17 
In the following control a nonfatal dose of nitrile was given and 
then the usual diet (oats and water) continued. 
Date. 
Weight of 
mouse. 
Remarks. 
February 16, 1905 
February 24. 1905 
February 27, 1905 
February 28, 1905 
Grams. 
20.46 
18.12 
17.45 
Full food (oats and water). 
8.73 milligrams acetonitrile (0.5 milligrams per 
gram) . Survived . 
Oats and water continued. 
March 6, 1905 
17.35 
March 14, 1905 
17.82 
March 21, 1905 
17.22 
March 29, 1905 
17. 75 
April 5, 1905 
18. 15 
April 7, 1905 
17.82 
12.98 milligrams acetonitrile (0.65 milligram 
per gram). Survived. 
On comparing the second injection of the nitrile vdth that of the 
nitrile in the mouse on alcohol given above, p. 16, it will be seen that 
this mouse (on oats and water) recovered from 12.98 milligrams, 
whereas the mouse on alcohol died from 6.76 milligrams — the relative 
doses were 0.65 milligram and 0.35 milligram per gram body- weight. 
This experiment also illustrates what was invariably observed, namely, 
that one dose of nitrile did not render the mouse more susceptible 
to a second dose, and that a prolonged diet of oats and water tends 
to increase the resistance of mice to the poison. This experiment 
(and it is but one of many) also shows that the increased suscepti- 
bility of the alcohol mice which had received a previous injection 
of the nitrile can not be attributed to the latter. 
In order to determine if poisons other than alcohol can, by ‘dow- 
ering the resistance,” cause a similar increase in the susceptibility 
to acetonitrile, the following experiments were made: 
Amyl alcohol .^ — The oats, which formed the exclusive food of the 
mice, were covered with a solution, or emulsion, of amyl alcohol 
(Kahlbaum). 
Date. 
Weight of 
mouse. 
Remarks. 
July 11, 1904 
Grams. 
13.02 
Amyl alcohol, 12 per cent. 
July 18' 1904 
12.05 
July 25' 1904 
12.01 
August 5, 1904 
10. 70 
August li, 1904 
10. 30 
August 15, 1904 
10.96 
3.84 milligrams acetonitrile (0.35 milligram 
per gram) . Survived . 
® This alcohol is not oxidized to any considerable extent in the body; the tolerance 
for it is probably not dependent upon oxidation processes; hence it seemed an espe- 
cially favorable drug to compare with ethyl alcohol. 
