DIFFERENTIATION OF LEPROSY AND TUBERCLE BACILLI, 227 
this case the staining reactions and morphology are almost the 
only data for a conclusion, as the distribution is less helpful 
here than in sections. 
It must be borne in mind that it is the lack of difference in 
the reactions of the bacilli, and not in the lesions produced, 
which is insisted upon in the above paper. It is possible to 
argue from the character of the lesion as to the nature of the 
bacilli, but not from the morphology or staining of the bacilli 
as to the nature of the disease. 
Note.—Stains coming from different manufacturers, and 
different samples from the same maker, are very variable in 
their staining properties. The two red dyes made use of were 
a magenta obtained from Messrs. Martindale, and a rubin- 
fuchsine from Konig, of Berlin. 
Baumgarten’s Methods.—a. Sections taken from dis- 
tilled water, and stained for 12—15 minutes, at the most, in 
dilute alcoholic fuchsine, made by adding 5—6 drops con- 
centrated alcoholic stain to a small watch-glass of water. 
Decolourised by acid alcohol (absolute alcohol, 10; nitric acid, 
1) for 3 minute, washed in distilled water. Counter-stained by 
methylene blue for 2—3 minutes. Dehydrated by absolute 
alcohol for 3—4 minutes. Cleared and mounted in xylol 
balsam. Cover-glasses stained for 5—6 minutes. 
b. Stain in Ehrlich fuchsine for 2—3 minutes, and treat as 
in a. 
LITERATURE REFERRED TO. 
(1) Bapus.—‘ Acad. des Sciences,’ 1883, April; ‘ Archiv. de Physiologie,’ 
18838. 
(2) Cornit anD BaBrs.—‘ Les Bacteries.’ 
(8) Kocu.—‘ Berlin. klin. Wochenschrift,’ 1882, p. 222. 
(4) Frucer.—‘ Bacteria,’ New Sydenham Soc. 
(5) Bonomt.— Virch. Archiv,’ cxi, 114. 
(6) WesEnER,—‘ Centralblatt fiir Bact. u. Parasitenkunde,’ Bd. i, p. 450; 
Ba. ii. 
