Gubler[8] first suggested that chylous urine was due to a passage of chyle directly into the urinary passages, and that this was immediately preceded by a dilatation of the renal lymphatics similar to that known to occur on the surface of the body and attended by the local flow alluded to. [Footnote 8: _Gazette médicale de Paris_, 1858, p. 646.] Vandyke Carter,[9] of Bombay, suggested that the communication was between the lacteals and lymphatics of the lumbar region and those of the kidney. Those who have seen the semi-diagrammatic drawing of a dissection of the lymphatics as seen from behind, in the remarkable case of Stephen Mackenzie,[10] cannot fail to be impressed with the probability of such communication. [Footnote 9: _Med.-Chir. Trans._, vol. xlv., 1862.] [Footnote 10: _Trans. Path. Soc. of London_, vol. xxxiii. p. 394, 1882.] That a chylous urine is the direct result of a discharge of chyle into the urinary passages at some point between the kidney and the neck of the bladder, is further rendered likely by the experience of W. H. Mastin of Mobile, Alabama, with a case of chylous hydrocele: W. H. W., a native of Alabama, aged twenty-two, presented himself with a hydrocele. Mastin tapped the sac and drew off a white milk-like fluid, which was sent to me for examination. It was perfectly white and undistinguishable by the eye from milk. Upon microscopical and chemical examination, I found it presented all the physical and chemical characters of chyle. Six months later, the sac having refilled, Mastin evacuated eight ounces more of the same fluid--some of which was again sent to me--and then laid open the sac freely. Examining the cavity carefully, he found it smooth, polished, and pearly white, but at its upper portion, just where it began to be reflected over the testis, was a small, round, granular-looking mass about the size of an ordinary English pea. This he sliced off with a pair of scissors, and at once recognized the patulous mouths of three or four small vessels which did not bleed. These he dissected back for a short distance, and found that they passed into the connective tissue around the upper border of the testis. He then passed a ligature around the mass and brought the ends of the ligature to the outside, excised all the front wall of the tunica, and closed the sac. The patient recovered, and there was no return of the hydrocele. Although it is to be regretted that the patulous vessels were not watched for a few minutes, I do not think there can be any reasonable doubt that there was here a lymphatic varix, and that the chylous fluid in the tunica was the result of leakage through its walls. Since the patient had had gonorrhoea, Busey,[11] in his remarks on this case, suggests that the obstruction to the onward movement of the lymph, and the cause, therefore, of the dilatation and rupture, was inflammation attacking a single gland or an area of lymphatics.