26 



children who had Pfeiffer's bacilli displayed more severe symptoms 

 lhan the rest. 



A number of papers dealing with the presence of Pfeiffer's 

 bacillus in whooping-cough will now be given. 



Elmassian (Paris 1899) cultivated a bacillus from 8 out of 

 32 cases of whooping-cough, which closely resembled Pfeiffer's ba- 

 cillus and was only distinguished from it by its power of growing 

 on media containing serum or ascitic fluid. In order to judge 

 whether it was different from Pfeiffer's bacillus he compared it 

 with some cultures from epidemic respiratory infections (,,grippe") 

 and with an organism which Meunier had described as Pfeiffer's 

 bacillus. He found that all the cultures behaved in a similar 

 manner. 



As no tests were made to ensure that the ascitic fluid and 

 serum were free from haemoglobin there is no reason for regar- 

 ding these bacilli as other than Pfeiffer's bacilli. 



Luzzato (Graz 1900) gives a parallel description of an orga- 

 nism which was found in great quantities in many cases of whooping- 

 cough. He names it „Bacillus minutissimus sputi" and separates 

 it from Pfeiffer's bacillus partly by its growth on serum-containing 

 media and partly by a definite granular formation of the colonies. 

 But the last characteristic would do well for Pfeiffer's bacillus 

 with which it is probably identical. 



Jochmann & Krause (Hamburg 1901) examined the sputum of 

 31 cases of whooping-cough and found a haemoglobinophilic bacillus 

 in 18 of them as well as in 3 autopsies of whooping-cough with 

 broncho-pneumonia, to which he gave the name „Bacillus pertussis 

 Eppendorf". Jochmann (1) (1903) subsequently reported the result 

 of the further investigation of the sputum of 42 cases of whooping- 

 cough, all in the convulsive stage. In all the cases the same ba- 

 cillus was found. Lastly Jochmann & Moltrecht cultivated it 

 from 23 out of 25 autopsies of bronchopneumonia in whooping- 

 cough. 



These investigations covered a period of 2—3 years and were 

 carried out at all the seasons of the year. There was no question 

 of a special hospital infection with the bacillus as the sputum 

 was examined shortly after the child's admission. There was no 

 „influenza" epidemic in the neighbourhood. 



The bacillus completely resembled Pfeiffer's bacillus microsco- 

 pically and as regards the appearance of its growth on blood-agar, 

 its increased growth around the colonies of other kinds of bacteria, 

 and absence of growth on blood-free media. (The findings of the 

 two following authors are verified in the same way). The reason 

 Jochmann hesitated to identify it with Pfeiffer's bacillus was only 

 because it had no obvious connection with influenza". 



