OBSERVATIONS ON URINE AND URINARY DEPOSITS. 
69 
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION OF THE TWO QUANTITIES 
OF URINE REFERRED TO IN THE FOREGOING CASE. 
By Professor Tuson. 
The quantity first received — 
1. Was neutral to test-paper. 
2. Was so viscid that the urinometer could not indicate 
its specific gravity. From the glairy consistence of 
the urine, and from the extreme slowness with which 
it would mix with water, together with the fact that, 
when magnified, the urine was observed to contain 
aggregations of nucleated corpuscles agreeing in 
appearance with those depicted in chemical and 
microscopical works as mucous corpuscles, I consider 
that the abnormal viscidity was occasioned by the 
presence of mucus. 
3. Was turbid, owing to mechanically suspended solid 
particles. This solid matter was collected and spe¬ 
cially examined. Its leading characters are as fol¬ 
lows : 
a . Under the microscope it was seen to consist of 
collections of angular particles. 
b. It readily dissolved in warm water. (If the 
original urine be warmed, the turbidity disap¬ 
pears, and reappears slowly on cooling.) 
c. Acted upon by nitric acid and ammonia, murexid 
was formed. 
d. Treated with hydrochloric acid, it was decom¬ 
posed, uric acid precipitated, and the soluble 
portion contained chloride of sodium. 
These four reactions (a } b , c , and d) are highly cha¬ 
racteristic of urate of soda. 
4. Mixed with strong nitric acid, it darkened and be¬ 
came almost solid, from the deposition of crystals, 
which were not those of nitrate of urea. 
Hydrochloric acid did not produce the same reac¬ 
tion until after the urine had been concentrated by 
evaporation, probably in consequence of its containing 
more water than the strong nitric acid. 
These crystals were proved to be hippuric acid, 
by their being—- 
a. Acicular in shape, and by the acicular crystals 
arranging themselves in stellate and circular 
groups. 
