XI. B, 4 Reviews 189 



is a disease of dietary deficiency, in which the author believes 

 that altered corn plays a leading role. In the discussion of 

 the nutritive value of corn, it would seem that recent work on 

 the chemistry of corn as a food has not been noted. Further, 

 presumably because it was sent to press too early, Goldberger's 

 last report, based on his Mississippi experiments, was not in- 

 cluded. This is probably well, for the early reports of this 

 work are inconclusive, and the author already lays sufficient 

 emphasis on the dietetic hypotheses. 



A separate, "somewhat supplementary chapter," which deals 

 with "some recent experiments on animals, and deductions 

 therefrom" is confined to two papers, one by Lavinder and the 

 other by Anderson and Goldberger. It is now deficient as a 

 summary of the subject, as it is evident that no attempt has 

 been made to bring it to date in the new edition. Thus the 

 latter article is still spoken of as "a recent bulletin," and the 

 subsequent and apparently successful inoculation experiments 

 of Harris, of New Orleans (1913), which at least are worthy of 

 consideration, are ignored. 



Occasionally there appear instances of careless editing, as 

 where, in a quotation from a "recent" article (which was pub- 

 lished in 1910), the word "root" is missing from "the posterior 

 of the spinal nerves" (p. 159), or the word "flourescent" for 

 "fluorescent" (p. 239) in a discussion of food substances. More 

 noticeable is the evidence of hasty revision. Phrases such as 

 "a recent case," a case seen "several months ago," or an ad- 

 vertisement which "the daily papers have recently carried" 

 are inappropriate in a work intended to run for more than one 

 edition. To speak of a personal report from a man "who has 

 recently held four postmortems" (p. 163) and then add (p. 165) 

 that "Since the first edition of this book was published * * * 

 has performed," is, to say the least, unusual. 



Such faults of style and revision as those suggested cannot 

 but prejudice the reception of any work, and it is particularly 

 unfortunate in this case as there is, in the body of the book, 

 much material of value to the physician whose problem is the 

 recognition and treatment of the disease. 



H. W. W. 



