SIGNIFICANCE OF COLON GROUP IN WATER 141 



of mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, cats, dogs, sheep, 

 goats, horses, cows, hens, ducks, pigeons, sparrows, 

 divers, gulls, and fish of various sorts. Houston (1904) 

 found B. coli abundant in the faeces of gulls, as might be 

 expected from their feeding habits. Houston (1905) 

 and other recent observers have found it impossible, 

 even by the use of elaborate series of fermentation tests, 

 to distinguish human B. coli from those found in animals. 

 Savage (1906) compared colon-like organisms isolated 

 from the intestines of swine, cattle, horses, and sheep 

 with those of human origin in respect to their action 

 upon lactose, dulcite, mannite, raffinose, glycerine, 

 maltose, galactose, lamilose, saccharose, starch and 

 cellulose; but he failed to find any general correlations 

 between habitat and biochemical powers. 



Ferreira, Horta and Paredes (i9o8 b ) have made 

 perhaps the most elaborate study of the distribution 

 of colon bacilli in the lower animals. They isolated 

 8 1 lactose-fermenting bacilli from 38 species of mammals 

 and 8 species of birds, including monkeys, bears, wolves, 

 foxes, hyenas, lions, panthers, tapirs, a camel, deer, 

 and ostriches from the Zoological Gardens. These 

 cultures were studied by an elaborate series of tests 

 and 93 per cent of them proved to be typical B. coli. 

 Bettencourt and Borges (i9o8 b ) working in the same 

 laboratory showed that there were no specific differences 

 in agglutination with immune sera and in complement 

 fixation between the colon bacilli of human and of 

 animal origin. Konrich (1910) reports the examina- 

 tion of 170 samples of faeces from men, horses, swine, 

 sheep, cows, goats, dogs, cats, guinea pigs, mice, rabbits, 



