654 
REMARKS ON PARTURITION IN ANIMALS. 
appreciated. The point which is now under consideration is 
one which does not, at least at first sight, offer much hope of 
realizing such advantage, but is worth while at least to col- 
lect and collate facts regarding it. Woman maybe expected 
to differ widely from animals that are naturally or ordinarily 
pluriparous, because she is not naturally or ordinarily pluri- 
parous. With her, pluriparity is an abnormity or disease 
whose injurious influence is easily traced in the disordered 
health or mortality of both mothers and children. Pluri¬ 
parity in her is, to a great extent, an indication of immatu¬ 
rity or of decay of the generative power and function. In the 
pluriparous lower animals which we know best, it is the 
reverse. In them uniparity is the corresponding condition. 
These circumstances appear to indicate some great difference 
in the laws of the growth and decay of the reproductive 
function in uniparous woman and pluriparous animals; but 
I believe they really do not. In both cases, though in dif¬ 
ferent ways, the imperfection of the reproductive functions 
and organs is displayed, as may perhaps be demonstrated by 
more complete evidence of a kind already adduced from the 
condition of the mothers and. the offspring. Besides the 
considerations just mentioned, there is a great difference 
between woman and pluriparous lower animals in the thick¬ 
ness and power, and probably also in the irritability of the 
gravid uterus. 
In woman, it is well known that twins are born quickly 
after one another, the interval generally not exceeding a few 
minutes, very rarely a few hours, unless, indeed, there is 
difficulty or impossibility of spontaneous parturition, when 
the delay is easily accounted for, and not by any failure of 
appearance of the parturient energy. It is common to find 
delays of days described as taking place between the sponta¬ 
neous births of mature twins, but I have never in my own 
practice met with such, and I am disposed to suppose some 
mistake in regard to such cases, to explain them in some 
other simple way if possible, and to join with those authors 
who go the length of at least expressing doubt as to any such 
occurrence ever taking place. The case of longest delay 
which I have seen was a remarkable one, in which I was 
consulted some time ago. The interval was three days. But 
it was not between spontaneous births. The second child 
was delivered by turning, and podalic extraction performed 
in as difficult circumstances as I ever encountered. This is 
not the place to describe this interesting case; suffice it at 
present to say, that the practitioners in attendance thought 
that the membranes of the second foetal bag were unruptured, 
