503 
gradual diminution of the organisms. In addition, he concedes that the 
observations outlined above were formerly considered to be of value only 
in regard to anthrax, but he argues that since the certainty of bactericidal 
immunity in anthrax formerly seemed to be generally accepted, that now, 
from its failure in this disease, doubt was thrown upon the value of 
bacteriolysis in other infections—for example, in typhoid and cholera. 
The author refers to the further work of Hoke,® who in an extensive 
series of experiments with different bacteria, demonstrated that when the 
bacteriolysis was performed in the test tube in such a manner that the 
conditions approximated the relationship which existed within the organs 
of an animal, the natural germ-killing power of rabbit serum either was 
greatly diminished or was entirely eliminated; and further, that after 
the addition of cells of organs to an entirely fresh serum, not only as 
in the case of anthrax did the action of the immune bodies fail but that 
of the complements as well. If, argues Bail, the bacteriolytic action of 
normal serum against the typhoid bacillus according to these experiments 
occurs with such difficulty in the rabbit’s body, then just as little as in 
the case of anthrax can the natural bacteriolysis possessed by the blood 
of this animal against this bacterium be considered as the reason for the 
natural resistance of the rabbit against typhoid infection ; and also, since 
according to the generally accepted opinion, the development of artificial 
immunity in typhoid depends only upon this definite tendency toward 
an increasing bacteriolytic power in the body fluids, then this power must 
either behave in a manner entirely different from the bacteriolytic one 
of normal serum, or it also can not be regarded as a reason for the 
explanation of the immunity. However, it has from the first clearly 
been shown that no difference in action between the two could be demon- 
strated, at least in test-tube experiments. 
Bail next compares the phenomena of resistance and of immunity and 
cites experiments in which by the injection of bouillon, of different 
bacilh, ete., into the abdominal cavity of guinea pigs, insusceptibility 
against a number of different organisms was obtained. An exudate 
containing many leucocytes usually results from these injections and 
although Pfeiffer’ has pointed out that such inflammatory effusions are 
rich in amboceptors which bind the bacterial receptors, Bail maintains 
that in such fluids the most marked, active process causing the destruction 
of the bacteria is not a bacteriolytic but a phagocytic one and that the 
bacteriolysis carried on outside of the cells is comparatively insignificant. 
In support of this statement he describes two experiments in detail. In 
the first, a guinea pig was given a small dose of cholera immune-serum 
subcutaneously and at the same time one of living cholera spirilla intra- 
peritoneally. In the second, another animal received exactly the same 
° Hoke: Ztschr. fiir Heilk, (1904), 25, 197. 
‘Pfeiffer: Kongress in Brussels, Pfeifferschen Referates iind Schlussfolgerung, 
17, 25. Ref. Bail, Archiv. fiir Hygiene (1905), 52, 278. 
