148 
ance of various bacilli—as not yet proven, who ever heard 
it even suggested, that by the “coli’’ method, it would be 
possible for an analyst to say from his results if a water was 
taken from a lake nearly empty, or from a well after long 
drought ? Who ever reported that such-and-such a mixture of 
fecal organisms was highly suggestive of fresh faces or that 
such another mixture suggested that some alteration from 
natural conditions had occurred? Was it ever seriously put 
forward that bacillus cloace, lactis erogenes and oxytocus 
perniciosus might be as valuable in indicating a certain definite 
stage in pollution as ‘“ true coli ’’’ itself? Would it have been 
possible, working with the ‘‘ true coli’’ method, to discover 
the many interesting problems connected with animal and 
human feces mentioned in this work ? 
An honest answer to these queries should convince any 
unbiassed mind, that in adhering rigidly to the presence of 
‘“coli’’ as an indication of pollution, and being content 
therewith, we are deliberately shutting our eyes to a very 
fruitful field of knowledge which is of great value in the study 
of fecal pollution generally. 
dys 
