﻿The 
  Biological 
  Significance 
  of 
  Anaphylaxis. 
  127 
  

  

  within 
  the 
  limits 
  of 
  a 
  lecture 
  the 
  material 
  for 
  a 
  judicial 
  appreciation 
  of 
  the 
  

   evidence. 
  

  

  Attention 
  was 
  first 
  definitely 
  drawn 
  to 
  the 
  phenomenon 
  now 
  generally 
  

   known 
  as 
  anaphylaxis 
  by 
  Kichet* 
  in 
  1902. 
  He 
  was 
  investigating 
  the 
  action 
  

   of 
  a 
  poisonous 
  protein 
  obtained 
  from 
  sea-anemones. 
  Having 
  on 
  one 
  occasion 
  

   injected 
  into 
  the 
  vein 
  of 
  a 
  dog 
  a 
  dose 
  small 
  enough 
  to 
  cause 
  only 
  slight 
  and 
  

   evanescent 
  symptoms, 
  he 
  gave 
  another 
  similar 
  injection 
  to 
  the 
  same 
  animal 
  

   some 
  weeks 
  later, 
  expecting 
  to 
  find 
  some 
  degree 
  of 
  immunity 
  to 
  the 
  poison. 
  

   Contrary 
  to 
  expectation, 
  this 
  second 
  injection 
  caused 
  an 
  immediate 
  and 
  

   violent 
  intoxication, 
  to 
  which 
  the 
  dog 
  succumbed. 
  The 
  phenomenon 
  was 
  found 
  

   to 
  be 
  of 
  regular 
  occurrence 
  when 
  this 
  or 
  other 
  poisonous 
  proteins 
  were 
  

   administered 
  in 
  this 
  way, 
  with 
  a 
  sufficiently 
  long 
  interval 
  between 
  the 
  

   injections. 
  It 
  appeared 
  to 
  Richet 
  to 
  be 
  the 
  direct 
  opposite 
  of 
  immunity 
  or 
  

   " 
  phylaxis," 
  and 
  he 
  named 
  it 
  " 
  anaphylaxis." 
  The 
  name 
  would 
  be 
  difficult 
  to 
  

   defend 
  on 
  the 
  ground 
  of 
  etymology 
  ; 
  it 
  does 
  not 
  properly 
  express 
  even 
  the 
  

   imperfect 
  conception 
  which 
  its 
  author 
  had 
  in 
  mind 
  at 
  the 
  time 
  ; 
  but 
  usage 
  

   and 
  convenience 
  have 
  given 
  it 
  superabundant 
  sanction. 
  

  

  The 
  experiments 
  of 
  Arthusf 
  on 
  the 
  increasing 
  sensitiveness 
  of 
  rabbits 
  to 
  

   successive 
  injections 
  of 
  horse 
  serum, 
  and 
  the 
  investigations 
  following 
  a 
  further 
  

   accidental 
  discovery 
  of 
  the 
  phenomenon 
  by 
  Theobald 
  Smithy 
  in 
  1904, 
  showed 
  

   its 
  nature 
  in 
  a 
  truer 
  light. 
  It 
  was 
  noticed 
  that 
  guinea-pigs, 
  which 
  had 
  some 
  

   weeks 
  previously 
  received 
  a 
  very 
  small 
  injection 
  of 
  horse's 
  blood 
  serum 
  

   reacted 
  to 
  a 
  further 
  injection, 
  of 
  this 
  normally 
  very 
  innocuous 
  substance, 
  as 
  

   to 
  an 
  acute 
  poison. 
  It 
  soon 
  became 
  clear 
  that 
  anaphylaxis 
  was 
  not 
  a 
  state 
  of 
  

   diminished 
  resistance 
  to 
  the 
  action 
  of 
  a 
  normally 
  poisonous 
  protein, 
  but 
  a 
  

   condition 
  in 
  which 
  a 
  previously 
  injected 
  protein, 
  whether 
  naturally 
  poisonous 
  

   or 
  not, 
  acted 
  like 
  a 
  poison 
  of 
  a 
  very 
  acute 
  type, 
  the 
  symptoms 
  produced 
  being- 
  

   characteristic 
  of 
  the 
  condition 
  and 
  of 
  the 
  species 
  of 
  animal 
  exhibiting 
  them, 
  

   but 
  in 
  no 
  way 
  of 
  the 
  substance. 
  If 
  the 
  latter 
  had 
  a 
  natural 
  toxicity 
  the 
  

   anaphylactic 
  animal 
  was, 
  indeed, 
  immune 
  as 
  regards 
  this, 
  reacting 
  now 
  to 
  

   the 
  substance 
  simply 
  as 
  to 
  any 
  protein 
  to 
  which 
  it 
  had 
  been 
  rendered 
  

   specifically 
  sensitive. 
  

  

  General 
  interest 
  being 
  now 
  aroused 
  in 
  the 
  phenomenon, 
  it 
  was 
  recalled 
  

   that 
  Magendie 
  had 
  already 
  recorded 
  its 
  occurrence 
  in 
  1839, 
  and 
  that 
  several 
  

   other 
  observers 
  had 
  given 
  it 
  incidental 
  mention 
  at 
  later 
  dates, 
  without 
  having 
  

  

  * 
  < 
  C. 
  R. 
  Soc. 
  de 
  Biol.,' 
  1902. 
  

   t 
  ' 
  Bull. 
  Soc. 
  Biol.,' 
  1903. 
  

  

  \ 
  Theobald 
  Smith, 
  'Journ. 
  Med. 
  Res.,' 
  1904; 
  Otto, 
  'v. 
  Leutold 
  Gedenkschr.,' 
  1906; 
  

   Rosenau 
  and 
  Anderson, 
  ' 
  Hyg. 
  Lab. 
  Bull.,' 
  Washington, 
  No. 
  29, 
  1906 
  ; 
  No. 
  36, 
  1907 
  ; 
  

   No. 
  38, 
  1907. 
  

  

  L 
  2 
  

  

  