[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 50.16.52.237. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
October 19, 1912

A FURTHER RESPONSE TO SOME CRITICISMS OF THE COLLOID-CHEMICAL THEORY OF WATER ABSORPTION BY PROTOPLASM

Author Affiliations

Eichberg Professor of Physiology in the Ohio-Miami Medical College of the University of Cincinnati CINCINNATI

JAMA. 1912;LIX(16):1429-1433. doi:10.1001/jama.1912.04270100197005
Abstract

A. R. Moore has recently published two articles1 on ede[ill]a which are in essence a criticism of some views which I have expressed on this subject.2 Were it not for the fact that one of these articles has enjoyed a publicity which my efforts have not been able to obtain, it would be needless to publish a response that is a mere repetition of what has been said before and which proves Moore's contentions neither original nor binding.

The facts brought out by Moore in his first paper may be summarized as follows:

When frogs' muscles are placed in Ringer's solution (a mixture of sodium, calcium and potassium chlorid) they do not gain in weight, or they may actually lose. When an "M/8" Ringer solution is used Moore found the muscle to maintain its weight, while when an "M/6". Ringer solution was employed the muscle lost. (It would

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×