1895.] MICROSCOPICAL JOURNAL 95 



series, and made a bacteriological examination of the products 

 taken from the bucco-pharingeal mucous membrane and from 

 the nasal disharge. The following results were obtained : In 

 the first series, in forty-four cases, the mucous membrane did 

 not present any false membranes and there w:is no nasal dis- 

 charge. On bacteriological examination, the cultures showed 

 no bacilli, except in three or four cases where Loefiler's bacillus 

 disappeared after four days. In the second series in five cases 

 the mucous membrane was divested of its false membranes and 

 the nasal discharge dried up. Nevertheless, Loefiier's ba- 

 cillus persisted from twelve to twenty -eight days. In the third 

 series, in eleven cases the nasal discharge persisted, and the 

 cultures with this discharge were positive, although those of the 

 products drawn from the bucco-pharyngeal mucous menbrane 

 were negative. The presence of bacilli in the nasal disharge 

 was observed for from five to thirty-five days. These facts, says 

 the writer, lead to the following practical conclusions : 1. In a 

 number of cases the metadiphtheritic contagiousness ceases with 

 the disappearance of Loefiler's bacillus. Nevertheless, the irri- 

 tated condition of the bucco-pharyngeal mucous membrane, 

 under the influence of intercurrent measles, favor the increase 

 of the bacilli and their presence in the mouth ; hence the ne- 

 cessity of a bacteriological examination of the products taken 

 from the mucous membrane of this cavity. 2. Not infrequently 

 (in eleven cases out of sixty) Loeffler's bacillus disappears 

 from the throat, but is still in the nasal discharge. The trou- 

 ble is thought to be common coryza, which is a mistake, as this 

 discharge is not accompanied with any symptoms of classic cor- 

 yza. There is no conjunctival injection, or headache, or water- 

 ing of the eyes. Ordinarily it is unilateral. The discharge is a 

 transparent mucus and by no means the sanious discharge 

 which succeeds false membranes of the throat. 3. According 

 to M. Tezenas, Loeffler's bacillus exists in the nasal cavities as 

 long as the nasal discharge continues, and disappears when it 

 does. He adds that when this discharge is absent there are no 

 bacilli in the nose. 



In practice, then, says the writer, this fact must be taken into 

 consideration, that a nasal discharge the origin of which does 

 not c )incide with the disappearance of the false membranes is 

 diphtheritic. It does not contain Loeffler's bacillus. The bac- 



