328 
Journal of Agriculutral Research 
Vol. XXIX, No. 7 
halogen content of ethylene dichloride 
(Cl 2 ) as compared with chloroform 
(Cl 3 ) and especially with carbon tet¬ 
rachloride (Cl 4 ). 
Chenopodium intravenously in a 
dose of 0.5 cc. failed to remove hook¬ 
worms from an infested dog. In three 
human cases Lambert also failed to 
remove any hookworms from infested 
patients by intravenous injections of 
chenopodium. By intramuscular in¬ 
jections of chenopodium in two cases 
he recovered from 1.5 to 4 per cent of 
the indicated total of hookworms pres¬ 
ent as ascertained by subsequent treat¬ 
ment by mouth; a third patient passed 
three hookworms and was found by 
fecal examination still infested, but was 
not subsequently treated by mouth. 
Ferrous sulphate in single doses by 
mouth removed no hookworms from 
dogs. 
Novarsenobenzol in repeated doses by 
mouth removed no hookworms from 
one infested dog. 
Whipworms. —As has been repeat¬ 
edly pointed out by Hall, whipworms 
are actually very susceptible to even 
quite feeble anthelmintics, in spite of 
the fact that it is extremely difficult to 
remove them with any certainty. 
This might be expected on theoretical 
grounds. The difficulty in their re¬ 
moval is due to the above-mentioned 
uncertainty of entry of anthelmintics 
into the cecum. 
This very uncertainty, due to their 
location, may account for their actual 
susceptibility to even feeble anthel¬ 
mintics. Worms in the stomach and 
small intestines are constantly exposed 
to the effects of all sorts of substances 
taken in with food and water or ad¬ 
ministered as drugs, and must be 
fairly tolerant of many substances to 
maintain themselves in the face of 
constant exposure to them. Since 
many of these substances are absorbed 
in the stomach and small intestine, 
and since whipworms have a protected 
situation in the cecum, into which only 
a part of the contents passing the ileo¬ 
cecal or ileo-colic valve ever enters, the 
whipworms are much less exposed to sub¬ 
stances entering the mouth, and there¬ 
fore have much less occasion to develop 
a tolerance for them or immunity to 
them. This paper reports the passage 
of whipworms after the administration 
by mouth of the combination of carbon 
tetrachloride, chenopodium, and areco- 
line hydrobromide; also of benzyl 
phenol and of ethylene dichloride, with 
no dependable efficacy shown for any 
of these substances. 
Whipworms have been made the 
object of a more varied attack than 
have any other worms in the digestive 
tract, because they are so difficult to 
remove. The topic, recently summa¬ 
rized by Lambert (29 ), may be sum-, 
marized further in connection with the 
experiments given here. 
The methods of attack are as follows:. 
Surgical. —Both in human and 
veterinary medicine the difficulties, 
experienced in removing these worms 
by anthelmintics have led to the rec-, 
ommendation by the physicians Berard 
and Yignard (3) and by the veteri-. 
narian Miller (37) that resection of 
the appendix in man and of the cecum 
in dogs be resorted to for the removal 
of these worms. 
Oral medication with repeated 
small doses. —Hall (11, 14, 17) has 
recommended the use of repeated small 
doses of some nonirritant anthel¬ 
mintic as a method of removing whip¬ 
worms, and finds santonin the most 
satisfactory drug for this purpose in 
the case of dogs. He notes that Wade 
in human medicine has recommended 
the use of 2-grain doses of thymol 3. 
times a day over a period of 2*weeks. 
To date santonin has afforded fairly 
satisfactory results. In the experi¬ 
ments reported in this paper novarseno¬ 
benzol in repeated doses by mouth 
removed all the whipworms from an 
infested dog. Evidently this drug 
is but feebly anthelmintic, and whip¬ 
worms are very susceptible to even 
quite weak anthelmintics, since the 
treatments removed all the whip¬ 
worms but failed entirely against 
ascarids, hookworms, and tapeworms. 
This method of attack with repeated 
small doses of a nonirritant anthel-. 
mintic of relatively low toxicity is still 
a most promising line of attack for the 
removal of whipworms. 
Oral medication with massive 
doses. —In addition to the use of 
repeated small doses, one solution of 
the problem of getting an anthelmintic 
into the cecum in contact with whip¬ 
worms, is the use of single massive 
doses of a relatively nontoxic substance. 
In human medicine the latex of a fig, 
Ficus laurifolia, native in South and 
Central America, appears to be such a 
drug. In the present experiments the 
use of iron sulphate has been tested on 
the assumption that it might be. 
effective when administered in large, 
doses. The results indicate that it is : 
not valuable in doses of from 28.2 to 
87.8 grains, since it failed to remove, 
whipworms from five dogs and removed 
only 4 per cent of these worms from 
one dog. The fig latex referred to, 
above has the disadvantage of not, 
being available outside of th§ areas in. 
