392  Heloderma  Suspectum,  Cope. 
Gardens,  London,5  of  Weir  Mitchell  and  Reichert,6  and  Garman,7 
have  shown  that  the  secretion  from  the  salivary  glands  of  the  helo- 
derms  is  more  or  less  venomous.  Frogs,  hens,  doves,  guinea-pigs 
and  rabbits  always  died  of  it,  the  two  last-named  kinds  of  animals 
generally  very  quickly.  Cats  and  dogs  did  not  die,  but  showed 
local  effects  of  the  poison  (pains,  swelling,  extravasations,  etc.).  Two 
experimenters  are  said  to  have  arrived  at  entirely  negative  results, 
viz.:  Irwin,  U.  S.  A.,  about  whose  experiments  (made  in  1867?)  I 
have  no  explicit  knowledge,  and  Yarrow,8  who  discovered  no  positive 
results  worth  mentioning,  neither  after  bites  nor  after  subcutaneous 
injections,  the  animals  always  recovering  soon. 
In  regard  to  this  last-named  research,  I  beg  to  call  attention  to 
the  possibility  for  individual  variations  to  exist  in  the  venomous 
nature  of  the  heloderms,  some  individuals  always  or  periodically 
being  in  a  much  smaller  degree  venomous. 
The  accounts  of  the  influence  of  heloderma  bites  on  man  are  of 
the  greatest  interest,  as  for  instance  the  misadventure  of  Shufeldt9. 
In  spite  of  the  severe  pains,  swelling,  etc.,  after  the  bite,  this  investi- 
gator still  regards  the  animal  to  be  harmless,  and  points  out  the 
fact  that  even  the  bites  of  men  or  cats  may  sometimes  have  a 
poisonous  effect,  although  neither  men  nor  cats  are  classified  among 
the  specifically  poisonous  animals.  It  seems  to  me  that  Shufeldt  here 
mixes  up  two  quite  different  things  ;  the  bites  of  men  or  of  cats  can 
certainly  not  be  said  to  be  specifically  poisonous  (as  for  instance  is 
the  case  with  snake-bites);  but,  on  the  other  hand,  they  may  very 
easily  cause  bacterial  infection  or  "  blood-poisoning."  The  symp- 
toms observed  by  Shufeldt  much  resemble  those  brought  about  by 
the  bite  of  our  common  viper  {Vipera  berus),  i.  e.,  they  resemble  a 
slight  specific  poisoning,  but  not  "  blood-poisoning."  It  may, 
besides,  be  pointed  out  that  an  animal  is  not  harmless  "  because  it 
does  not  kill.  The  bite  of  our  above-mentioned  viper  does  not,  as  a 
rule,  kill  grown-up  persons,  and  still  everybody  looks  upon  it  as  a 
specifically  venomous  animal,  and  so  it  is,  beyond  all  question. 
5  Short  notice  in  the  American  Naturalist,  Vol.  16  (1882),  p.  842. 
6  Weir  Mitchell  and  Reichert  :  The  Medical  News,  Vol.  42,  No.  8,  Feb.  24, 
1883,  pp.  209-212. 
7  Garman  :  Bulletin  of  the  Essex  Institute,  Salem,  Mass.,  Vol.  22  (1890),  pp. 
60-69. 
^Yarrow  :  Forest  and  Stream,  New  York,  June  14,  1888,  p.  412  and  sue. 
9  Shufeldt  :  The  America?i  Naturalist,  Vol.  16  (1882  ),  p.  907  and  sue. 
