BACILLUS COLI, THE CAUSE OF BUD-ROT. 139 



to No. 5 and Bacillus coli. This variation is the same in saccharose. 

 The growth on starch media sliows that all the coconut cultures find 

 difficulty in obtaining sufficient nutriment in such media; but, as 

 before, No. 5 is more nearly like Bacillus coli. In glycerin media 

 No. 5 always has reacted like Bacillus coli and Nos. 4 and 6 like each 

 other. In all the media, following down to the nitrogen-free media, the 

 reactions of Nos. 4, 5, and 6, and of Bacillus coli are identical. In media 

 with ammonium tartrate these cultures are sometimes all ahke, but 

 then again Nos. 4, 6, and Bacillus coli may differ from 5. It is the 

 same with ammonium citrate and ammonium lactate. In asparagin 

 No. 5 is Hke Bacillus coli, while Nos. 4 and 6 are sometimes similar 

 ,and sometimes slightly different. In the sodium asparaginate, 

 Nos. 4, 5, and 6 arc identical and Bacillus coli slightly different. In 

 Fisher's mineral solution with peptone and dextrose, with peptone 

 and glycerin, and with, cane sugar and KNOg, No. 5 is sometimes 

 sfightly different from Nos. 4 and 6. In Dunham's solution con- 

 taining large amounts of NaCl No. 4 shows slightly stronger growth 

 than Nos. 5 and 6 and Bacillus coli. In all the other reactions down 

 to Kashida's medium, wliich gives variable results, the reactions of 

 Nos. 4, 5, and 6 and of Bacillus coli are identical. 



These experiments have carried these cultures tlirough all the 

 ordinary tests for Bacillus coli and many special ones. The few 

 sHght variations that have occurred are in no case either sufficient 

 or constant enough to warrant considering any one of the four cul- 

 tures distinct from the others. As for coconut Nos. 1, 2, and 3, 

 they show almost the same results as Nos, 4, 5, and 6. The origin 

 of these cultures is as follows: No. 6 was isolated from a naturally 

 diseased tree in Cuba on August 7, 1909; transfers from tliis culture 

 were inoculated into coconut in Cuba on August 12, 1909, and pro- 

 duced a typical soft rot; from tliis artificially diseased tree coconut No. 

 5 was isolated on August 24, transfers from No. 5 were then inoculated 

 into a coconut seedling in Wasliington on September 24, 1909, and a 

 successful infection resulted, from wliich coconut No. 4 was isolated. 

 Coconut Nos. 1, 2, and 3 represent an isolation in Cuba, an inoculation, 

 reisolation, and reinoculation into a coconut seedlinsr in Wasliingrton. 

 and reisolation. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 have been shown to be similar to 

 each other and to Bacillus coli. No. 1 has also responded to all the 

 usual tests for Bacillus coli, but has in some minor ways shown slight 

 differences. These are probably indications of acquired or lost cliar- 

 acteristics and not indicative of a distinct species. The fact that 

 No. 2 was isolated from an infection produced by No. 3 and is identical 

 with it, together \vith the fact that No. 1 was isolated from an infec- 

 tion produced by No. 2 and is so nearly like it is fair evidence of the 

 identity of these organisms. 



228 



