habits will detract very slightly (in this country) from the hook's over-all acceptability. Also-nd this is a more serious criticism-it is probably inevitable that any single person's degree of acquaintance with every field within a given subject will vary; in this situation, this reviewer feels that the treatment given to chemotherapeutic agents (Chapter 12) is too cavalier, even including errors, in the definition of sz~lphonamide(should he sulphanilamide) and anlibioties (includes, wrongly, all antimetsbolites). Finally, the reader is given the erroneous impression that Fildes and Woods were colleagues or, at least, co-workers. They were in fact independent workers, who were personally acquainted with each other, but who han~ened to work (simulta neously) on .
