HISTORY OF PNEUMOCOCCUS: 1875-1890 15 



presence in normal human saliva seemed to Sternberg to indicate 

 that some other factor was necessary for the development of an at- 

 tack of pneumonia. It was possible that some condition, such as 

 "alcoholism, sewer-gas poisoning, crowd-poisoning or any other 

 depressing agency" might render the individual vulnerable, while a 

 "reflex vaso-motor paralysis, induced by cold, might affect a single 

 lobe of the lung." It was at this time that Sternberg graciously 

 gave the name Micrococcus Pasteuri to the coccus. 



Fraenkel (1886), 468 now reassured by his experiments but still 

 conservative, issued another note, preliminary to a more positive 

 statement to appear later, to the effect that diplococci were some- 

 times, but not always, found in normal human saliva, more often in 

 the saliva of a sick person, and still more frequently in the rusty 

 sputum of pneumonia patients. He called the disease produced by 

 this organism in rabbits and mice, "sputum septicemia." The or- 

 ganisms failed to grow on gelatin at room temperature, but on 

 congealed blood serum or on agar at body-heat developed charac- 

 teristic veil-like or dewdrop-like colonies. A similar coccus was 

 present in two cases of empyema following pneumonia, but in some 

 cases of empyema other organisms were to be found in the pus. 

 Fraenkel then went so far as to say that these facts would make it 

 seem highly probable that the microbe of sputum septicemia and 

 Pneumococcus were identical. 



In the following year (1886), more positive in his convictions, 

 Fraenkel 469 was ready to grant that his coccus — that of sputum 

 septicemia — the sputum coccus of Pasteur and that of Sternberg, 

 as well as the organisms described by Talamon and by Salvioli, 

 were identical, and then to state definitely that this coccus was the 

 cause of true fibrinous pneumonia. With new assurance Fraenkel 

 became somewhat caustic in his comment about Friedlander's 

 claims and flatly avowed that his organism and that of Friedlander 

 were not the same. He then named it Pneumoniemikrococcus, call- 

 ing it also Pneumococcus. Here, more so than previously, Fraen- 

 kel's experiments are impressive for their care and thoroughness. 



