﻿215
SHORT ANSWER TO DR. MOOÄ.
I wonder that Dr. Moor treats me as a partisan of his < discovery > when he says: <1 can be thankful for the good fortune that made it possible for Dr. Kuliahko and myself to obtain Ureine».
Upon the application of Dr. Moor I put indeed my attention on his <Ureine>. I studied it in an «impartial and just manner», as Dr. Moor has stated. I have studied the literature on the question, have repeated the preparation of and have obtained the said substance, which Dr. Moor calls «Ureine». Further 1 have experimented with it and—whenever ihe «discovery» seemed to be more than doubtful—1 have tried to be perfectly impartial. l\iy conclusions therefore cannot be called superficial and ungrounued.
Now, I find no «good fortune» in obtaining a quantity of watery alcoho-lical extract of condensed urine... I do not find it in repeating some ot Fou-chefs valuable experiments. For, as 1 have said, and 1 repeat it emphatically, the substance which Dr. Moor calls «Ureine» is no particular chemical bothj, hut a mixture of many different constituents of the urine, representing watery alcoholic extract of it. It is nearly perfectly identical to Fouchet s «liquide sirupeux» obtained by him from the extract of urine ').
And therefore in my first communication «Ueber das «Urein» des Dr. Moor und seine physiologischen Wirkungen» (Full, de 1 Acad. d. îSc. deK-Pb. T. 'vlll, W 5), 1 have said: «1 retain the word «Ureine» only lor its shortness» and I always put tins word m inverted commas: «Ureine». 1 have shown that Dr. Moor (hut not Liebig!) committed a great error in estimating the total amount of Urea in the urine. Now Dr. Moor says it is a «great error of the most eminent men of Science, among them Lie Dig, to thmk that urine contains 2—3".0 of Urea». For the «good fortune» of l)r. Moor it would be more convenient to reduce it only to 0,5%! Does not Dr. Moor know that it is possible by means of cautious preparation to obtain in well formed crystals nearly the same quantity of Urea as Liebig’s and azotometric methoas show? There are many other very exact methods which perfectly confirm one another.
In his new paper Dr. Moor does not give any new facts nor any essential answer to the opposition m my thesis. His reflections are as erroneous as before and his methods have no scientifical value (f. i. the method of estimating «Ureine» in diabetic urine by decantation!) The answer to two questions by which he finishes his pamphlet (1. Is ureine a chemical unity? 2. is ureine a newly discovered chemical body?) must be only negative:
1.	The liquid obtained by Dr. Moor is no chemical nor physiological unity.
2.	It is no new discovery, for not only Fouchet, but also Bouchard, Ad-duceo and many others have studied the extractive substances of urine z).
') 1 wonder that Dr. Moor has not until now read Pouchet’s chief article: „Contribution à la connaisance des matières extractives de R urine', de T Acad, de méd. de Paris 18S0. and only based his opposition on a short article which appeared later.
-) This communication had just been printed in proof sheet when 1 received a pamphlet from Dr. Vershinin: „On the venenous constituents of the human urine' Tomsk 1901. In regard of „Ireine“ Dr. Vershinin has come to the same conclusions as 1.