184 EXPERIMENT STATION RECORD. 



Various remarks in regard to hog cholera, Graffunder (Berlin. Ticrdrztl. 

 Wchnschr., 26 {1910), No. Jf7, irp. 913-916).— A detailed and critical discussiou of 

 the etiology, pathology, symptomatology, diagnosis, and treatment of hog 

 cholera. 



Do hog-cholera bacilli occur in the intestines of healthy hogs? L. J. H. 

 Stadhouder (Beitrdge hctreffend die Fragc, oh SchweinepestiaziUen in den 

 Geddrmen gesunder Schweine vorkommen? Inaug. Diss., Univ. Bern, 1910, pp. 

 55; abs. in Cent!)!. BaM. [etc.], 1. AM., Ref., -',9 {1911), No. 5, p. i.'//).— The 

 author investigated the question whether hog cholera is caused by a filterable, 

 ultravisible virus or a bacillus which is a normal inhabitant of the intestinal 

 tract of hogs. Hog-cholera bacilli could not be found in 25 Holland hogs 

 which came to slaughter. By subcutaneously inserting small plugs of cotton 

 containing the hog-cholera bacillus behind the ear of young pigs a pathological 

 condition could be produced which could not be differentiated from hog cholera. 



The author, however, does not believe it proper to consider the avirulent 

 bacilli found in the intestinal tract of hogs the causative agent of hog cholera. 



In regard to the immunity of rabbits against Bacillus suipesticus, J. 

 Shoukevitch (Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 2// {1910), No. 9, pp. 72S-77/7). — Rabbits 

 which were repeatedly injected with killed cultures of B. suipesticus {B. 

 suipestifer, hog cholera) showed no increased resistance against infection. On 

 the other hand, their sera had an increased agglutinative power, opsonic index, 

 and complement deviation. 



Pretreating the animals subcutaneously with living bacteria in minimum and 

 large doses showed increased resistance in about 1 or 2 weeks. After a long 

 time these rabbits became paralyzetl and died, but the deaths could never be 

 traced to a septicemia. The author surmises that the mortality was due to a 

 chronic intoxication, the toxins originating from some bacterial focus. Accord- 

 ing to this the animals acquired an anti-infective immunity, but not an antitoxic 

 immunity. The sera of such animals on the average showed a much smaller 

 amount of opsinins, agglutinins, and complement-fixing bodies than the sera of 

 animals treated with dead bacteria. 



In regard to Krafft's vaccine against swine plague, A. Schultze {Berlin. 

 TierdrztJ. WclinscJir., 26 {1910), No. -'///. pp. S//3-8-'/5 ) .—In the hands of this 

 author Krafft's vaccine was without value. On the contrary, it seemed detri- 

 mental. 



Krafft's vaccine against swine plague, Krafft {Berlin, Tierdrzil. 

 Wchnschr., 26 {1910), No. 48, pp. 9^0. 9^1).— A description of the pathological 

 findings, and a reply to the abstract above. 



Contribution to our knowledge in regard to hog erysipelas, E, Natusch 

 {Beitrdge zur Eenmtnis dcs Schiceinerotlaufs. 1. Uhcrtragharkeit des Schweinc- 

 rotlaufs auf den Mcnschen. 2. Bildet der Bacillus' rhusiopathice suis Toxine? 

 Inaug. Diss., Giessen, 1910; ahs. in CentU. Bakt. [etc.], 1. AM.. Ref., .'i9 {1911), 

 No. 5, pp. 137, 138). — In the first part of this article the author discusses tlie 

 possibility of communicating hog erysipelas to man, and presents his positive 

 conclusion. The second part deals with the question as to whether B. rhusio- 

 pathiw suis produces toxins. 



The author inoculated filtrates from cultures of this bacillus into mice, but no 

 death or toxicosis was produced. If, however, 1 to 2-day bouillon culture fil- 

 trates were concentrated in a vacuum apparatus to volumes corresponding to 

 1/3, 1/5, and 1/17 of the original volume, they produced when inoculated intra- 

 peritoneally or subcutaneously a toxic condition which, in most instances, 

 terminated in death. Sterile bouillon concentrated and injected in the same 

 manner produced no symptoms. 



From this the author concludes that B. erysipelatis suis produces a toxin. 



