Dr. Glinski isolated the orifices of the salivary glands in dogs with portions of the adjoining mucous membrane, brought them out of the oral cavity, and caused them to heal into the edges of the skin wounds. In his first animal the ducts of the submaxillary gland were thus led outwards. By means of a Mendeljeff’s clip, the wide end of a conical funnel of waterproof material was attached to the skin surrounding the orifice. To the narrow end a small test-tube, which served to collect the saliva, was attached by a wire. I now offer such an animal a piece of flesh, and, as you see, the tube fills up at once with saliva. I stop tempting the dog, hang on a new test-tube, and give it a few pieces of flesh to eat; once more a strong secretion of saliva results. A new tube is now attached to the funnel, the dog’s mouth is opened, and a pinch of fine sand thrown in; again there is a flow of saliva. Once more a new test-tube; and now I apply to the buccal mucous membrane, the plume of a feather dipped in acid solution, with the result that I obtain a strong flow of saliva. One may employ a number of substances in this way, when a similar effect is always produced. You see, in this, such a comprehensive excitability of the innervation apparatus of the salivary glands that you might readily interpret it as meaning the power of response to all and sundry forms of stimulation. We now proceed, however, to another dog, whose parotid duct has in a similar manner been diverted outwards. The saliva is collected in the same way. We tempt the dog with a piece of flesh, but to our astonishment no saliva flows, and yet the animal is most eager for the savoury meal offered. Now we give it some raw flesh to eat; again the secretion of saliva is as good as absent; only when I come near can I detect one or two drops of saliva running down the sides of the tube. Probably you will say there is something wrong, either with the method or with the glands of the animal. But wait a little. I now give the dog finely powdered dry flesh, and obtain at once an abundant secretion. Should any one happen to think that the variation in the result is dependent, not on a different specific activity of the glands, but on individual differences in the dogs, I respond that Dr. Glinski has had an animal with double parotid and submaxillary fistulæ, and was able to observe on one and the same dog, a like behaviour on the part of the glands to that which we have just seen in two different individuals. An analogous experiment with bread was also carried out by Dr. Glinski. The eating of fresh moist bread produced no secretion worth mentioning, while dry bread, on the other hand, caused the saliva to flow in large quantities. The results of this experiment permit us to draw extremely instructive conclusions. In the first place, the several salivary glands are, as a matter of fact, very sharply differentiated in the conditions necessary for their activity--that is to say, in respect