CLOSTKIDIUM PUTRIFICUM 509 



Tills orjiaiiisni roiistitiitos a unique division, thoroforo, amonp; 

 the kiuiwn anaer()l)es, and dinVis from all others in that it is 

 powerfully ])utrefaetive, hut udu-saecharoh'tic. or at the most 

 hut feehly saccharolytic. 



^^'hile ('. pulrijkuiiu is an active i)roteolyti<' and putrefactive 

 organism, it differs from C uporoc/eiies in that in pure culture 

 in meat or esg-nieat uicdiinii it develops slowly and produces 

 little or no apjiarent clianjie in less than a week or ten days, 

 even at the most favorable temperature. After the long incuba- 

 tion period, however, the protein is vigorously attacked with 

 the formation of the usual putrefaction products. When mixed 

 with other organisms, as for example Staphylococcus nurevs or 

 ProU'us vid(/(iris, the preliminary period is relatively short and 

 putrefactive decomposition takes place nmch sooner. These 

 observations are in accord with those of Sturges and Rettger 

 (1919). 



C. pidrijkinn has a very marked i^eptolytic action in ordinary 

 peptone broth, as may be shown readily with the aid of the 

 annnonia, Scirenson, Van Slyke and quantitative biuret tests. 

 The complex nitrogenous substances in the conimercial peptone 

 are destroyed rapidly, with the formation of large amounts 

 of ammonia, but with little permanent increase in amino nitro- 

 gen. The biuret figures drop sharply (chart 2). 



Important points of difference between C. putrificum and C. 

 sporogenes, C. tertiiwi and C. cochleareus, organisms with 

 which the Bienstock anaerobe has been confused, are as follows: 

 C. sporogenes is actively proteolytic and saccharolytic; C. ter- 

 tium is saccharolytic and peptolytic, but not proteolytic; and 

 C. cochleareus (according to the statements of the British Medi- 

 cal Research Committee) is saccharolytic and non-proteolytic. 

 C putrijicum occupies an entirely different position in that it 

 is proteolytic and but very slightly or not at all saccharolytic. 

 There are sufficient morphological and cultural differences to 

 set the Bienstock anaerobe apart from the others, and not only 

 should it be easy to distinguish C. putrificum from these three 

 organisms, ])ut from all known anaerobes by a combination of 

 the moi-phological, cultural and biochemical characters, which 

 have been mentioned above. 



