14 ANisruAi; eepoets of department of ageiculttjre. 



ing the appearance of necrotic stomatitis, or sore mouth. In 

 other words, instead of the typical vesicles or watery blisters, there 

 were present scabs and pus from necrotic ulcers and the odor of 

 necrotic stomatitis. The findings reported by the assistant inspector 

 to the department by telegraph, and also by letter, were that the 

 lesions were characteristic of necrotic stomatitis and that the affection 

 was not foot-and-mouth disease. 



A few scrapings forwarded to the pathological laboratory of the 

 Bureau of Animal Industry at Washington apparently indicated a 

 form of stomatitis. They arrived, however, in such a condition as to 

 render it impossible to make a positive diagnosis. In view of the 

 diagnosis of necrotic stomatitis already made, the prevalence of that 

 trouble as reported continuously by different branches of the bureau's 

 service, and the absence of any hint of the presence of foot-and-mouth 

 disease in the United States since 1909, the conclusion of the State 

 veterinarian and the assistant inspector, both of whom had had ex- 

 perience during the outbreak of 1908-9, was not questioned. 



It is very difficult and often impossible to make a diagnosis from 

 a bit of tissue. Mixed infection, such as was presented in the case 

 in question, frequently leads to erroneous conclusions. As the virus 

 of foot-and-mouth disease can not be seen with the microscope and 

 will pass through the finest filter, ordinary laboratory procedure will 

 not determine its presence. Inoculation of the usual laboratory ani- 

 mals likewise is insufficient. In the circumstances it is not surprising 

 that a laboratory examination of the pus and scabs failed to disclose 

 the true character of the malady. 



On September 21 the pathologist of the State Live Stock Sanitary 

 Commission visited an infected farm near Niles, made an examination 

 of the cattle, and collected specimens, without arriving at a diagnosis 

 of foot-and-mouth disease. Two days later the State veterinarian 

 and the pathologist visited this same farm and several others. The 

 pathologist expressed the belief that the malady was foot-and-mouth 

 disease and suggested to the State veterinarian that he telegraph this 

 opinion to Washington and request that, while awaiting the results 

 of a laboratory examination, an investigation by an expert be made. 

 The State veterinarian agreed with him as to the fact, but thought 

 that the matter should be taken up with the local office of the 

 Bureau of Animal Industry in Detroit instead of directly with 

 the Bureau at Washington. The pathologist took the specimens 

 to Lansing, and on September 28 inoculated a calf. By October 1 the 



