Reports of Societies

by Cullen as that met with in his day; while theY possessed also the undoubted characteristics of scarlatina. This oonjunction of eruptive fevers, if admitted as the correct view of these cases, presents an exception to the principle so emphatically laid down by John Hunter, and to a very great extent adopted by his succesors, that two different fevers cannot exist in the same constitution at the same time. There is little doubt, however, that this principle cannot be accepted rigidly and without modification. Many parallel instances have been cited by Mr. Marson from his own experience at the Smallpox Hospital, and communicated to the Royal Medico-Chirurgical Society in a paper read May 20th, 1847. " Thus," concludes Mr. Marson, " either from personal observation, or from the writings of others, I present examples of the simultaneous occurrence of variola and scarlatina, variola and rubeola, variola and pertussis, variola and vaccinia, rubeola and scarlatina, rubeola and vaccinia, rubeola and pertussis, varicella and vaccinia, pertussis and vaccinia" Rhazes, as already obse-rved, in his Treatise on Small-Pox, bestows great pains in establishing the diagnosis of that disease from measles, and labours to show that Galen had also accurately distinguished between them. In the words of Dr. Montgomery, " the most remarkable inaccuracy prevailed in former days on this subject (the diagnosis of eruptive fevers), since we find Sennertus, in the middle of the seventeenth century, discussing the question ' why the disease, in somie constitutions, assumed the form of small-pox, and in others that of measles;' and in a posthumous work of Diemerbroeck, published in 1687, it is laid down that small-pox and measles are only different degrees of the same affection. The same doctrine was still more recently maintained by Lauge, a professor at Leipsic." (Cyclopodia of Practical Medicine.) Such having been the confused state of the diagnosis of measles and small-pox, we should be prepared to find no less confusion between measles and scarlatina. This is to be observed in the names under which the latter has been known, e. g., morbilli confluentes, rubeola rosalia, febris rubra, enarthesis rosalia. Although Sydenham had completely estabhshed the differences between small-pox and measles, the latter and scarlatina continned to be regarded as varieties of the same fever. So gradually indeed did the distinction become recognised, that it is not klown by whom the word Scarlatina was first employed. Dr. Montgomery (Cyclopirdia of Practical Medicine, Art. "Rubeola") observes "in our country Morton maintained the identity of measles and scarlatina, and considered the relation existing between them the same as that between distinct and confluent small-pox. Even so recently as 1769, Sir William Watson confounded these two diseases, the correct dingnosis of which ought probably to be referred to the tinme of publishing the second edition of Dr. Witbering's Essay on Scarlet Fever in 1793." So closely do specific eruptions sometimes run into each other, that Van Swieten, in his commnentaries upon Boerhave's aphorisms, regards measles and scarlet fever as being allied to erysipelas. The preceding brief review of the history of the diagnosis of these two eruptive fevers, furnishes presumptive evidence that scarlatina and measles must, in former times, have frequently presented a close resemblance in their features; while the cases recorded as of recent occurrence strengthen that evidence, and show that, as the two fevers may coexist, or closely coincide in the period of their appearance, the fact of their so long having been confused under one name by our ancestors must cease to be matter of surprise on our part.