the quantity and quality of the juices poured out on a given amount of nutrient material. The energy used up in gland metabolism must be deducted from that of food taken in. The remainder will then indicate the value of the food to the organism; that is to say, will give the amount available for use by all the other organs exclusive of the digestive apparatus. From this point of view those materials must be taken as less nourishing and less digestible which are in large part used up to make good the expenditure entailed by their digestion on the part of the alimentary canal; that is to say, those food-stuffs are less useful whose nutritive value little more than covers the cost of their digestion; consequently, it is of great practical importance to compare from this aspect the same foods differently prepared--for example, boiled and roast meat, hard and soft boiled eggs, boiled and unboiled milk, etc. A discussion of some further medical questions may here be taken up. The first concerns the therapeutic use of the neutral and alkaline salts of sodium. In clinical, pharmacological, and physiological text-books it is stated now, as ever, that these salts promote a flow of gastric juice. We may look in vain, however, for any experimental foundation to support this doctrine. The experiments brought forward cannot be regarded as conclusive. When Blondlot sprinkled sodium bicarbonate upon flesh, or Braun and Grützner introduced sodium chloride solutions directly into the blood, they began with methods either false in themselves or far removed from normal conditions. In this case, however, the gaps in the experiment were happily made good by the clinician, for the experiment appeared to be confirmatory of clinical experience. That sodium salts (the chloride and bicarbonate) are useful in disorders of the digestive apparatus there can be no doubt. How do they act, however? It appears to me that here, as in some other cases, medical science has fallen into error. When we know that an effect takes place it does not by any means imply that we know the mechanism by which it occurs; and although medicine is broad enough and comprehensive enough to make free use of empiricism in practice, yet it often thinks in narrow grooves when it turns to the explanation of facts. It frequently tries to explain complicated healing processes in the simplest way, on supposed physiological data. And this is true in the present case, which affords an example of prevalent medical reasoning; the alkalies work favourably in digestive disturbances--therefore they are succagogues. Naturally the stomach, under the influence of alkalies, sometimes begins to secrete a greater quantity of juice. This means, however, that it has recovered from a disordered state and has returned to normal conditions. Consequently, the effect is due to the fact of recovery, and not to a direct influence of the alkalies. This latter, however, must be specially proved.