The varying claims regarding the content of volatile and non-volatile matter throw doubt on the entire composition of Dioradin, for if the statement as to these is wrong the rest of the statement regarding composition cannot be given credence. In the first submission of Dioradin about 89 per cent. of non-volatile matter was claimed but in the report of the analysis by the Lederle Laboratories, which accompanied the resubmission, only about 72 per cent. was found. Later the Lederle Laboratories reported that an examination of a new specimen of Dioradin had shown about 90 per cent. of non-volatile matter. The discrepancies between the composition claimed for Dioradin and that found for the product in the first Lederle report has shown that the agent was quite ignorant of the composition of the product which he was selling. INDEFINITENESS OF THE IODIN CONTENT The label on the trade package of Dioradin first submitted to the Council stated that the product contained iodoform; a similar statement was made in the submission of the product; the circular accompanying the first submission stated that “iodin salts” were contained in the product while the iodin content was referred to further on in this circular as “combinations of evasive iodin terpins.” In Bernheim’s papers, which have been used to advertise Dioradin, and which are referred to in the same circular, the iodin compound is called “iode peptonisé,” which, according to information stated by the American agent to have come from Budapest, is to be translated “iodized peptone.” What is the meaning of this confusion? One would naturally suppose that the preparation to be sold in this country contains iodoform in an ether-oil solution while the one used by Bernheim and Dieupart[44] was stated to contain an _ethereal_ solution of “iodized peptone.” This is another mystification, for an ethereal solution of any kind of peptone would be a novelty. The matter is of some importance, for Bernheim and Dieupart lay great stress on the difference between “peptonized iodin” and other iodin (loc. cit., p. 333) and of the superiority of ethereal over oily solutions (loc. cit., p. 334). The American agents, however, in the second submission, state that this is all a mistake; that the Dioradin used by Bernheim is the same Dioradin which was submitted to the Council; and that this does not contain, and never did contain, the ethereal solution of “iode peptonisé” to which Bernheim attached so great importance. Bernheim (report to Medical Congress of Lyons) himself has come to the same conclusion; for five months after his first paper he believes that the “special salt of radium” (_sic_) is the principal agent; so that the “peptonized iodin” must be unimportant, and in a cablegram of July 4, 1912, he now informs the Dioradin Company that the formula was incorrectly given in his