On the discovery of leucocythemia, (being a reply to a letter on that subject by Professor Kölliker, in the Monthly journal of medical science for October 1854) / by John Hughes Bennett, M.D.

  • Bennett, John Hughes, 1812-1875.
Date:
[1854]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: On the discovery of leucocythemia, (being a reply to a letter on that subject by Professor Kölliker, in the Monthly journal of medical science for October 1854) / by John Hughes Bennett, M.D. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

    3/20 (page 3)
    following November, although from the admission of Professor Kolliker, as to the practice which prevails in Germany, the actual period of its publication may have been much later. Hence all that can be claimed for Virchow amounts to this, that he puts forth an opinion i-egarding these facts diflf'erent from mine, but the possibility of which 1 clearly indicated. For having described the pe- culiarities of the blood—the white coagulum, its structural characters, the colourless corpuscles, their relation to the red ones, and the absence of the in- flammatory appearances in every tissue, not excepting the veins—the questions remained, What are these corpuscles? How are they produced? In reply, I remarked that with regard to the colourless corpuscles of the blood, we know of no instance where they existed in the amount, or ever presented the appear- ance described. From this passage Professor Kolliker draws the inference that I denied that these bodies were the colourless corpuscles of the blood. But I need scarcely point out that the passage does not fairly bear that construction. On the other hand, it clearly shows tliat the possibility of their being these colourless corpuscles was fully entertained. At that time the whole subject was histologically new ; and having shown that the cells observed closely re- sembled those of pus in their structural and chemical characters, I said so, and concluded they were pus corpuscles. But having also demonstrated that they could not have been derived from any inflamed tissue, it only remained to be concluded that these bodies were formed in the blood system itself, constituting a primary suppuration of the blood. Here, 1 contend, was the real discover}', which was at that time quite new, and remains up to this liour, in my belief, a correct generalization. AVhilst Professor Kolliker seems to attach no importance whatever to my careful histological examination of the blood and of the tissues, and wholly disregards the fact I was at so much pains to establish, that the colourless corpuscles I described, were not dependent on inflammation, he thinks it of the greatest importance that Virchow should have stated that these corpuscles were not those of pus. To me it has always seemed of little importance by what name these bodies were designated, so long as the facts regarding them were described with exactitude. It cannot be denied that I first discovered and described them, and pointed out their origin in the blood itself. What histolo- gical difference there can be between pus cells independent of inflammation, originating spontaneously in the blood, and the colourless corpuscles of that fluid, I am at a loss to imagine. Yet this is the only distinction which Vir- chow made. But, what are pus corpuscles but cells presenting certain physical characters originating in an exuded blood-plasma ? and what are the colourless corpuscles of the blood but similar cells originating in a plasma contained in the blood glands 1 I have yet to learn that there is any true histological dif- ference between them ; I believe still that the only distinction is that the same coi-puscles originate in blood-plasma, sometimes outside, and sometimes within the blood system. If so, the controversy raised by Virchow, and maintained by Kolliker, is wholly one of words. Here I may mention, that, acting on the persuasion that the two kinds of corpuscles, hitherto separated, are really identical, 1 opposed the generaliz;ition of Mr Henry Lee, which set forth that pus brought in contact with living blood caused its coagulation. In conjunc- tion with Professor Barlow of the Veterinary College, I injected considerable quantities of pus into the veins of an ass, in order to determine this point._ I thus Increased the colourless cells in the blood of the animal without producing any coagulation or inflammation whatever.—{Monthli/ Journal, .January and March, 18o.3, pp. 80 and 272, 273). Moreover, it may be questioned, and indeed It has been questi(med in a communication which I received from Professor Giuge of Brussels, and in an article by Dr Radcliffe {Half-j/early Abstract of the Medical Sciences, Vol. XVI. pp. 295), whetlicr this distinction can have any real foundation, and if it have not, then the pretended discovery of Vir- chow sinks into nothing, as it is not founded on fact, but 8iui])ly on opinion. As to the subsequent progress of this in(iuiry, I have only to express my ist'inishment at the statement made by Profpssnr Koliikor. tlint in lll'll in the