Diphtheritic Co7iju7ictivitis in Birds. 373 



duced the disease (lyoffler). It seems doubtful whether the 

 milder forms part with their viruleuce to birds, when cultivated 

 artificially, or whether a special susceptibility is required in order 

 to render the inoculation effective. 



Prevention . Besides the general conditions of good hygiene, 

 cleanliness, pure air, and pure water, the strict exclusion of the 

 germ is the great desideratum. New fowls should not be taken 

 into a flock, when they show any indication of disease in the 

 mouth, throat, nose or eyes, nor when they come from a flock in 

 which such signs of disease can be found. When examination 

 of the flock, from which they are sold, cannot be made, the new 

 fowls should be placed by themselves in quarantine until proved 

 soinid. Sound flocks should not be allowed to wander at large 

 and mingle with the birds that are unsound, or open to sus- 

 picion. Neither slunild they be allowed to come in contact with 

 manure from suspected poultry yards. If disease of air passages, 

 mouth or eyes appears, separate at once the diseased fowl, and 

 sprinkle roost, house and yard with dilute sulphuric acid, quick- 

 lime, or other disinfectant. 



Treatment. Beside separation and disinfection the local use 

 of antiseptics to the surface divested of the false membrane gives 

 the best promise. Boric acid .solution (4 : 100) or sublimate 

 solution ( I : 5000) may be applied to the eye. For the nose and 

 mouth somewhat .stronger applications may be made. 



Prevention of infection to man. The essential difference of the 

 Klebs-Loffler bacillus of diphtheria in man, and the microbe of 

 this affection in fowls does not exclude the necessity of avoiding 

 contagion from birds to man. Among reported cases of such in- 

 fection are : (i) That at Wes.selhansen, where 4 attendants on 

 the fowls contracted the disease from the sick fowls at a time 

 when no other cases existed in the human population : (2) That 

 of Sebdon where 6 persons suffered and 10 fowls fed by a hospital 

 attendant also suffered : (3) That of Tunnis in which diphtheria 

 prevailed in fowls, and .soon also in those who fed them pro- 

 ducing an extended epidemic : (4) That of Jacksonville, 111., 

 where a diphtheritic chicken, conveyed the disease, with fatal 

 effect, to a child which fondled it (Moore). 



These and other similar in.stances .seem to show that the disease 

 of the bird may become so virulent as to be communicated to 



