103 
stages of the development of some simple parasite of mycetozoic nature and con- 
cludes that they probably belong to the group of Monadinew. However, he ex- 
presses the opinion that it is impossible to come to a definite conclusion as to 
their nature or to the relation which they bore to the disease. 
As Wright (1) has remarked: “From Cunningham’s description of 
these bodies the morphological evidence adduced in favor of their 
parasitic nature is not sufficient to overcome the objection that they are 
elements of the tissue or degeneration products.” 
Nevertheless, while it is true that Cunningham’s illustrations do not 
definitely show that the bodies in question are parasitic in nature, they 
are equally or even more convincing of the presence of parasitic bodies 
in Oriental sore than are a number of the drawings in some of the very 
recent articles on this subject. 
Riehl, (10) in 1886, found in a single case of this disease a capsulated micro- 
eoecus which occurred particularly in the cytoplasm of large epithelioid cells. 
As many as twenty of these organisms were encountered in a single cell. Cultures 
from the lesion developed no growth. In the same year, Loustalot and Leloir (19) 
cultivated a micrococcus which they considered specific, but which Leloir later 
concluded to be only a variety of the common Staphylococcus aureus. Neuijmin 
(20) also in 1886 found in sections and nodes of 104 cases of Pendjeh ulcer a 
micrococcus which occurred singly, in pairs, or in short chains. No specific char- 
acteristics for the organisms were detailed. 
Finkelstein, (21) in 1887, in three cases of Pendjeh ulcer, and Chantemesse, 
(22) (1887) in a ease of Nile ulcer, also cultivated cocci which were believed to 
be similar to the organism described by Duclaux. In Chantemesse’s case the 
boil had not perforated at the time of the examination. He inoculated a man 
by piercing the skin with a needle infected with the coccus obtained from the 
lesion in culture. After five days an abscess formed at the point of inoculation. 
Two days later this opened and a small, round, crater-like ulcer was exposed, 
which healed after treatment with antiseptics for some days. However, the 
organism cultivated from the lesion of Chantemesse’s case showed but slight 
variations from some strains of Staphylococcus aureus. 
Poncet, (23) also, in the same year, found in sections of a case of bouton de 
Gafsa, two species of bacteria, one a micrococcus and the other a long, thin 
bacillus. The coccus stained by Gram’s method, but the bacillus became decolor- 
ized. 
In 1888 Heydenreich (24) published his investigations upon a series of twenty- 
seven cases of Pendjeh ulcer, in which he concluded that the disease was caused 
by the Micrococcus biskra, which, together with Duclaux, he had already described 
in 1884. This organism was said to possess a capsule and to produce spores. 
Both the coceus isolated by Heydenreich and the other organisms isolated by the ~ 
various observers prior to the time of his report are to-day believed to be merely 
species of Staphylococcus aureus. 
In 1888 Raptschewsky (25) was unable to confirm the results of Heydenreich 
on the etiology of Pendjeh ulcer in cases which he studied and which came from 
the same region. Instead, he cultivated from the lesions a Streptococcus, and, 
sometimes in association with this, Staphylococcus aureus. 
In 1894 Le Dantee and Auche (26) also found, in an ulcerated case of bouton 
de Biskra, a Streptococcus and Staphylococcus albus. 
In 1897 Nicolle and Nourry-Bey (27) in nine cases of Aleppo boil, some of which 
had not perforated the skin, found in the blood and pus a streptococcus which they 
believed to be specific, particularly because of its reaction with Marmorek’s serum. 
