250 



H certain recent, text book on Bacteriology, and asks me 

 if I liave not seen this. Since there are others who probably 

 fail in the same way to realize mj' position, a tew words here 

 in answer may not be amiss. First of all I hope to be pardoned 

 if I say that not only have I a fair acquaintance with the some- 

 what scanty details as to this disease given in the various 

 students' text books, but that I also am not altogether un- 

 acquainted with a good deal of literature on the subject which 

 is not usually to be found on medical men's shelves. Secondly, 

 I am certainly of opinion that this disease ought to be men- 

 tioned in the book my friend alludes to, because if he will read 

 my Editorial of last month he will see that I do not deny, nor 

 have I ever denied, that " Tuberculosis does exist in birds." 

 [In fact I have in my possession a microscopical slide prepara- 

 tion from a fowl's liver which does show the acid fast bacilli of 

 Avian 'ruberculosis, and I have seen one other from the same 

 organ in a Pheasant, though in neither case was I able to get 

 any history of the bird or even of the slide]. But I do say that 

 out of a thousand or more birds, embracing almost every 

 Family, which have been bacteriologically examined by either 

 Dr. Clarke or mj'self, not one single case of Tuberculosis has 

 been found, and all those cases which would appear to the 

 imperfectly informed to be Tuberculosis, have turned out to be 

 simph' Septicaemia, the disease which has been fully described 

 in this Magazine, but which has yet to be described in the 

 students' text books. If I am wrong in what I say, then let those 

 who would be only too pleased to show me to be in error, come 

 forward and do so. For my own part I am willing to assist any 

 man living (except my opponent in the Avicultnral Magazine) 

 in any bacteriological examination of anj' cage bird which 

 appears to have tuberculosis, and, as Dr. Snell plainly shews, 

 it will then be a simple matter for him to get at the truth. But 

 to misrepresent mj^ position, and then to travesty the words of 

 a distinguished author, as has been recently done, in order to 

 " prove " that my position, (the one they themselves have 

 made for me), is wrong, is hardly what one expects among 

 people who would like to be thought scientific, and the value 

 of their claims in this direction may easily be gauged. I write 

 thus plainly because I have heard that my exposure of my 

 opponent's methods amounts to abuse. I differ in this; and I 

 venture to say that on reflection most people will agree with 

 me that I am perfectly justified in all I have said. 



W. Geo. Creswell. 



