Toxinology in Australia's colonial era: A chronology and perspective of human envenomation in 19th century Australia

The medical management of those envenomed by snakes, spiders and poisonous fish in Australia featured extensively in the writings 19th century doctors, expeditioners and anthropologists. Against the background of this introduced medical doctrine there already existed an extensive tradition of Aboriginal medical lore; techniques of heat treatment, suction, incision and the application of plant-derived pharmacological substances featured extensively in the management of envenomed victims. The application of a hair-string or grass-string ligature, suctioning of the bite-site and incision were practised in a variety of combinations. Such evolved independently of and pre-dated such practices, which were promoted extensively by immigrant European doctors in the late 19th century. Pacific scientific toxinology began in the 17th century with Don Diego de Prado y Tovar's 1606 account of ciguatera. By the end of the 19th century more than 30 papers and books had defined the natural history of Australian elapid poisoning. The medical management of snakebite in Australia was the focus of great controversy from 1860 to 1900. Dogmatic claims of the supposed antidote efficacy of intravenous ammonia by Professor G.B. Halford, and that of strychnine by Dr. Augustus Mueller, claimed mainstream medical attention. This era of potential iatrogenic disaster and dogma was brought to a conclusion by the objective experiments of Joseph Lauterer and Thomas Lane Bancroft in 1890 in Brisbane; and by those of C.J. Martin (from 1893) and Frank Tidswell (from 1898), both of Sydney. The modern era of Australian toxinology developed as a direct consequence of Calmette's discovery, in Paris in 1894, of immune serum, which was protective against snakebite. We review the key contributors and discoveries of toxinology in colonial Australia.

The pathogenesis of migraine - 17th to early 20th Century understandings

The modern understanding of the pathogenesis of migraine, based on the concept that it is a neurovascular disorder, is often thought to have emerged from the work of Harold Wolff in the period 1932-1962. However, over the preceding 300 years, from William Harvey onwards, various hypotheses of the pathogenesis of migraine had been proposed, a few bearing reasonably strong resemblances to Wolff's ideas, though based on less adequate evidence. Many of these earlier hypotheses regarded migraine either primarily as a vascular (e.g., Willis, Wepfer, Latham) or as a neural disorder (e.g., Harvey, Lieving and his 'nerve storms'). There were also variations around these two major themes and in the 19th Century a number of neurovascufar type hypotheses emerged assigning a major role in migraine pathogenesis to the autonomic nervous system. In addition, during the three centuries there were a number of other hypotheses based on different postulated pathogenic mechanisms, some quite ingenious, which had relatively brief vogues. No hypothesis has yet proved capable of explaining all the features of migraine satisfactorily. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.