"Erysipelas" is nothing more than a natural law obscured; because, as we have just hinted, it is developed under circumstances of interference (from disordered conditions of the economy) which distort the natural features of the law, modify its effects, or which may prevent altogether its full development. But now, if we study the means afforded by the various links _which other varieties of disease_ furnish, the ascertainment of the real relations becomes comparatively _easy_; and we find that, whilst there are certain general relations which belong to all cases, there are certain others which may in a given number in succession be identical; or in no two exactly the same. Partial investigations, leading, of course, to erroneous views, are sure to entail on us a defective nomenclature; and then the two do very materially contribute to continue the fallacies of each other. We may have an affection of a lung, perhaps; the cause may not be in the chest at all, although the lung may be inflamed or otherwise affected; but we call it Pneumonia, or Pleuritis, or some other name which _simply refers to what is happening to the part_; but all such names have reference only to effects; they are extremely defective therefore, as comprehending only a portion of the _nature_, and having no reference whatever to the _seat_, of the _cause_ of the malady. The consequences of all this may not be _necessarily_ mischievous; but they are so lamentably common, as to continue to form a very large share of the routine practice. The cause is elsewhere; but the remedies are directed to the chest—that is, they are, in such cases, applied to effects, not causes. If we must retain names so defective, it would be very practicable to combine them with something which should indicate that we had, at least, _looked_ for the cause. This would, at all events, encourage a habit of looking beyond mere symptoms, and carry us at least one link higher up the chain of causation. Abernethy, in demonstrating the connection between local disease, or injury, and general disturbance, judiciously takes cases where the relation was most unequivocal; that is, where the local disturbance consisted of a mechanical injury; such as in a gentleman who had undergone an operation—in another who had met with a bad fracture of his leg. In order to amplify his illustrations of the connection between the brain and all parts with the digestive organs, he draws them from all sorts of sources—from diseases the most severe and dangerous, as well as from affections which are regarded as most common or trivial—from the last stages of cancer and serious diseases of the loins, to the common disturbances of teething in children—sources which, from their apparent _dissimilarity_, confer, of course, the strongest force on testimony in _which they combine_. His delineation of the features by which disorders of the digestive organs may be generally detected, is remarkably simple, clear, and truthful.