The only rational way of accounting for them is by supposing that a part of the poison is decomposed,—the change being greatest where absorption is slowest and the power of assimilation strongest, namely, in the stomach,—and least where absorption is quickest and assimilation almost wanting, namely, in a wound. This explanation derives support from the different effects of change of tissue on poisons of the different kingdoms. Mineral poisons are least, and animal poisons are most, affected in their action by differences of tissue, while vegetable poisons hold the middle place:—an arrangement which coincides with the respective difficulty of decomposition among mineral, vegetable, and animal substances generally, whether under physical or under vital processes.[59] 6. With respect to differences arising from _difference of organ_, these will, of course, be partly attributable to differences in tissue, but not altogether. For example, in the case of the pure corrosives or irritants, the injury caused will depend for its danger on the importance of the organ to the general economy of the body: Inflammation caused by a local poison in the stomach will be more quickly fatal than that excited in the intestines only; and such a poison may act violently on the external parts without materially impairing the general health. 7. _Habit and Idiosyncrasy._—The remarks to be made under the present head are important in a medico-legal point of view: for they show how one man may be poisoned by a substance generally harmless, and another not harmed by a substance usually poisonous. The tendency of _idiosyncrasy_ is generally to increase the activity of poisons, or even to render some substances deleterious which are commonly harmless.