32 
avoid  in  order  to  arrive  to  this  assurance: 
tuberculosis  in  its  innumerous  and  compli¬ 
cated  manifestations,  and  syphilis,  not  less 
capricious  in  its  localisation. 
To  exclude  syphilis  and  tuberculosis,  we 
recurred  not  only  to  direct  researches,  but 
also  to  the  multiple  forms  of  immunity  reac¬ 
tions,  informations  obtained  through  the  use 
of  x-rays,  the  specific  immunity  reactions 
for  the  Oïdium  brasiliense,  the  inoculation  of 
sputum  and  triturated  organs  in  guinea- 
pigs  and  even  to  certain  features  in  the  clini¬ 
cal  syndromes  of  oidiosis. 
We  carried  the  researches  for  the  KOCH 
bacillus  as  far,  as  possible  in  the  actual  state 
of  knowledge.  These  researches  were  always 
negative  in  the  various  stages  and  forms. 
Beside  the  most  careful  research  of  KOCH’s 
bacillus,  we  applied  the  cutireaction  and 
the  ophthalmoreaction  as  additional  means 
of  diagnosis.  These  reactions  proved  insuc- 
cesful,  such  corroborating  the  results  of  our 
researches  of  the  bacillus. 
We  found,  furthermore,  differential  ele¬ 
ments  in  the  clinical  picture  and  in  the  treat¬ 
ment.  The  foul  breath,  the  aspect  of  the  sputa, 
the  continual  persistence  of  blood  in  them 
during  all  the  periods  and  in  all  the 
forms  of  the  disease,  the  singularity  of  some 
initial  and  later  pulmonary  localisations, 
whii  h  never  spare  the  serosae,  the  tendency 
of  some  cases  to  produce  a  “congestive  dis¬ 
ease”,  with  characteristic  features,  form  and 
evolution,  a  thermic  curve,  generally  uncha- 
racteristical,  or,  more  rarely,  resembling  that 
of  tuberculosis,  anamnesis  without  reference 
to  lesions  of  the  respiratory  system  and  a 
family  history  free  from  tuberculosis  consti¬ 
tute  diagnostical  elements,  which  are  corro¬ 
borated  by  the  results  of  the  treatment. 
The  influence  of  treatment  is  the  more 
striking,  as  we  see  patients,  with  strong 
signs  of  pulmonary  congestions  (for  whom, 
if  they  were  suffering  from  tuberculosis,  the 
treatment  with  iodides  would  be  formally 
contra-indicated)  recover  from  their  marasmus 
under  full  doses  of  sodium  or  potassium 
iodide  within  a  few  days. 
The  differential  diagnosis  with  syphilis, 
is  more  difficult,  though  not  less  exact.  Cases 
of  pulmonary  localisation  of  syphilis  are  re¬ 
latively  rare.  This  localisation  of  syphilis  has 
a  predilection  for  certain  pulmonary  regions, 
and,  according  to  some  authors,  certain 
lungs.  We  did  not  find  any  predilection  in 
the  patients  suffering  from  oidiomycosis. 
WASSERMANN’s  reaction  is  always  negati¬ 
ve  in  these  patients,  nor  do  they  present 
clinical  signs  of  syphilis.  The  anatomo-patho- 
logical  lesions  do  not  speak  for  syphilis. 
Mercurial  or  arsenical  treatment  give  abso 
lutely  no  result.  However,  we  must  not 
forget  that  the  treatment  is  not  quite  a  wholly 
reliable  reaction  for  proving  the  absence  of 
syphilis  in  some  suspect  cases  and  BALZER 
was  right  when,  cautious  and  provident,  he 
warned  us  against  the  errors,  to  which  we 
may  be  led  by  the  results  of  the  specific  treat¬ 
ment.  Encouraging  results  may  be  seen  in 
syphilitical,  and,  what  is  more,  in  not  syphi¬ 
litic  consumptives,  and  these  results  led 
DOCHMANN  to  establish  the  methodical 
treatment  of  pulmonary  tuberculosis  by  injec¬ 
tions  of  calomel. 
For  our  part,  we  affirm,  with  almost 
experimental  proofs,  that  the  test  treatment 
for  syphilis,  is  able  to  improve  pulmonary 
affections  of  not  syphilitic  patients. 
Beside  other  pulmonary  affections,  there 
remain  the  mycoses.  The  historical  recapitu¬ 
lation  of  the  lung  diseases,  produced  by 
fungi,  is  a  chapter  quite  sufficient  for  a 
paper.  We  shall  only  mention  the  capital 
points,  which,  if  not  discussed  and  excluded, 
might  give  cause  for  doubts.  Along  time  ago 
BENNET  already  mentioned,  in  “Brlt- 
tanica”,  the  presence  of  a  fungus  in  the 
sputum  of  patients  of  pneumonia.  He  called 
it  Oidium  pulmoneum ,  giving  it  the  name  of 
the  organ,  from  which  he  thought  it  procee¬ 
ding.  In  the  recent  mycological  littérature 
we  find  that  there  are  doubts  as  to  the 
genus  Oidium  of  BENNET  and  the  species 
puimoneum.  This  paper  helps  us  little.  The 
genus  Oidium  to-day  calls  for  more  discri¬ 
minating  details  and  characteristicals  than 
those  given  by  BENNET.  The  origin  from 
