by, quantitative aberrations in the composition of 
the blood,” and that (p. 56) ‘“‘ the modern [neo-Ludwig] view 
dispenses with the power of the kidney to discriminate between 
minute changes in the composition of the blood, and this ren- 
ders it superior to the rival view of specific secretion,”’ whereas 
on page 144 it is argued, on neo-Ludwig lines, that the inabili- 
ty to detect dilution of the blood by ordinary methods of blood 
examination “‘ merely demonstrates the extreme sensitiveness of 
the kidney (and the epithelium of the tubules in particular) to 
changes in the concentration” ' of the blood!! Again p- 48) ** the 
absorption [by the tubules] of the optimal fluid [ Locke’s fluid] is 
due to unknown forces.” ' Again, when the question is raised as 
to why, on the absorption hypothesis, tubule cells should absorb 
a useless pigment, the reply is (p. 64) that these cells “are no 
longer quite normal at this stage”? \—a mode of defence which 
amply justifies Starling’s criticism that the neo-Ludwig ex- 
planation of the presence of dye in the kidney cells is ‘‘ somewhat 
forced”’ (40, p. 1282). Again, when masses of secretion are 
found in the lumen of portions of tubules devoid of glomeruli 
(in the lamprey and snakes), it is replied (p. 68) that the argu- 
ment is unconvincing because these kidneys are of a “lower 
ground that “ the frog’s kidney is a very small object, and there 
18 no security that a fluid perfused through one part of it may 
regarded as in any way capable of such activity as the normal 
filtration still continues possible.” This last statement is not 
at all intelligible. If it be meant that the mere act of excision 
in all cases the kidneys worked as well as before. If, on the 
other hand, it be meant that the fluid usually called “ urine” 

! My italics, 
