BACTERIOLOGY OF WHOOPING-COUGH 5 



cause. His results could not be verified by Cohn and Neumann or by Czaplewski 

 and Hensel. In 1899 his assistant, Buttermilch, 1 attempted to identify Fitter's 

 organism with the organism described by Vincenzi and also with that described by 

 Czaplewski and Hensel. Neither Ritter nor Buttermilch used blood media, so that 

 their results are not directly comparable with those obtained by later investigators. 



Bacilli. Burger 2 in 1883 was probably the first to call attention to numerous 

 bacilli in the sputum of whooping-cough patients. He made no culture experiments, 

 studying only stained preparations. He called attention to the possibility of diagnos- 

 ing the disease from the very large number of organisms seen in the sputum. His 

 results are of little value, because no cultures were made. Afanassiew,3 in 1887, 

 described short motile, bacilli, often in masses and chains. He claims that he was 

 able to produce the disease in dogs and rabbits by the injection of pure cultures of the 

 bacillus. He studied 10 cases. He did not use blood media, and his method of 

 obtaining pure cultures is questionable. Von Genser, Wendt, and Szemetschenko 

 claim to have substantiated his results. 



Spengler4 was apparently the first to describe an organism, in pertussis sputum, 

 closely resembling the influenza bacillus in its morphological and biological aspects. 

 His organisms are somewhat thicker and larger than the influenza bacillus, and have 

 often a tendency to thread formation. Sometimes the protoplasm of the cells is filled 

 with them. They grow only upon hemoglobin media. He considered his organism 

 of etiological importance in the disease. 



Kopliks found a small, short, motile bacillus in smears and culture in the sputum 

 in 13 out of 1 6 cases investigated. It grew on ordinary media, but throve much better 

 when hydrocele fluid was added. It was pathogenic to white mice, and intravenous 

 injections into rabbits caused pyemia. It is very doubtful whether he was working 

 with pure cultures, as his method of isolating the organism was hardly reliable. His 

 results with animals suggest the presence of some of the ordinary pus producers of the 

 mouth and throat. 



Czaplewski and Hensel 6 likewise found a small, short, polar-staining bacillus, 

 slightly larger than the influenza bacillus, but which grew upon non-hemoglobin 

 media. They isolated the organism from sputum on blood-serum plates. Morpho- 

 logically it resembled very closely the influenza-like organisms described by Spengler, 

 Jochmann, and Vincenzi. Buttermilch contended that it was identical with Ritter's 

 diplococcus. Spengler said that it was the same as his bacillus, but that Czaplewski 

 and Hensel did not obtain it in pure culture, and hence, when transferred to other 

 media, the mixed organisms developed which were mistaken for the bacilli. Czaplew- 

 ski' s results were confirmed independently by Zusch,7 who used very much the same 

 technique, and also by A. Cavasse. The latter, 8 in 1904, described another organism, 

 motile, growing only in liquids, staining very poorly, and never before observed in 

 pertussis sputum; its significance he does not attempt to indicate. Vincenzi,? in 18 

 cases, found a small, influenza-like organism, non-Gram staining, which grew on non- 

 hemoglobin media. He says that it is different from Czaplewski's organism. 



Elmassian 1 described an organism identical with Pfeiffer's influenza organism, 



1 Ibid., 1899, 36, p. 367. Ibid., 1883, 9, p. 7. 



St. Pelersburger med. Wchnschr., 1887, 4, p. 349. 



4 Deutsche med. Wchnschr., 1897, 23, p. 830. 1 Cenlralbl. f. Bakt., 1898, 24, pp. 721, 769. 



s Centralbl. f. Bakt., 1897, 22, p. 222. 8 Arch. gen. de Med., 1904, 193, p. 1345. 



6 Deutsche med. Wchnschr., 1897, 23, p. 586. Deutsche med. Wchnschr., 1898, 24, p. 631. 



