52 



NATURE 



\_May 15, 1879 



It is impossible to follow the author through his discus- 

 sion (pp. 11-34) of tli6 leading facts regarding the con- 

 nection of microphytes with the diseases above mentioned, 

 but we may briefly consider the question of their causal 

 relation to the morbid conditions with which they are 

 severally associated. 



If the organisms of this type commonly met with outside 

 the organism are not specifically injurious when introduced 

 into the bodies of higher animals (and this has been abun- 

 dantly proved and is commonly admitted), then, the notion 

 that those met with in certain diseases are causes thereof, 

 must necessarily be associated with the belief that they 

 are organisms in some way distinct from the common 

 forms. And this is generally the case ; as Dr. Lewis 

 says : — "All the advocates of the germ theory, with very 

 few exceptions, maintaining that the particular organism, 

 in the particular disease in which they are specially 

 interested is wholly distinct from all others." 



This is a position which is far from having been 

 proved, however, and is byjitself an extremely questionable 

 doctrine. There are no real morphological characters 

 separating the bacillus of splenic fever or of "pig 

 typhoid '' from the bacillus of hay, of urine, and of mul- 

 titudes of other organic mixtures. So far as morphologi- 

 cal characters are concerned, this is practically admitted; 

 but then it is contended by Cohn and others that differ- 

 ence in "physiological property" may afford sufficient 

 ground for the establishment of specific distinctions, even 

 in the face of morphological similarity. This is a rather 

 hazardous doctrine, and requires to be advanced with the 

 greatest caution. To what eKtent in the vegetal and in 

 the animal scale is it to hold good ; or is it to be a distinc- 

 tive character confined to the most protean and highly 

 modifiable of all organisms ? On the one hand we find 

 such an authority as Prof. Cohn of Breslau supporting 

 the notion ; on the other a scarcely less weighty authority. 

 Prof. Niigeli of Munich, declaring that he is unacquainted 

 with any facts really supporting such a view. He says : " I 

 have during the last ten years examined some thousands 

 of different forms of fission-yeast cells,' but (excluding 

 Sarcina) I could not assert that there was any neces- 

 sity to separate them into even two specific kinds." 



Bacilli, bom and bred in the midst of the blood and 

 tissues of a diseased animal, might have certain slight 

 molecular differences impressed upon them, by reason of 

 which they may tend during their nutritive life-processes 

 to secrete a poisonous chemical principle— just as the 

 common putrefactive bacteria are known to do — and it 

 may thus happen that the progeny of such organic units 

 born in morbid fluids or tissues, are capable of setting up 

 morbid processes in the animal economy such as do not 

 follow from the addition to it of bacilli nurtured in a 

 bland hay infusion. This is a mere surmise, thrown out 

 as a view which may be found by some to be easier of 

 acceptance provisionally than the notion that, among the 

 most variable of organisms, from a morphological point 

 of view, several " species " present themselves under pre- 

 cisely the same form, and that identity or difference of 

 "species" is to be judged by the mere effects produced 

 by their invisible mslecular activities. .■vy •• \ 



Further, it should be borne in mind that the asso- 

 ciation between the organisms and the diseases in ques- 



' That is, the Schizamycetes, in contradistinction to the true yeast-cells. 



tion is not absolutely constant, nor is the severity of the 

 disease in the least proportionate to the abundance of the 

 organisms found in the animals affected. Speaking of 

 recurrent fever Dr. Lewis says: — "Whereas spirilla could 

 generally be detected in cases of fever of this kind, never- 

 theless cases every now and then occurred in which per- 

 fectly competent observers failed to detect them in the 

 blood from first to last, and this too in cases not a whit 

 less severe than those in which the organisms abounded 

 and which were under the care of the same observers 

 during the same period." This was the experience of 

 Dr. Lewis himself. 



Again, in regard to the same disease, the assumed 

 cause will not operate when it is placed under the most 

 favourable conditions— conditions in which it is scarcely 

 conceivable that the organisms should fail to operate were 

 they the veritable causes of the disease. Alluding to well- 

 known experiments made by Obermier, the discoverer of 

 the spirilla of recurrent fever, our author says : — " The 

 inoculative experiments which he undertook, consisting 

 of the injection of spirillum-blood of fever patients into 

 the veins of dogs, rabbits, and guinea-pigs proved abor- 

 tive, nor was there any effect produced by the injection 

 by means of a subcutaneous syringe of small quantities 

 of such blood into the bodies of healthy persons." Others 

 likewise failed to reproduce the disease by similar means, 

 though one observer states that he had been more suc- 

 cessful in thus setting up the disease— irrespective, how- 

 ever, as he says, of the presence of spirilla in the blood 

 with which inoculation was made.' 



What manner of cause then is this, whose effects take 

 place in its absence, in no corresponding ratio when 

 present, or whose presence is followed by no effect at all ? 

 One of a strange order, truly ! 



But now we come to a great difficulty, an all-important 

 matter, which in its turn has to be explained by those who 

 cannot accept the notion that the microphytes to which we 

 have been referring are causes of the diseases in question. 

 Those who hold the opposite notion will naturally say to 

 the opponents of the germ theory— But, if these organisms 

 are not to be regarded as causes of the disease how do 

 you account for their very frequent presence in associa- 

 tion therewith ? 



Communicable or contagious diseases constitute a large 

 class, and those in association with which microphytes 

 have been found form only a small minority. Seeing the 

 multitudes of observers who have been searching for them 

 for years past in the blood of persons suffering from such': 

 affections as scarlet fever, small-pox, measles, and others, , 

 the chances that any such organisms will be found in 

 association with these diseases may be said to be dimi- 

 nished to a minimum. Therefore, in so far as concerns 

 the very frequent occurrence of organisms in the blood of 

 persons suffering from recurrent fever, splenic fever, and j 

 some other maladies, it would be perfectly consistent (if ; 

 conformable with other evidence) to regard such organisms \ 

 as quasi-accidental products or epi-phenomena of the. 

 diseases in question. \ 



If we accept the doctrine of Pasteur, Lister, and others j 

 to the effect that the blood of all healthy animals is in-j, 

 variably free from such microphytes, the appearance of : 



' The relations of this spirillum to other known spirilla is discussed at 

 pp. 46-48. 



