Tue MicroscopE. 905 
Who has not seen submerged leaves on plants dissected into feath- 
ery divisions, while the eriel ones on the same stems arising above 
the water are entire or slightly lobed? Any one agriculturally 
observant, who has traveled through New England and the states 
of the Mississippi valley, must have noticed the difference in the 
size and appearance of maize or Indian corn—in the latter two to 
four times the height seen in the former regions. Nature every- 
where is prodigal in variety of form, size and appearance. 
We must expect something of the same thing among our mi- 
croscopic growths; but, allowing for this, the concurren testimony 
of the best and most expert investigators now is that bacteria are 
true and distinct existences, having real genera and species, propa- 
gated like other living things from individuals to individuals—if 
we cannot so properly say—owing to their method of simple divi- 
sion, one into two, two into four, ete.—from parent to offspring. 
Secondly, do bacteria cause disease? Admitting the existence 
of bacteria, and the perpetuity of their specific forms, the proof 
that they have anything to do with the cause of disease is con- 
stantly challenged. It would almost seem that men are determined 
not to accept proof in this case, however strong it may be. Large 
numbers of the medical profession appear to pride themselves 
upon not accepting “new fangled ideas,” whatever the basis of 
evidence. Quote your authority to them on this matter of para- 
sitism and the sufficient reply is, “ O, he is a bacteria crank!” 
Now, I have profound respect for the profession of medicine 
-and for the men who laboriously and conscientiously practice the 
healing art, whether they accept any special ideas held by myself 
or not; but I respectfully submit that one who personally and ex- 
perimently know nothing upon a given and particular subject, no 
matter what may be his information upon other matters, or how 
broad his knowledge or great his fame, is not a competent judge 
upon the special thing of which he is confessedly ignorant. 
Certainly too many medical men, as well as others, have not 
recognized this apparently axiomatic truth. Witness the discus- 
sion upon the etiology of disease in the meeting of the Ameri- 
can Medical Association, at St. Louis, in May, 1886. The “ micro- 
scopic bugs,” according to one speaker, had received of late alto- 
gether too much credit as causes of disease! It is ever thus. Old 
ideas die hard. We hear a good deal, fortunately not so much as 
